I think Aus should play Warne and Macgill in tandem as of now?

[vic_orthdox]

No, I'd prefer it if new threads are created for different issues. Personally I hate it how people want everything Ashes, lumped into one big thread. Fair enough, the discussion of the goings-on in a particular match should be kept in one thread, but not all issues to do with the Ashes. It's one of the glaring weaknesses of this forum.

Actually, I agree. People who don't log on for a couple of days miss out on discussion of it, and people who aren't following the thread - and might not be interested in the matches themselves, but interested in the going-ons of the series - also don't get to contribute.

EDIT: And the people who aren't posting in the Official thread at the moment are quite quality posters, as opposed to some ....

Anyways, it's just ensuring that it's only issues that generate quality discussion that deserve their own threads.

 

[social]

it doesnt matter if warne isnt as effective. Its just that MacGill usually gets more wickets then warne when they are together which isnt a bad thing for the team

I agree but Warne, despite assurances to the contrary, does appear to have influence over team selections.

Look at the Aus batting order. Gillespie should bat in front of Warne and Lee because he provides support to upper order batsmen and values his wicket. Warne, in particular, just slogs, has negligible defence and puts no value on his wicket (look at the Aus second innings as an example).

But do we see a Warne demotion? Of course not.

Unbelievable bowler, massive ego.

 

[Nate]

I agree but Warne, despite assurances to the contrary, does appear to have influence over team selections.

Look at the Aus batting order. Gillespie should bat in front of Warne and Lee because he provides support to upper order batsmen and values his wicket. Warne, in particular, just slogs, has negligible defence and puts no value on his wicket (look at the Aus second innings as an example).

But do we see a Warne demotion? Of course not.

Unbelievable bowler, massive ego.

Ahh... no. Warne is above Gillespie because he is a better batsman. He has scored FC 100`s man. He can certainly bat.

 

[Scallywag]

I agree but Warne, despite assurances to the contrary, does appear to have influence over team selections.

Look at the Aus batting order. Gillespie should bat in front of Warne and Lee because he provides support to upper order batsmen and values his wicket. Warne, in particular, just slogs, has negligible defence and puts no value on his wicket (look at the Aus second innings as an example).

But do we see a Warne demotion? Of course not.

Unbelievable bowler, massive ego.

Warne scores more runs at a faster clip and has a high score of 99 plus two 86's.
Logic says Warne bats before Gillespie.

 

[social]

Sorry guys, but 100 s in England dont count nor does ancient history.

His test batting, save for a testimonial in NZ, has been deplorable.

 

[Nate]

Sorry guys, but 100 s in England dont count nor does ancient history.

His test batting, save for a testimonial in NZ, has been deplorable.

Whoa... can I get some proof with that?

 

[social]

Whoa... can I get some proof with that?

In relation to England, have a look at the stats - 100s in far greater than a run per ball i.e. had a swing.

In relation to his recent test stats - Cricinfo

Warne has real talent with the bat. Unfortunately, he either chooses to back away or walk across his stumps and have a swing with predictable results. His dismissals in the first test were as pathetic as they were predictable.

Gillespie is no use at no. 10. He has no shots but values his wicket and holds up an end - exactly what Katich, etc needs.

Warne always takes the cheap way out. He is a massive waste of batting talent.

For me, he is the greatest ever bowler but I've no respect to his attitude when batting.

 

[Nate]

In relation to England, have a look at the stats - 100s in far greater than a run per ball i.e. had a swing.

In relation to his recent test stats - Cricinfo

Warne has real talent with the bat. Unfortunately, he either chooses to back away or walk across his stumps and have a swing with predictable results. His dismissals in the first test were as pathetic as they were predictable.

Gillespie is no use at no. 10. He has no shots but values his wicket and holds up an end - exactly what Katich, etc needs.

Warne always takes the cheap way out. He is a massive waste of batting talent.

For me, he is the greatest ever bowler but I've no respect to his attitude when batting.

Dude! Give me a swing-my-way-to-100 over a 52-ball 16 anyday!

Respect to anyone who has scored 100.

 

[social]

Dude! Give me a swing-my-way-to-100 over a 52-ball 16 anyday!

Respect to anyone who has scored 100.

Yeah, I know.

Just really ****es me off when a guy that has everything in a cricketing sense (great bowler, marvellous slipper, should be captain of Aus but for his lack of social graces - I personally couldnt give a rat's, tremendous talent with the bat), gives it away needlessly time after time.

 

[Nate]

Yeah, I know.

