Martyn dropped from test squad

[Slow Love™]

As I said he is a strike bowler, so if another bowler is keeping it tight, it allows him to attack one end and in the hope of getting some wickets.

It is a bit like Giles, his role is the opposite, it is to defend and hold up an end (and obviously to grab a wicket or 5) and allow the likes of Jones, Harmison etc. to attack at the other end and grab some wickets when the batsman is tied down and is looking for runs.

Is it me or do I find a simple way os viewing cricket and not over complicating things?

You are right, and IMO, MacGill has always copped an unfair bagging on this forum (so much so that it's become something of a meaningless mantra). And although I realise you are only talking about the roles they occupy (rather than their relative skills), MacGill is streets ahead of Giles in terms of quality. His economy isn't that unhealthy either - most of the criticism pointed his way to me seems rooted in the series against India out here in Australia last, but that's traditionally been the lot of the legspinner against India - Warne's obviously had some shockers against the same opposition.

In general, MacGill is very unlucky not to have played far more test cricket than he has - I wouldn't blink if somebody called him world class (distinguished from "great" in the sense that he has what it takes to play in most international sides) - while I certainly would if somebody described Giles that way.

 

[marc71178]

As I said he is a strike bowler, so if another bowler is keeping it tight, it allows him to attack one end and in the hope of getting some wickets.

Which doesn't explain how his record when bowling in weaker attacks is far far worse.

 

[marc71178]

conditions like that dont exist.

What about last time he toured Pakistan then?

 

[irfan]

"Dropping Martyn while keeping Hayden is just so stupid I actually thought some of the Indian selectors were picking the aussie side." - honestbharani

LOL

Knowing Indian selectors they wud've probably made hayden captain in a bid to 'regain' his form, sound familiar....

 

[age_master]

What about last time he toured Pakistan then?

must have been bad batting.

 

[Craig]

Actually it wasn't, some of it was pretty good bowling (remember of the dismissals IIRC was in Lahore really did spin) and the batsmen had no answer for it.

I watched quite a lot of that series so a lot of it sticks out in my memory.

 

[Craig]

Which doesn't explain how his record when bowling in weaker attacks is far far worse.

Because it changes his role in the team from playing strike bowler to attack and defensive bowler which causes him to change his natural game? How's that for an explaination?

It would be like expecting your beloved King of Spain to suddely become a strike bowler, which he isn't nor would I doubt he would be good at.

 

[marc71178]

But Craig, if he becomes a more defensive bowler, how come the economy rate shoots up?

Could it be because there's other weak links they can be attacked, so don't have to go after every MacGill ball, thus not getting themselves out?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But Craig, if he becomes a more defensive bowler, how come the economy rate shoots up?

Could it be because there's other weak links they can be attacked, so don't have to go after every MacGill ball, thus not getting themselves out?

Or it could be a coincidence, as there's no reason to believe otherwise? Nobody "goes after every MacGill ball"... we're talking about test cricket. He bowls plenty of loose stuff anyway. MacGill, despite his struggles against certain opposition, still maintains by FAR the best strike rate of any spinner in the world.

 

[marc71178]

It seems far too consistent over years of Cricket to merely be a coincidence.

Yes, he has a low strike rate, but that just backs up the fact that most of his career he's been bowling with 3 very tight bowlers, so is the one that people go after.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yes, he has a low strike rate, but that just backs up the fact that most of his career he's been bowling with 3 very tight bowlers, so is the one that people go after.

By this logic, any hack could expect to take bags of wickets as long as they're bowling with "3 very tight bowlers". But generally you will find that if a bowler is a weak link in a strong lineup, they'll just get attacked and get hit and come off with poor figures - you are stretching the bounds of credibility to suggest that MacGill's wickets come mainly through the batsmen desperately going after him because they can't get anywhere off the other bowlers in the attack. It also suggests you haven't watched him bowl much.

BTW, could you be more specific about who you're referring to when you mention "3 very tight bowlers"? MacGill's actually done very well in series where the McGrath/Gillespie partnership wasn't in play (or didn't perform) - ie, Pakistan '98, Ashes '98/99, West Indies '02/03...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

BTW, could you be more specific about who you're referring to when you mention "3 very tight bowlers"? MacGill's actually done very well in series where the McGrath/Gillespie partnership wasn't in play (or didn't perform) - ie, Pakistan '98, Ashes '98/99, West Indies '02/03...

Indeed. Plus there's the fact that he usually plays without Warne...

Here's some of Macgill's good performances:

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1436
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1450
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1544
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1660

MacGill's taken 10 5-fers in tests, and aside from the three against Bangladesh and the most recent one against Pakistan (where he bowled with McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Watson), most of them have been in depleted attacks.

 

[tooextracool]

He took 8 for 30 odd against Pakistan with swing last summer.

seam actually

 

[tooextracool]

Love doesn't fit in that critieria though? I mean he was picked as fill-in for Lehmann who was injured, then when Martyn got injured and Love got another gig, so when Martyn got fit he got, Love was out.

my point though is that he should still have been next in line for a spot in the side whenever anyone retired or got injured, instead of just disappearing into obscurity.

 

[tooextracool]

his axing is simply ignorant, lets hope he gets back into the test side soon...

one of the reasons hes been retained in the ODI side(other than typical aussie selector stupidity) is so that he still has a chance to prove himself, therefore a productive ODI series should get him back in line for his test spot.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't see why really. Assuming the World XI picks Pollock, Shoaib and Flintoff as their seamers, if there's swing around I'd say it would help McGrath and Lee just as much.

lee hasnt swung the red ball for the entire ashes series, and has rarely swung it throughout his career, except for the odd game(vs india at the SCG).

 

[tooextracool]

conditions like that dont exist.

and thats probably why hes outbowled warne and murali in india?

 

[shankar]

and thats probably why hes outbowled warne and murali in india?

He's got 6 wickets in 2 tests including 4 tail-enders and the wicket of Laxman when he was slogging with a tail-ender at the other end. Hardly enough to say he outbowled Murali and Warne.

 

[Jamee999]

Well that was a pretty stupid thing to do, Aussie selectors.

 

[tooextracool]

He's got 6 wickets in 2 tests including 4 tail-enders and the wicket of Laxman when he was slogging with a tail-ender at the other end. Hardly enough to say he outbowled Murali and Warne.

maybe not, but its still a fine performance in those conditions and he at least managed to keep things tight and hold an end up instead of getting carted around the park. negative tactics or not.
and even his record in pakistan is better than shane warnes.