Brad Hogg as a test match option

[Prince EWS]

Obviously anyone saying that MacGill is better than Murali needs their head checked, or their one-eye examined.

He has played a lot of games against Bangers and Zimbabwe, relatively speaking, but in comparison to anyone but Warne, there's so much daylight that its an irrelevant factor.

Oh he has, no doubt. However he still has an excellent record when you remove matches against though countries, which is something a lot of casual cricket fans in Australia (or Sydney at least) seem to conveniently ignore. My uncle for example is quite content in thinking that Murali would average about 35 if not for matches against minnows, and that MacGill is easily better. If you ever actually manage to get in a room with him where you can prove that wrong with stats on hand, he'll just fall back on "Murali is a chucker."

Haven't seen anyone on cricketweb do the former, thank god, even if we do see the latter a fair bit...

 

[Matt79]

See, I don't think so. For starters, Bangladesh and that stupid World XI game being classed Tests massively skews his record - against Test-class teams he averages over 30. Then you look at his game-by-game record, and it's actually far from impressive.

I've always believed that had he not been a Warne contemporary his average would be considerably higher because he'd not have had the chance to drop-out after a couple of bad games.

Rich, he played four matches against Bangladesh, and one against Zimbabwe. That's five tests from 40, which is not a disproportionate ratio of matches vs minnows for any player these days. And yeah, he made hay against them - that's what a good bowler does.

I don't see how the wickets he took in the ICC XI match don't count. In that match he dismissed: Sehwag, Inzi, Flintoff (twice), Vettori, Harmison (twice), Murali (twice). Apart from Inzi, none of them are really great batsmen, but Sehwag, Inzi, Flintoff, and Vettori at least are no slouches. Maybe they weren't fully engaged in the match, but I don't see why they shouldn't be counted towards his record - they're at least as "test standard" as the wicket of tail-enders in normal test teams, or of poor batsmen who are in test teams.

The only countries who have had consistent success against him are India and Sri Lanka: and they have probably the best batting line ups against spin, and MacGill isn't unique in struggling against them. His records against England, South Africa, Pakistan and the West Indies, are certainly very good. He's only gone wicketless in one test match, but taken 5 wickets in an innings 12 times. He's averaged well under 30 in a batsman friendly era - no mean feat for a spinner, particularly one who is as attacking as he is (he's much more of a Mailey style millionaire than a Grimmitt style miser). And I'd say rather than having the "luxury" of being dropped after a couple of bad games, he's shown remarkable resiliance in consistently serving as an understudy but producing the goods when he gets a chance.

 

[Richard]

Rich, he played four matches against Bangladesh, and one against Zimbabwe. That's five tests from 40, which is not a disproportionate ratio of matches vs minnows for any player these days.

I don't see how the wickets he took in the ICC XI match don't count. In that match he dismissed: Sehwag, Inzi, Flintoff (twice), Vettori, Harmison (twice), Murali (twice). Apart from Inzi, none of them are really great batsmen, but Sehwag, Inzi, Flintoff, and Vettori at least are no slouches. Maybe they weren't fully engaged in the match, but I don't see why they shouldn't be counted towards his record - they're at least as "test standard" as the wicket of tail-enders in normal test teams, or of poor batsmen who are in test teams.

The only countries who have had consistent success against him are India and Sri Lanka: and they have probably the best batting line ups against spin, and MacGill isn't unique in struggling against them. His records against England, South Africa, Pakistan and the West Indies, are certainly very good. He's only gone wicketless in one test match. He's averaged well under 30 in a batsman friendly era - no mean feat for a spinner, particularly one who is as attacking as he is (he's much more of a Mailey style millionaire than a Grimmitt style miser). And I'd say rather than having the "luxury" of being dropped after a couple of bad games, he's shown remarkable resiliance in consistently serving as an understudy but producing the goods when he gets a chance.

