Brad Hogg as a test match option

[vic_orthdox]

White played mainly as a batsman though - if he couldn't bat, even McGain would have been selected in front of him at Victoria IMO.

I think it's fair to say that if White couldn't bat, his bowling wouldn't have deteriorated to the extent that it has.

It certainly was more than serviceable to the side when he was more of a bowler, and I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that his bowling has worsened as his batting has gotten better. He's always said he's prefer to be viewed as a batsman, and I wouldn't be surprised if this attitude has contributed to the worsening of his bowling.

 

[Mister Wright]

I think it's fair to say that if White couldn't bat, his bowling wouldn't have deteriorated to the extent that it has.

It certainly was more than serviceable to the side when he was more of a bowler, and I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that his bowling has worsened as his batting has gotten better. He's always said he's prefer to be viewed as a batsman, and I wouldn't be surprised if this attitude has contributed to the worsening of his bowling.

If that's the case. Where do you see him batting himself next season Jack? Will he stay middle order or move up to 3 or 4?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd say he'd stay middle order, although it could depend on how much Brad Hodge plays next season. If Hodge plays, then I'd say he'll definitely stay at 5, but if Hodge isn't playing, he might get elevated to 3 or 4. Chances are though that they'll offer up a Quiney for no. 3 and keep Hussey and White away from the new ball.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Saw White bowl on Sunday & he's really struggling just now. Couldn't put two balls on the same spot. Looks to have lost it completely.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Looks to have lost it completely.

I don't think he's ever really had it TBH.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Saw White bowl on Sunday & he's really struggling just now. Couldn't put two balls on the same spot. Looks to have lost it completely.

Exactly. People are making it sound as though this is how he's always bowled, and now he's just been "found out". But his bowling has clearly deteriorated since his batting has improved.

 

[Richard]

His economy-rates have never exactly been top-drawer at any stage in his career, though, have they?

 

[shehanwije]

From an opposition viewpoint, I would rather face Hogg than Mcgill. Hogg's record at test level is not that great - McGills incredible record speaks for itself. Also, Mcgill probably bowls more wkt taking balls than even Warne.

 

[Richard]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Hogg > MacGill, but MacGill's Test record is far from awesome and he certainly doesn't produce more wicket-taking balls than Warne - at least not under normal circumstances.

 

[deeps]

Macgill would have to be the number 1 test option, and i'm a HUGE brad hogg fan.

Basically he has a proven test record, whilst Hogg whilst not being terrible, hasn't been great either.

Give Macgill a go, see how he goes, and if he's nto doing good, then Hogg should be option number 2.

With a domestic competition as good as they have in Australia, I don't think it's overly necessary to rush youngsters in to the international side. They seem to be able to just come in and step up to the challenge.

 

[shehanwije]

With a domestic competition as good as they have in Australia, I don't think it's overly necessary to rush youngsters in to the international side. They seem to be able to just come in and step up to the challenge.

Stepping upto intl level was much easier in the Warne/Mcgrath era...if the new bowler got caned, then the captain could alway fall back to these 2 to regain control. In this new era, the stepping up process is going to be a lot tougher for any new players. I suspect even Lee may struggle without having Mcgrath or Warne around (no disrespect to Stuart Clark).

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Hogg > MacGill, but MacGill's Test record is far from awesome and he certainly doesn't produce more wicket-taking balls than Warne - at least not under normal circumstances.

To be brutally honest, neither did Warne towards the end of his career. Most of his wickets in the last 4-5 years of his career, had more to do with his reputation than his actually bowling. All credit to the man, he continued to always put the ball on the spot, but a lot of batsmen were facing the man, and not the ball.

His flipper wasn't what it used to be, neither was his wrong'un (or however it is spelt). It was shown many times later in his career, that if you attacked him and built a partnership you could get on top of Warne, because he didn't have the armoury that he used to. It just didn't happen that often.

MacGill on the other hand, not as accurate, so goes for a few more, but he does have the massive turn and the other balls that get him wickets. And of course, the big dollies, that got him a lot more wickets, than Warne's odd dolly.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Another aspect of the "Warne legacy" is that people are expecting spinners to be in their prime at such an early age. Spin bowling is a lot more about reading batsmen and mental ability, because you can maintain the physical attributes needed to bowl spin for longer than fast bowlers, and probably batsmen too. Look at how Murali talks about how he's expanded on his game over the past 6 months. Warne may not have had the weapons he had when younger, but he grew as a bowler over the last 3 or 4 years because he couldn't rely on his "weapon deliveries" as much.

