Future ****Stars**** of Australian Cricket

[Nate]

Gotta love MacGill`s strike-rate!

 

[chaminda_00]

Gotta love MacGill`s strike-rate!

i love his E/R even more, oh well i guess their isn't too many Warne/s who can keep the runs down and take wickets as well.

 

[aussie]

MacGill - 15 wickets @ 27.46 in 127.4 overs - SR 51.0, Econ 3.22
Giles - 17 wickets @ 24.11 in 182.0 overs - SR 64.2, Econ 2.25

ahhh yes i was correct

 

[Top_Cat]

There were plenty of no-ball issues, but he did end up going at 8 an over regardless.

And everyone's focussing on this but what's more important; how Tait bowled then or how he's come back from such atrocious bowling to end up with 65 wickets in an Australian FC season averaging just over 20?

Isn't a better measure of a player how well they come back from setbacks? Glenn McGrath went for about 72 in a ODI Australia lost against SL a few years ago (about 1996) and was pumelled for bowling quite badly. The next games, he changed his line and length and bowled really well. That said a lot about him as a bowler and who knows, maybe Tait is the same (not inferring he'll be a great like McGrath just that surely people should be focussing on how well he's bowling now AFTER he got smacked and has come back).

 

[Nate]

And everyone's focussing on this but what's more important; how Tait bowled then or how he's come back from such atrocious bowling to end up with 65 wickets in an Australian FC season averaging just over 20?

Isn't a better measure of a player how well they come back from setbacks? Glenn McGrath went for about 72 in a ODI Australia lost against SL a few years ago (about 1996) and was pumelled for bowling quite badly. The next games, he changed his line and length and bowled really well. That said a lot about him as a bowler and who knows, maybe Tait is the same (not inferring he'll be a great like McGrath just that surely people should be focussing on how well he's bowling now AFTER he got smacked and has come back).

Hear, Here!

 

[Richard]

If someone bowls half his overs in the death, then 4.3 is a superb economy rate to have.

No, it's just good.

 

[Richard]

Statistically yes, if you ignore things like pressure build-ups created by not being able to score. It's not uncommon for batsmen to settle for a single or two off a good bowler's over and look to do the damage at the other end. When one end is completely shut down, however, that's when batsmen panic and are prone to mistakes.

Also, how often do you see batsmen get out off the last ball a maiden over? Batsmen don't like being concreted to the crease... but managing a few singles off every over doesn't build up any pressure at all.

And in such circumstances the economy-rate will be lower.
It's overall number of dot-balls that create scoreboard-pressure, not those in a certain over.

 

[Richard]

Yes, his One-Day bowling record is up there with the best of the best. Thats what I said. You dont get a bowling average of 21 by being crap...

No, you don't - and at the domestic level he certainly isn't crap.
At the international, though, he is.

 

[Richard]

But you don't know the average. All you're going on is that you can't remember many.

Exactly, and I read almost every scorecard in Test-cricket, have done since 2001, and you don't see very many run-outs.

 

[Richard]

i love his E/R even more, oh well i guess their isn't too many Warne/s who can keep the runs down and take wickets as well.

Exactly, which is why there are so few good wristspinners.

 

[Richard]

Gotta love MacGill`s strike-rate!

Even so, given a poor economy-rate a good strike-rate won't do an incredible amount of good.

 

[Richard]

You can indeed take less wickets at a lower level of cricket if you're simply bowling too well - however, given what we've heard of Tait's performance with no ball problems etc etc this was plainly not the case.

Are you suggesting that England are poor and therefore Tait would be useless? Because if England are good and you only do well in the good stuff the surely Tait would be useful!?

Of course the Australian domestic scene is stronger than the English one; neither are useless, though.
If Tait bowls as poorly in England as he bowled last time (not saying it's certain or even likely) then it's fill-your-boots time.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's just good.

No, it is outstanding - Cricket is not played on paper.

