McGrath could play in 2009 Ashes

[Pedro Delgado]

Presumably he'll be picked for the Lords test, even bowling at 70mph.

They'll be wheeling him out for his Michelle when he's 80.

 

[howardj]

I think, in terms of the Ashes, the big message from last night's game was that "it's on" against McGrath this summer. England showed real intent against him last night and really tried to "do a Gillespie" on him (i.e. even go after his accurate deliveries). Several times they wandered down the pitch to him. If that's a foretaste of what's to come, it'll make for great viewing over a long series.

 

[aussie]

in that sense it would, but hopefully he doesn't suffer a Gillespie turn of fortunes.

 

[Jono]

He's building up his fitness towards the Ashes. McGrath will be right.

 

[Chris Riddell]

Patrick Smith, journalist for The Age, said on SEN this morning that he reckons that McGRath will struggle to see out this Ashes series - despite his accuracy, the lack of pace makes him 'fodder' for the batsman.

I don't know about that. Maybe it's time to restructure the attack for the Ashes.

Lee and Johnson or Watson with the new ball, blasting the English with fast paced, short stuff.
McGrath to come on 1st change to provide the unerring accuracy.
Bracken to come on at the other end to provide the movement. (Or McGill in Sydney - gotta play 2 spinners, sorry Nathan, you're out of the team there.)
Warne can then come on to baffle the batsmen.

My tip: Series victory (2-1) to signal McGrath's departure from International Test Cricket, Warne to play on until the home series after Australia's next tour of India.

Edit: So Warne will retire Next Summer, when India come to Australia for 4 test matches

 

[Mister Wright]

There's two ways to play McGrath successfully.

The Way NZ did back in 2000 (IIRC) and let everything go outside offstump, this hasn't been tried all that often, usually because if they do, they get out to the bowler at the other end (usuallly Warne), but NZ shows that's a way to blunt McGrath. The other, is to attack, attack, attack, which usually doesn't work because he's so accurate. However, now with his pace slowing that is becoming easier, and it is clear that is something that England are going to do. Whether they can captilise on that or be successful with it is yet to be seen.

The thing about McGrath is though, he always finds something, especially against England. We'll know in about a month how things will turn out.

 

[howardj]

Pidgeon Flies To Cloudy Future

Chappelli Shoots Down Flying Pidgeon

 

[aussie]

The last time Lawson wrote off McGrath in Zimbawe in 2004 after a similar lenghty lay-off he was back to his best after in the Australian summer after coincidentally a series in India, i reckon the same will happen again..

 

[Poker Boy]

No you can't write McGrath off yet...look how well Pollock bowled yesterday and I reckon he's the nearest thing to McGrath...I've got a feeling he'll take it out on England if he keeps getting written off...and Australia need him to bowl with Warne and keep the scoring rate down at both ends.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath hasn't looked anywhere near as bad as people are making out. In fact, I think he looks a lot better now than he did in the second half of the last home summer. In the later tests and early ODIs last year he looked way down on his best and was totally unthreatening.

The fact is that the "hammering" he copped the other day that everyone is going on about was 4 overs that went for about 7 each and included a dropped catch. Yes, England went after him and showed some intent for what might be ahead in the Ashes, but give him a few more weeks of preperation and a new, red ball and he'll be far more threatening.

I fully expect him to have a solid Ashes series. He probably won't take 25 @ 20 or anything, but he'll be as reliable as ever.

2009 is a long way off, so we'll have to wait and see. I think he'll retire from ODIs after the World Cup, which may prolong his test career somewhat.

 

[wpdavid]

McGrath hasn't looked anywhere near as bad as people are making out. In fact, I think he looks a lot better now than he did in the second half of the last home summer. In the later tests and early ODIs last year he looked way down on his best and was totally unthreatening.

The fact is that the "hammering" he copped the other day that everyone is going on about was 4 overs that went for about 7 each and included a dropped catch. Yes, England went after him and showed some intent for what might be ahead in the Ashes, but give him a few more weeks of preperation and a new, red ball and he'll be far more threatening.

