brilliant idea

[Craig]

He gets away with his "fourball" an over because he has 3 better bowlers in the side - Ian Salisbury didn't have that luxury...

I'd be interested in how the other 3 aren't mediocre as well.

And if you get wickets, bowling a 'four-ball' an over doesn't sound so bad isn't it>

Seriously how much of MacGill have you seen lately since you admit you don't have Sky...

 

[Craig]

even though he didnt have any ability? 32.5 is an absolute joke at any level, let alone for a bowler who was bowling at batsmen who had no idea how to play leg spin.
his test match performances could be described as nothing other than an absolute disgrace.

If Salisbury had no ability how on earth did he even play FC cricket, let alone for his country?

 

[chaminda_00]

If Salisbury had no ability how on earth did he even play FC cricket, let alone for his country?

Cus of the lack of quality spin bowlers in England

 

[tooextracool]

If Salisbury had no ability how on earth did he even play FC cricket, let alone for his country?

depends on what way you look at it. if you're going to compare him to yourself, then yes he has ability. but if you compare him to other test class or even domestic pros, his record looks very poor.

 

[tooextracool]

That joking aren't you MacGill is a lot more effective in conditions that aren't good for spin bowling and as effective in pitches that are good for spin bowling. both average 32 in the sub continent, how does that make Giles a better bowler on pitches that favour spin bowling.

because giles has taken far more wickets than him(nearly 50 in the subcontinent). macgill couldnt buy a wicket in SL, and i wouldnt be surprised if the exact same thing happens to him in india if he ever plays there.

 

[marc71178]

Well three season taking 40 wickets plus each season is success and an ave of 30 isn't as good as he usually bowls, but that cus he bowls a lot more over in England then in Australia for NSW and Australia cus of the complete lack of support. The fact that he can still take wickets and have a decent averages with no support shows he can bowl well with Fast Bowlers at the other end who don't keep it tight.

Firstly, that is only 2 years.

Secondly, he was bowling to batsmen who apparently can't play good leg spinners.

Thirdly, I don't see the bowling a lot more overs is an excuse for S/R and economy rate climbing compared to his career.

Fourthly, 32 and 35 are not decent averages.

Fifthly, I was accused of being silly for saying Kaneria was better, in his one season (2004) he took 63 wickets @ 25.53, and went at under 3 an over whilst striking every 53.6 balls, all far better than MacGill, and in only 11 games against MacGill's 26 over 2 seasons.

Sixthly, well done for reiterating what I said about him being far less effective in a less decent attack.

 

[chaminda_00]

because giles has taken far more wickets than him(nearly 50 in the subcontinent). macgill couldnt buy a wicket in SL, and i wouldnt be surprised if the exact same thing happens to him in india if he ever plays there.

That cus he played more games in the sub continent, that why he has taken more wickets, nothing else. You seem to forget the Warne factor in Sri Lanka, if Giles played along side Warne then he would also struggle to take a wicket in Sri Lanka.

 

[chaminda_00]

Firstly, that is only 2 years.

Secondly, he was bowling to batsmen who apparently can't play good leg spinners.

Thirdly, I don't see the bowling a lot more overs is an excuse for S/R and economy rate climbing compared to his career.

Fourthly, 32 and 35 are not decent averages.

Fifthly, I was accused of being silly for saying Kaneria was better, in his one season (2004) he took 63 wickets @ 25.53, and went at under 3 an over whilst striking every 53.6 balls, all far better than MacGill, and in only 11 games against MacGill's 26 over 2 seasons.

Sixthly, well done for reiterating what I said about him being far less effective in a less decent attack.

Firstly to Fourtly you seem to forget that he has played three season in England, not just two.

Fifthy why are you comparing Kaneria and MacGill on domestic stats, they both played Test Cricket. Looking at Test stats MacGill is a better bowler, as i showed earlier in the thread.

Sixthy if he is less effective on less decent tracks then how do you explain his record outside the sub-continent in Test Cricket, compared to most spin bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

That cus he played more games in the sub continent, that why he has taken more wickets, nothing else. You seem to forget the Warne factor in Sri Lanka, if Giles played along side Warne then he would also struggle to take a wicket in Sri Lanka.

err what?
even though all his career hes been feeding on warnes success and taking all his wickets only while warne is playing?
AFAIC he had equal opportunity to pick up wickets in SL, unfortunately he came up with quality players of spin who were too good to fall for his mediocre bowling.
giles btw averages lower in both SL and pakistan, with considerably more wickets, even if its after more games.

 

[marc71178]

Firstly to Fourtly you seem to forget that he has played three season in England, not just two.

Yes, and he still ends up with a poor record for one supposedly so good.

Fifthy why are you comparing Kaneria and MacGill on domestic stats, they both played Test Cricket. Looking at Test stats MacGill is a better bowler, as i showed earlier in the thread.