Just really ****es me off when a guy that has everything in a cricketing sense (great bowler, marvellous slipper, should be captain of Aus but for his lack of social graces - I personally couldnt give a rat's, tremendous talent with the bat), gives it away needlessly time after time.

Fair enough. I`m a bowler, so I don`t really understand.

 

[social]

Fair enough. I`m a bowler, so I don`t really understand.

Picture youself in a team with a brilliant batsman that scores a hundred almost at will.

He catches almost everything that comes his way.

But regularly turns 1s into 2s, 3s into 4s, etc because he won't put in the big ones.

Most bowlers would get p'd off after a while.

That's how I feel about Warne's batting.

 

[Richard]

Dude! Give me a swing-my-way-to-100 over a 52-ball 16 anyday!

Respect to anyone who has scored 100.

But what about a swing-my-way-to-a-100-once-every-50-innings-and-do-sod-all-the-rest-of-the-time compared to a 52-ball-16 quite regularly?
I know which I'd prefer, and it's not the former.

 

[Richard]

Sorry guys, but 100 s in England dont count

Sorry, I'm afraid they do count.
Maybe they're not worth as much as centuries in Australia, but they do count.

 

[Richard]

No, I'd prefer it if new threads are created for different issues. Personally I hate it how people want everything Ashes, lumped into one big thread. Fair enough, the discussion of the goings-on in a particular match should be kept in one thread, but not all issues to do with the Ashes. It's one of the glaring weaknesses of this forum.

Actually, I agree. People who don't log on for a couple of days miss out on discussion of it, and people who aren't following the thread - and might not be interested in the matches themselves, but interested in the going-ons of the series - also don't get to contribute.

EDIT: And the people who aren't posting in the Official thread at the moment are quite quality posters, as opposed to some ....

Anyways, it's just ensuring that it's only issues that generate quality discussion that deserve their own threads.

You can add me to that, too - you take a day where you don't read the forum and you're absolutely certain to miss something in an *Official* thread.
Some things need specific threads.

 

[Richard]

it doesnt matter if warne isnt as effective. Its just that MacGill usually gets more wickets then warne when they are together which isnt a bad thing for the team

It isn't?

 

[Richard]

Macgill won't play until there's a real turner at Old Trafford.

Aside from the fact that that's merely likely, not certain as some seem to be suggesting, it's not altogether impossible that we'll get a turner at Edgbaston too.

 

[Richard]

Gillespie didn't do anything again, and it isn't as though Kaspa looks particularly frightening of late on this tour.

Macgill has had success against England in the past although granted not so much on the last Ashes tour. It's pretty obvious England still look suspect against this type of bowling and I wouldn't just wait for the Old Trafford and Oval tests before bowling them both together.

I think the greater turn of Macgill, combined with his good googlys might have a shock value. Like Warnes slider it way well cause alot of problems because it's a delivery England aren't used to since Warne doesn't bowl it.

The two of them also have had good recent success when operating in the same side. Even if one doesn't fire, invariably the other one has a very good match.

Usually when MacGill plays it results in Warne bowling poorly.
And in the likely\near-certain event of MacGill bowling poorly too it decreases Australia's chances from near-certain to merely likely winners.
What would be the point in that?
Has there ever been a match where both of them have bowled well?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Usually when MacGill plays it results in Warne bowling poorly.
And in the likely\near-certain event of MacGill bowling poorly too it decreases Australia's chances from near-certain to merely likely winners.
What would be the point in that?
Has there ever been a match where both of them have bowled well?

I'm not sold on Warne "bowling poorly". I think it's more to do with the fact that it is MacGill - and not Warne - who the opposition seek to use to release the pressure, and as a result you get a few more rash shots off MacGill, as opposed to Warne, who the batsmen are more willing to defend.

This inturn means that Warne won't get as many wickets, but will set them up for MacGill - because the pair often bowl in tandem when they're both playing.

Still, you can see it in Warne's body language that he doesn't enjoy playing with MacGill, and I don't think that Warne bowls at his best. Still better than most, though

 

[Richard]

I'm not sold on that - often Warne's been expensive in said games.
And sometimes he's bowled poorly in other games around the same time, too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Usually when MacGill plays it results in Warne bowling poorly.
And in the likely\near-certain event of MacGill bowling poorly too it decreases Australia's chances from near-certain to merely likely winners.
What would be the point in that?
Has there ever been a match where both of them have bowled well?

I don't know about both of them, but Warne took 10 wickets apiece in the two games he played with Macgill in Sri Lanka last year.