I fully expect him to have a solid Ashes series. He probably won't take 25 @ 20 or anything, but he'll be as reliable as ever.

2009 is a long way off, so we'll have to wait and see. I think he'll retire from ODIs after the World Cup, which may prolong his test career somewhat.

Wise as ever. Clearly it would be foolish to write him off for this series, although I do wonder how well he'll last. But I still think the "2009" quote is something of a smokescreen to deflect attention from worries over his fitness for next month. I'd be astonished, and, in all honesty, delighted, if he's still one of your best 3 quicks in 2 and a half years time. Lord's excepted, as everyone has said.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

He could, but surely he'd need to stop every other over so he doesnt soil himself?

 

[howardj]

McGrath hasn't looked anywhere near as bad as people are making out. In fact, I think he looks a lot better now than he did in the second half of the last home summer. In the later tests and early ODIs last year he looked way down on his best and was totally unthreatening.
.

Nobody is saying he's bowling badly (in the accepted sense of that word) he's just unthreatening - just like you described him above. People are commenting on his decline. Not necessarily saying that he's now bowling badly. He's not. He's just nowhere near where he was. And, like with Gillespie, it's been a gradual decline. It's mostly unrelated to his spell on the sidelines.

Even look at the South African Test matches last summer. He averaged 40, with a stike rate of 99. It's been a gradual thing. I think the danger for McGrath is that if the batsmen ( like they did with Gillespie) sense that he's maybe permanently lost his 'nip', and start cashing in. It's at that point where his place in the side will be under review. At the moment, he still warrants a place in the Ashes line-up through his economy rate alone.

The last thing I'll say about McGrath is how badly he's been managed. People within the team (Buchanan, Warne and McGrath himself) in the last few days have all come out and said he needs lots of bowling after a long spell on the sidelines. So what do they do? They agree to take him to India to play one-day cricket and bowl first change.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nobody is saying he's bowling badly (in the accepted sense of that word) he's just unthreatening - just like you described him above. People are commenting on his decline. Not necessarily saying that he's now bowling badly. He's not. He's just nowhere near where he was. And, like with Gillespie, it's been a gradual decline. It's mostly unrelated to his spell on the sidelines.

Even look at the South African Test matches last summer. He averaged 40, with a stike rate of 99. It's been a gradual thing. I think the danger for McGrath is that if the batsmen ( like they did with Gillespie) sense that he's maybe permanently lost his 'nip', and start cashing in. It's at that point where his place in the side will be under review. At the moment, he still warrants a place in the Ashes line-up through his economy rate alone.

As I said, I think he's bowling better now than he was in the later tests last summer against South Africa. He was genuinely poor and unthreatening then and I was concerned for his future, but I think the signs are much better now. Certainly he's finding it harder these days, as all bowlers will at his age, but I don't really see the gradual decline you're talking about.

Look at him after his last major lay-off. He was excellent in India, had a great home summer against New Zealand and Pakistan, a great tour of New Zealand and was incredible in the first Ashes test. If anything he was bowling the best he's ever bowled. So surely he couldn't have been in his "decline" then. The time when he's been average and unthreatening has been exclusively since the Ashes. He had a couple of okay tests against the West Indies but nothing remarkable, and had a tough time in the SA tests and the ODIs before he left the side again. So really, it's been a sudden drop-off from consistent world class performance to being fairly mediocre either side of the Ashes.

It's very different from the Gillespie case I think. Gillespie had a handful of good series with the ball in the couple of years of his career, but generally he struggled. India in 2004 was the last time he bowled genuinely well, but he wasn't exactly consistent before that either and it was obvious he was gradually losing his potency. He had several bad series leading into the Ashes and got hammered. I don't see the parallels to McGrath, who was playing brilliantly up until the Ashes and has been mediocre since while missing a lot of cricket for a variety of reasons. He hasn't had a consistent run of cricket in which to decline, and he hasn't really proved much one way or the other since coming back. There's not been any remarkable change in his pace (everyone was clocked down in the first CT ODI, and he was at his normal level in the second one), and though his radar has been slightly off one might assume that would return with more game time.

