• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

brilliant idea

tooextracool

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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)
not sure if pakistan are quality players of spin.......certainly nowhere near as good as india or SL.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
It interesting how people look at the stats of a player and if there a spin bowler and they bowl well aganist one team then most be crap players of spin, or mediorce players of spin. Danish seems to bowl well aganist Sri Lanka and India, preserved better players of spin. But he bowls below par aganist England, West Indies and New Zealand, who are seen as worse players of spin. Both Danish and MacGill have rolled Banglandesh, but Giles averages 112 aganist them.

Interesting stuff, but all this shows is that some players are bowl better aganist other teams then other. Looking at overall records or recent performance is a better way of analysing players, then just taking out indiviual performance aganist a couple teams.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
chaminda_00 said:
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.
Which still makes Kaneria the 2nd bowler with little support, a world of difference from bowling after 3 of the best pacemen around.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
chaminda_00 said:
WTF he has a lot more success when Warne hasn't played then when he has played.
Which again goes back to the fact that people pay the better bowler a lot more respect and thus have to try and make runs somewhere.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
That has nothing to do with the fact he was chucked into the side at an extremely early age does it?
What age got to do with your abilty, if your good enough and their a spot in the side then it doesn't matter how oldd you are. Just cus someone 30 doesn't mean they are going to be a better bowler then someone who is 20. Away how do u explain the other two teams then???
 

Craig

World Traveller
marc71178 said:
Which still makes Kaneria the 2nd bowler with little support, a world of difference from bowling after 3 of the best pacemen around.
So Warne would be a better bowler if he didn't play for Australia?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No, because Warne is one of the all time greats.

MacGill when bowling behind 3 weaker bowlers is nowhere near as good (even if he's playing in a much lower level of Cricket)
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
No, because Warne is one of the all time greats.

MacGill when bowling behind 3 weaker bowlers is nowhere near as good (even if he's playing in a much lower level of Cricket)
If that the case then how do explain him taking 40 wickets 3 years in a row in England and his record for NSW with 3 weaker bowlers in either side.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
40 wickets in a season is hardly a major achievment, and considering it's apparently the case that County batsmen are useless, it just further shows to show him up.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
40 wickets in a season is hardly a major achievment, and considering it's apparently the case that County batsmen are useless, it just further shows to show him up.
122 wickets in two and a bit season is better then what most players do, i.e above averages, not mediorce.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
If someone like Ottis Gibson can get 60 wickets in one season, that shows how 122 in 3 seasons is not an achievement.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
If someone like Ottis Gibson can get 60 wickets in one season, that shows how 122 in 3 seasons is not an achievement.
Considering it was two and a bit season it is an achievement, or do u classify 6 games as a full season.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
It is not that great an achievement when you look at it in context as to how good he's supposed to be, how bad the batsmen are supposed to be and how many games he played for the meagre total in 2 of the seasons.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
It is not that great an achievement when you look at it in context as to how good he's supposed to be, how bad the batsmen are supposed to be and how many games he played for the meagre total in 2 of the seasons.
Well if 122 wickets in 32 games isn't much an achievement of you then you have some very high standards. Why do keep bring up a theory that English batsmen can't play spin if you don't believe, or do you believe in it? His results in Notts and NSW show that he can bowl without three superior bowlers in the side.

And again just cus i believe MacGill not mediorce doesn't mean i think he is all time great.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
40 wickets at well over 30 is a poor season, and in fact all the evidence provided by his non-Test career (where his average is higher) points to the fact that he's much less effective if he's coming on after 3 top class bowlers.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
40 wickets at well over 30 is a poor season, and in fact all the evidence provided by his non-Test career (where his average is higher) points to the fact that he's much less effective if he's coming on after 3 top class bowlers.
You should really look at the whole picture not just pull out stats from one season, his overall record in England still shows that he is effective wicket taker even without 3 top class bowlers. There is no doubt that he is slightly less effective (average goes up by 1), but to say his much less effective is ridicoulous. If his average went up by 5 or 6 then fair enough his much less effective but it doesn't it only goes up by 1.

MacGill's Test Stats:
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
1454.5 299 4611 160 28.81 7-50 10 2 54.5 3.16

MacGill's FC Stats:
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
5600.1 1087 18840 640 29.43 8-111 38 6 52.5 3.36

MacGill's Non Test Stats:
460 wkts @ 29.64, with a S/R of 51.8 (lower then Test S/R)

All the evidence points to the fact that he is a effective bowler in both Test Cricket with three top class bowlers as he is in FC Cricket without three top class bowlers
 
Last edited:

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
40 wickets at well over 30 is a poor season, and in fact all the evidence provided by his non-Test career (where his average is higher) points to the fact that he's much less effective if he's coming on after 3 top class bowlers.
Do you believe Giles is a better test bowler Marc?
 

Top