 

[Richard]

Yes, no-balls and wides. Judging Tait on the Duhram stint is ridiculous, the kid bowled about a dozen overs in his whole time at the club, then came back to Australia and took 60 wickets @ 20. Obviously the 10 back-to-back solid games is a hell of a lot more relevant to his ability than a dozen overs where he had massive technical issues and bowled garbage. If he goes back he will do better, without doubt.

No, not without doubt.
All right, it's pretty impossible to do as poorly again, but nor is it at all possible to guess how he'll do whenever the next time he bowls over here is; it's not impossible that the same thing will happen all over again.

 

[Richard]

No, it is outstanding - Cricket is not played on paper.

No, it's not, but it's summarised on paper.
And if it weren't we'd not know anything about what was good or outstanding or anything else.
And 4.3-an-over when bowling regularly at the death is not outstanding, it's just good.

 

[Richard]

That is a bit of a rough call.

A bit of an exaggeration, true, but he's poor, no disputing that.

 

[marc71178]

And 4.3-an-over when bowling regularly at the death is not outstanding, it's just good.

So what is outstanding?

0 an over?

4.3 an over if a bowler bowls half his overs in the death is a superb effort as it has restricted the opposition considerably at a time when a lot of runs are scored.

 

[Richard]

hahaha, come on rich u are always underestimating Lee, look mate if he continues bowling the way he has bowled of late and maintains his form during the Natwest series & Natwest challenge & gets the nod over Kaspa for the first test i dont think our batsmen will be so joyous has you are

All evidence points to that they will.

and how can you say that MacGilla is extemely poor i agree that he is capable of wasting it becuase he not has accurate has the great Shane Wrane but then who is, lets check it out MacGilla has fair success in the sub-continent in pakistan in 1998 when warne had that injury he filled warne's boots quite well with 15 wickets in that 3 test series he didn't really do much in the Sri Lanka tour in 2004 but again it was hollywood who took all the wickets so their wasn't much Stuart could do but support also quite recently in the SCG test on that spin friendly wicket he was MOM, and a few years ago in Barbados on a ptich that Steve Waugh has the worst pitch he has played on in his carrer, that pitch became a real turner and he took 9 wickets in that match and was MOM so i think you should rethink that statement.

And that simply shows that he's not bowled on an extraordinary number of turning pitches; from what I've read there was only 1 turning pitch in Pakistan in 1998.
Whether he bowls on turners or not, most often he bowls poorly - and if you bowl poorly it doesn't especially matter whether or not the pitch turns.
MacGill since 2000 has played 17 Test-matches and taken wickets at 37.40; in that time there have been 2 good matches and 2 not-too-bad ones.
That is an extremely poor record.

While i agree on that last point on tait that even though he has done very well in the Pura Cup his the conditions in England are differnt & thats where the series is being played. But look mate he barely had two games over here which he hardly bowled much so thats not enough to judge whether he is good in our conditons or not, i'm pretty sure if tait gets a full season over here anytime in the future based on his Performances in the Pura Cup (which has i said before is the most toughest & most competitive domestic competition in the world) i wont be surprised if he ran havoc on the county circuit

I'd be surprised if he ran havoc, but I hardly see that he can do as poorly as he did last time.

 

[Richard]

So what is outstanding?

0 an over?

Obviously, but it's also unrealistic and anything under 4-an-over is outstanding, once you get down below 4.2-an-over while bowling at the death it's outstanding.

4.3 an over if a bowler bowls half his overs in the death is a superb effort as it has restricted the opposition considerably at a time when a lot of runs are scored.

Depends - it hasn't restricted them if he's gone for 24 off those 4 overs he's bowled at the death having gone for just 15 off his first 5.
It all depends on how many he's gone for early on. Harvey, domestically, is pretty darn good at the death but nonetheless his record's been getting worse in recent seasons (2003 4.67, 2004 4.75).

 

[marc71178]

Depends - it hasn't restricted them if he's gone for 24 off those 4 overs he's bowled at the death having gone for just 15 off his first 5.

Oh yes he has - run a ball at the death is good performance from the bowling side.