FaaipDeOiad said:
Obviously I mean relative to the batting. When you're beating the bat twice and over and having catches fall short and LBW shouts turned down and such, you're bowling well enough to take wickets. Obviously if you're just getting left outside off and so on, you're not going to take wickets. The point is that his figures didn't flatter him, he bowled much better than most bowlers you will see averaging 30 odd, while he bowled much worse in the Newlands test and came out of it with 5/60 or so. That's the way it goes. To call Lee's figures flattering in the home series against South Africa just shows that you either weren't watching it or are so biased against Lee that you're unwilling to give him credit.
I was unwilling to give him the credit you wanted him to get after Lord's 2005, too - and I was right...
Having catches fall short, obviously, means the batsmen are doing something right, usually playing softly. Beating the bat, as I've said time and again, simply happens - the good bowlers, when it does happen to them, just keep bowling and eventually get their rewards. Equally, constantly beating the bat can mean you're pitching too short. Usually, having lbws constantly turned-down means you're not getting batsmen out lbw. If you're being denied lots of clearly out lbws, that's just unlucky, and for me you can count them as wickets.
But... funny thing... I don't actually remember Lee being denied any lbws that he should've got.
Even the wickets he did get were mostly poor strokes - none more so than the Kallis one where I was virtually screaming at the telly "YORKER COMING-UP!!!!" it was that predictable.
What basis for comparison is there except to other bowlers? That's exactly how you term a player "good" or "poor" or whatever - by comparing him to the standard offered from cricket worldwide. The fact is we don't know how MacGill would have gone in another era, only how he has gone in his career, and the fact is that he has been largely a successful bowler, compared to the players he has played against, and compared to the other bowlers of his time. Very few spinners in the history of test cricket manage an average in the 20s, fewer in a batsman dominated era with largely non-turning wickets in their home nation.
If the standard offered Worldwide is poor, bowlers get undue praise.
Simple fact is, there are certain thresholds - and especially for wristspinners, these remain pretty unchanged in any circumstances. Wristspinners don't need turning surfaces.
All the best wristspinners (who have been few - because wristspin is exceptionally difficult to bowl to Test standard) have averaged under 30 - usually had exceptional averages. The best fingerspinners
used to average 25 or so, too (sometimes even lower) because there used to be far more fingerspin-friendly pitches than there are now. In the modern era, bowlers like Bedi have averaged 23 at home, on fingerspin-friendly pitches, and much less away.
A bowler with an average over 30 can't be taken seriously, in my estimation, as a Test-class bowler - and as far as I'm concerned, MacGill's early record says far more about poor batsmanship than good bowling. When the batting's been better - ie post-Adelaide-2000\01 - his average has gone up. Recently, it's come down again - but much of that, as I've said, has been down to cheap wickets, whether tail-enders or batsmen going for quick runs approaching a declaration.
What is 33, exactly? His average on sundays? MacGill's career average is just under 28, and when you take out Bangladesh it's 29.
33 is his average (against Test-class teams) since Adelaide 2000\01.
A considerable number of Tests, and a pretty consistent(ly poor) run after his initial good introductory record.
, he is a good OD player probably not good enough for test consideration seriously as yet, but i dont think he can be totally written of as a possible test player in the future tbh..