Switch the 2 around and I dare say Kaneria's record would be far better than MacGill's is, Kaneria is the main man when he bowls more often than not, MacGill is able to ride on the coat-tails of a superb pace attack.

Sixthy if he is less effective on less decent tracks then how do you explain his record outside the sub-continent in Test Cricket, compared to most spin bowlers.

Who said anything about tracks?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Kaneria better now too . Yeah a guy that averages 35 with the bowl (when you take out matches aganist Ban) is better then MacGill.

Stuart MacGill averages 12.88 against Bangladesh. He otherwise averages 30.71.

Against quality players of spin, he averages...

50.78 (v India)
25.30 (v Pakistan)
46.40 (v Sri Lanka)

He has 48 wickets in 12 Tests against the West Indies, but at an average of 31.89. Against Pakistan and England he has made a career, averaging a combined 24.93. Against teams other than Pakistan and England, including Bangladesh, he averages 31.27.

He is a decent bowler, but not as aweinspiring as some want him to be.

 

[Gangster]

Stuart MacGill averages 12.88 against Bangladesh. He otherwise averages 30.71.

Against quality players of spin, he averages...

50.78 (v India)
25.30 (v Pakistan)
46.40 (v Sri Lanka)

He has 48 wickets in 12 Tests against the West Indies, but at an average of 31.89. Against Pakistan and England he has made a career, averaging a combined 24.93. Against teams other than Pakistan and England, including Bangladesh, he averages 31.27.

He is a decent bowler, but not as aweinspiring as some want him to be.

why do people continue to claim pakistan are good players of spin? cuz they're brown? they can't seem to play spinners well at all...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

why do people continue to claim pakistan are good players of spin? cuz they're brown? they can't seem to play spinners well at all...

Because they play a large amount of cricket in condtions that suit spin better than other places in the world. Pakistan itself does support seam bowlers too, but it is a better venue for spin than the England or Australia.

Please don't bring race into this. Mild warning.

 

[chaminda_00]

Yes, and he still ends up with a poor record for one supposedly so good.

Who ever said he was so good, all i said that he wasn't mediocre, just because someone question your belief that a play is mediocre doesn't mean they think they are an all time great, or something.

Switch the 2 around and I dare say Kaneria's record would be far better than MacGill's is, Kaneria is the main man when he bowls more often than not, MacGill is able to ride on the coat-tails of a superb pace attack.

Have you ever taken in the pitches he bowl on, if you taken in all the factors then you will see he is better, maybe not far batter but better. Kaneria has only been the main man for the last two series aganist Australia and Pakistan, before that Akhtar was the main man.

Who said anything about tracks?

Sorry it was late at night must have mis-read what you wrote.

 

[chaminda_00]

err what?
even though all his career hes been feeding on warnes success and taking all his wickets only while warne is playing?
AFAIC he had equal opportunity to pick up wickets in SL, unfortunately he came up with quality players of spin who were too good to fall for his mediocre bowling.
giles btw averages lower in both SL and pakistan, with considerably more wickets, even if its after more games.

WTF he has a lot more success when Warne hasn't played then when he has played.

 

[chaminda_00]

Stuart MacGill averages 12.88 against Bangladesh. He otherwise averages 30.71.

If you take out matches aganist both Banglandesh and Zimbabwe (mediorce sides) he average is still better then Danish, also 30.7 is better then 35 if you only want to take out matches aganist Bangladesh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are much worse than mediocre.

Examples of mediocre sides include West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand.

 

[chaminda_00]

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are much worse than mediocre.

Examples of mediocre sides include West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand.

I would really like to know your belief in what mediocre means cus i think you guys are being very harse in calling teams like Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies mediocre or players who have the same average as most fast bowlers (Andy Bichel) mediocre and a spinner who is record is as good as most spin if not slightly better mediocre, MacGill.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would really like to know your belief in what mediocre means cus i think you guys are being very harse in calling teams like Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies mediocre or players who have the same average as most fast bowlers (Andy Bichel) mediocre and a spinner who is record is as good as most spin if not slightly better mediocre, MacGill.

Mediocre does not mean they are a poor player/team. Mediocre means average, or just below average. It does an exceptionally harsh insult. Teams like Zim and Bangladesh are not good enough to be mediocre. The teams that sit in the middle, or jsut below the middle, are the mediocre ones, and the same goes for bowlers. Bichel and Lee in tests are a perfect example of this.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mediocre does not mean they are a poor player/team. Mediocre means average, or just below average. It does an exceptionally harsh insult. Teams like Zim and Bangladesh are not good enough to be mediocre. The teams that sit in the middle, or jsut below the middle, are the mediocre ones, and the same goes for bowlers. Bichel and Lee in tests are a perfect example of this.

I agree.