Now, guys like Cullen, Bailey, Casson, etc. are being written off at a young age because they haven't burst onto the stage. It seems a bit premature.

 

[Matt79]

Another aspect of the "Warne legacy" is that people are expecting spinners to be in their prime at such an early age. Spin bowling is a lot more about reading batsmen and mental ability, because you can maintain the physical attributes needed to bowl spin for longer than fast bowlers, and probably batsmen too. Look at how Murali talks about how he's expanded on his game over the past 6 months. Warne may not have had the weapons he had when younger, but he grew as a bowler over the last 3 or 4 years because he couldn't rely on his "weapon deliveries" as much.

Now, guys like Cullen, Bailey, Casson, etc. are being written off at a young age because they haven't burst onto the stage. It seems a bit premature.

Yeah, Warne was exceptional in terms of how early he understood his game and matured as a bowler - in leg-spin years he was the equivalent of Tendulkar batting in Tests as a teenager. It's unrealistic to expect another spinner in the next few years that will make a splash at the international level before they're even 25. It's good for guys like Bailey to be in the squad and around the top guys however, to have the chance to learn what the game's about and be stimulated to develop.

 

[Matt79]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Hogg > MacGill, but MacGill's Test record is far from awesome and he certainly doesn't produce more wicket-taking balls than Warne - at least not under normal circumstances.

Its a pretty bloody good Test record, especially for a spin bowler. Admittedly he's benefitted from playing a higher proportion of his tests in favourable conditions than the norm, but in my eyes that advantage is eroded by the fact that he's rarely had the opportunity for an extended run in the team. MacGill clearly belongs near the very top of the pile of spinners in the last few decades of cricket, excluding obviously Warne and Murali.

 

[Richard]

To be brutally honest, neither did Warne towards the end of his career. Most of his wickets in the last 4-5 years of his career, had more to do with his reputation than his actually bowling. All credit to the man, he continued to always put the ball on the spot, but a lot of batsmen were facing the man, and not the ball.

His flipper wasn't what it used to be, neither was his wrong'un (or however it is spelt). It was shown many times later in his career, that if you attacked him and built a partnership you could get on top of Warne, because he didn't have the armoury that he used to. It just didn't happen that often.

MacGill on the other hand, not as accurate, so goes for a few more, but he does have the massive turn and the other balls that get him wickets. And of course, the big dollies, that got him a lot more wickets, than Warne's odd dolly.

He still had his Legbreak, and if anything was less accurate in the latter stages of his career than in his 1993-1997 peak. Sure, some people played the man not the ball, but in that massive Legbreak and the Slider, he had weapons that were as potent as anything.

 

[Richard]

Another aspect of the "Warne legacy" is that people are expecting spinners to be in their prime at such an early age. Spin bowling is a lot more about reading batsmen and mental ability, because you can maintain the physical attributes needed to bowl spin for longer than fast bowlers, and probably batsmen too. Look at how Murali talks about how he's expanded on his game over the past 6 months. Warne may not have had the weapons he had when younger, but he grew as a bowler over the last 3 or 4 years because he couldn't rely on his "weapon deliveries" as much.

Now, guys like Cullen, Bailey, Casson, etc. are being written off at a young age because they haven't burst onto the stage. It seems a bit premature.

Yeah, never know, that late bloomer McNamara might surpass them all in a few years time...

Do you really see Beau Casson ever maturing to a State-standard, never mind international-standard, bowler? Genuine question.

 

[Richard]

Its a pretty bloody good Test record, especially for a spin bowler. Admittedly he's benefitted from playing a higher proportion of his tests in favourable conditions than the norm, but in my eyes that advantage is eroded by the fact that he's rarely had the opportunity for an extended run in the team. MacGill clearly belongs near the very top of the pile of spinners in the last few decades of cricket, excluding obviously Warne and Murali.

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

The funny thing about that is, less knowledgable, significantly biased cricket fans in Australia often try to justify MacGill > Murali on the basis of "Murali's stats are distorted by the number of times he plays Bangladesh and Zimbabwe." Annoying though, if you ever actually correct them on that fact, they either just call you a liar or fall back on the "Doesn't matter, Murali is a chucker" line.

 

[Matt79]

The funny thing about that is, less knowledgable, significantly biased cricket fans in Australia often try to justify MacGill > Murali on the basis of "Murali's stats are distorted by the number of times he plays Bangladesh and Zimbabwe." Annoying though, if you ever actually correct them on that fact, they either just call you a liar or fall back on the "Doesn't matter, Murali is a chucker" line.

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.