As far as I'm concerned, that World XI match should not have been a Test-match. Therefore, I refuse to take anything which happened in it as a Test. Just because he got good players out does not mean anything - he could bowl at WA or Qld and he'd be bowling at plenty of good players, but it doesn't mean such games should be classed Tests. Hussey, Campbell, Langer, Katich, Goodwin, Martyn, Gilchrist... hardly a shabby side... or Maher, Hayden, Love, Law, Symonds, Haddin, Hopes, Bichel... (all right I'm going back a few years in both line-ups, but you get the picture).

And I'll take a tour through MacGill's proper Tests... (I have done this before, but I can't find the post )
36 8 134 5 3.72 D 3rd Test v SA in Aus 1997/98 at Adelaide - looks good, but it was actually not great, just got 3 wickets when SA were going for a declaration, which happens again later...
43 12 113 9 2.62 W 1st Test v Pak in Pak 1998/99 at Rawalpindi - excellent
42 5 169 2 4.02 D 2nd Test v Pak in Pak 1998/99 at Peshawar - very poor
42.4 7 130 4 3.04 D 3rd Test v Pak in Pak 1998/99 at Karachi - reasonable enough
46 7 121 4 2.63 D 1st Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Brisbane - reasonable enough
53 14 108 4 2.03 W 3rd Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Adelaide - reasonable enough
46 5 142 7 3.08 L 4th Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Melbourne - superb
40.2 6 107 12 2.65 W 5th Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Sydney - magnificent
16 5 41 3 2.56 W 1st Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Port of Spain - very good
22.3 3 84 3 3.73 L 2nd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Kingston - reasonable enough
41 11 95 1 2.31 L 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown - very poor
40 11 132 5 3.30 W 4th Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at St John's - pretty good
21 6 52 3 2.47 W 1st Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Brisbane - very good
32 8 84 4 2.62 W 2nd Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Perth - very good
36 7 173 2 4.80 W 3rd Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Adelaide - very poor
67 18 192 7 2.86 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney - reasonable enough
65.2 19 174 7 2.66 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 2001/02 at Sydney - pretty good
84 20 260 7 3.09 W 4th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Melbourne - very poor
85 16 226 5 2.65 L 5th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Sydney - very poor
43 9 189 5 4.39 W 1st Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Georgetown - poor
47 10 151 4 3.21 W 2nd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Port of Spain - very poor
75.5 19 182 9 2.40 W 3rd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Bridgetown - excellent
38.2 8 156 2 4.06 L 4th Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at St John's - very poor
30.1 4 118 4 3.91 D 1st Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Brisbane - looks good, but had a tailender boost
68.4 11 244 4 3.55 L 2nd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Adelaide - very poor
41.5 8 138 5 3.29 W 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Melbourne - reasonable enough
54 6 211 1 3.90 D 4th Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Sydney - very poor
38.2 6 143 5 3.73 W 1st Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Galle - reasonable enough
17 1 89 0 5.23 W 2nd Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Kandy - very poor
47 7 170 8 3.61 W 3rd Test v Pak in Aus 2004/05 at Sydney - excellent
37 7 87 5 2.35 W 2nd Test v WI in Aus 2005/06 at Hobart - excellent
29 5 102 2 3.51 W 3rd Test v WI in Aus 2005/06 at Adelaide - very poor
31 10 69 2 2.22 W 2nd Test v SA in Aus 2005/06 at Melbourne - poor
35 6 135 4 3.85 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 2005/06 at Sydney - virtually a repeat of his debut

You see? There's really not that many particularly good games in there - that's 11 good ones, 6 reasonable and 16 to-varying-degrees poor ones. Now, this is certainly not the record of an out-and-out poor bowler, but nor is it one of an especially good one, which some claim MacGill to be. And especially when you consider that far more of the good games than not were quite a while ago now, and often against downtrodden sides (England at The MCG and SCG 1998\99, WI at The Gabba and WACA 2000\01).

I'd certainly dispute that his record against England is good - it's not bad, certainly, but it's not as good as some would have it (2 reasonable to start, 2 excellent in the middle and 2 bad to finish). I'd most certainly dispute that his record against SA and Pak is good, given that he's only played 3 and 4 Tests respectibly (for, respectively, 1 good and 2 poor; and 2 good and 2 poor). Against West Indies, it's often been a case of if they can get on top of him they play him well, if they can't he often cashes-in.

And I most certainly do feel that had Warne, say, taken-up Aussie Rules at 15 (and had success) MacGill's Test career would be longer and less impressive.

 

[Matt79]

Richard, I realise there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics, and that you can't judge a performance based only on the stats BUT...

the last two matches against England that you rated "very poor" - he took 7 and 5 wickets in those matches. Admittedly in Sydney 4 of those wickets were tail enders, but he did get Butcher in the second innings after Butcher had played the innings of his life in England's first innings. The Sydney game wasn't a great game for him, but he was hardly alone in having a disappointing game there - and "very poor" is a bit harsh, tbt. As for Melbourne, he took 5 wickets in the second innings, inc. Trecothick, Vaughan, White and Foster. That's a fair day's work, and a good outcome I'd have said, rather than "very poor". Vaughan was in decent nick, having got a century in the first innings as well.

A couple of the other games you list as "very poor" or "poor" are actually not bad returns either. He's got a lot of tail-ender wickets, but so does Warne, in fact so does any spinner who through the majority of their career come on after a new-ball partnership of the quality of McGrath-Gillespie-Lee/Kasper - often that's what's left by the time he's on.

 

[Richard]

Haha, nice spinning it on the tailend situation.

Look, regarding the he-took-wickets - anyone can take wickets if they bowl enough. It's not just about taking wickets, it's about taking them without conceding too many runs. And in those 2 games against England he went for two-hundred-and-sixty and two-hundred-and-twenty-six runs. That is no small number, and if you're gonna be going for that many you'd better be taking a very large haul - otherwise IMO you can't be said to be having had a good game.

EDIT: oh, and Butcher certainly didn't play the innings of his lifetime at The SCG in the first-innings! One of the most awful knocks I've ever seen from him - 125 featuring about 4 or 5 chances (including the eventual dismissal - was probably lbw 1st ball, certainly was dropped on something like 6 and 45 - might have been by Martyn - and got an under-edge that was missed off MacGill on 95). Absolutely terrible innings.

 

[Matt79]

He bowled 84 and 85 overs in those matches, with an ER of 3 and 2.65. So obviously it wasn't only him who was having difficulty taking wickets, and I doubt Waugh kept him on that because the seamers were looking so threatening! That's a bit of a poke in the eye for those who criticise him for being unable to bowl tightly actually.

And as I also said, I wouldn't describe 3 out of the 4 innings as "really good", but the five-fer is a good day out, even (or maybe especially) if you've had to toil for 48 overs to produce it. I think you could call it a creditable or at worst reasonable performance in the face of decent opposition as opposed to "very poor" tbh...

And yeah, maybe it's "spinning" (terrible pun btw) the tail-ender situation, but it doesn't make my basic contention that any spinner who doesn't get a go until the likes of McGrath and Gillespie have already had two spells each, is going to spend a lot of time bowling to tail-enders. MacGill isn't unique in that regard.

 

[Mister Wright]

Richard still can't get over the fact that MacGill is the only spinner in the history of Warne's career that has ever been favoured over Warne - W.I - '99.

 

[Prince EWS]

Matt, I've had this argument with Richard a few times - once quite recently when I wasn't a complete idiot - as have many others. You won't win. The best you'll do is convincing him that he's not definitely correct - you won't come close to changing his opinion on the matter. If you enjoy it though, knock yourself out!

 

[Richard]

Richard still can't get over the fact that MacGill is the only spinner in the history of Warne's career that has ever been favoured over Warne - W.I - '99.

Just because there was 1 occasion when he was bowling better than Warne (who, at that time, was bowling in a way that could easily have had him mistaken for Rawl Lewis) doesn't mean too much.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Why do people continue to argue with Richard over the same things.

 

[Matt79]

I hadn't come across a Richard MacGill argument before - link anyone? I'm pretty well done anyway - said what I wanted to...

 

[Richard]

He bowled 84 and 85 overs in those matches, with an ER of 3 and 2.65. So obviously it wasn't only him who was having difficulty taking wickets, and I doubt Waugh kept him on that because the seamers were looking so threatening! That's a bit of a poke in the eye for those who criticise him for being unable to bowl tightly actually.

And as I also said, I wouldn't describe 3 out of the 4 innings as "really good", but the five-fer is a good day out, even (or maybe especially) if you've had to toil for 48 overs to produce it. I think you could call it a creditable or at worst reasonable performance in the face of decent opposition as opposed to "very poor" tbh...

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't believe just because your wicket-tally has crossed a certain line that it's somehow instantly more credible.

In any case, I tend to prefer to judge bowlers on a match-by-match basis (unless the two innings were so different as 0-73 and 4-33, for instance) than innings-by-innings.

No, MacGill wasn't the only one to struggle to take wickets in those 2 England Tests (remember McGrath only played - half-fit for most of the time - in 1 of those 2 games) but just because no-one else could doesn't mean he should be let off the hook - that's supposed to be the whole point of a wristspinner, that they can take wickets when no-one else can. In this instance, MacGill couldn't, and therefore in my eyes he had a bad game, not a good one.

And yeah, maybe it's "spinning" (terrible pun btw) the tail-ender situation, but it doesn't make my basic contention that any spinner who doesn't get a go until the likes of McGrath and Gillespie have already had two spells each, is going to spend a lot of time bowling to tail-enders. MacGill isn't unique in that regard.

I honestly don't think he has spent an unusual amount of time bowling at tailenders.

 

[Richard]

Why do people continue to argue with Richard over the same things.

Not everyone's Dan "I Disagree but DWTA" Smith.

 

[Richard]

I hadn't come across a Richard MacGill argument before

Oh, it's one of my favourite topics. There have been quite a few - and Rob has been one of the most game to argue it with me, too.

 

[Matt79]

EDIT: oh, and Butcher certainly didn't play the innings of his lifetime at The SCG in the first-innings! One of the most awful knocks I've ever seen from him - 125 featuring about 4 or 5 chances (including the eventual dismissal - was probably lbw 1st ball, certainly was dropped on something like 6 and 45 - might have been by Martyn - and got an under-edge that was missed off MacGill on 95). Absolutely terrible innings.

And yet it remains by far the best innings I've seen him play.

BTW, you're saying that MacGill produced a couple of edges that should have been taken. Presumably MacGill's first-chance figures would look even better than his actual, decent, record then...

 

[Richard]

Well, it wouldn't be called first-chance for a bowler and I can only remember 1, not 2, wickets he was denied that game, but yes, his output would be better had he got that one which he should have.

Would still be poor though.

 

[Matt79]

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't believe just because your wicket-tally has crossed a certain line that it's somehow instantly more credible.

In any case, I tend to prefer to judge bowlers on a match-by-match basis (unless the two innings were so different as 0-73 and 4-33, for instance) than innings-by-innings.

No, MacGill wasn't the only one to struggle to take wickets in those 2 England Tests (remember McGrath only played - half-fit for most of the time - in 1 of those 2 games) but just because no-one else could doesn't mean he should be let off the hook - that's supposed to be the whole point of a wristspinner, that they can take wickets when no-one else can. In this instance, MacGill couldn't, and therefore in my eyes he had a bad game, not a good one.

I honestly don't think he has spent an unusual amount of time bowling at tailenders.

But that's precisely what he did do - he bowled out England in that second innings in a match where the batsmen had dominated up until that point. (I was at that match btw...)

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Not everyone's Dan "I Disagree but DWTA" Smith.

dwta is disagree with the above, not don't want to argue.

I'd actually argue things with you if there was a point to it, but there isn't. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Even Fiery has given a little ground on the whole Watson feud, but there's no chance you'll ever give ground on anything so I cbf wasting my time on you.

 

[Richard]

But that's precisely what he did do - he bowled out England in that second innings in a match where the batsmen had dominated up until that point. (I was at that match btw...)

England's batsmen hardly dominated in the first-innings...

 

[Matt79]

True - I'm getting tired and mentally moved Vaughan's effort to the first innings...