It's possible that he won't come good for the Ashes, but I'm betting he will.

 

[aussie]

fair enough on McGrath, to be he is going to have a solid Ashes series but i don't think he will be fantastic, thats why i think throwing Johnson in now would be a great.

 

[howardj]

As I said, I think he's bowling better now than he was in the later tests last summer against South Africa. He was genuinely poor and unthreatening then and I was concerned for his future, but I think the signs are much better now.

With respect, on the evidence, I honestly don't see how (both in terms of beating the bat and creating chances) that McGrath has looked anything like penetrative or threatening in the last month. I don't see, looking at his performances and stripping away reputation, how the signs are any better now - let alone much better. I think 'much better' is a real stretch.

Certainly he's finding it harder these days, as all bowlers will at his age, but I don't really see the gradual decline you're talking about.

The gradual decline that I'm talking about is the one you've outlined. I think there's a pattern there (both before his lay-off, and now in his comeback) of lacking penetration. It's incredibly un-McGrath like to average 40 and strike at 100, in a home series against a pretty ordinary batting line-up (like he did against South Africa last summer).

I think, at 36 years of age it's not unreasonable to attribute that to him losing penetration, and that the series against South Africa, his home ODI series last year, and his bowling since his comeback is evidence of a decline in the threat that he poses to the batsman.

It's very different from the Gillespie case I think. Gillespie had a handful of good series with the ball in the couple of years of his career, but generally he struggled. India in 2004 was the last time he bowled genuinely well, but he wasn't exactly consistent before that either and it was obvious he was gradually losing his potency. He had several bad series leading into the Ashes and got hammered. I don't see the parallels to McGrath, who was playing brilliantly up until the Ashes and has been mediocre since while missing a lot of cricket for a variety of reasons. He hasn't had a consistent run of cricket in which to decline, and he hasn't really proved much one way or the other since coming back.

My linking with Gillespie was to make the point that both of their declines have been gradual - to be gradual, McGrath's decline doesn't have to mirror that of Gillespie. There are different degrees gradualness. I do think an uncharacteristically unpenetrative series against South Africa, an ordinary home one-day series, and a mirror continuation of that same unpenetrativeness since his comback, does constitute a gradual decline. It's not sudden. It's not out of the blue. It's the continuation of a trend of unthreatening bowling.

 

[aussie]

With respect, on the evidence, I honestly don't see how (both in terms of beating the bat and creating chances) that McGrath has looked anything like penetrative or threatening in the last month. I don't see, looking at his performances and stripping away reputation, how the signs are any better now - let alone much better. I think 'much better' is a real stretch.

In Malaysia he looked very good, he didn't get much wickets yea, but he beat the bat a lot in his new ball spells. He has gone to India now & has bowled first change and has sturggled a bit, i think that may be a reason why he hasn't bowled that well in India to date.

The gradual decline that I'm talking about is the one you've outlined. I think there's a pattern there (both before his lay-off, and now in his comeback) of lacking penetration. It's incredibly un-McGrath like to average 40 and strike at 100, in a home series against a pretty ordinary batting line-up (like he did against South Africa last summer).

Yes it very un McGrath to average so high and lack so much penetration but i take you back to his year lay off between the Bangladesh series 2003 to the Zim ODI tour 2004 when he was looking just as bad and after a series in India he was back to his best in the Australian summer. Plus i think you are being a bit harsh on the Saffies batting line-up they were a lot better than ordinary

 

[Jono]

Pidgeon Flies To Cloudy Future

"It almost emphasises the fact he should be back here playing first-class cricket (for New South Wales) rather than playing 10-over cricket on flat wickets in India," Lawson said.

What flat wickets?

I reckon McGrath just loves competitive int'l cricket, and so wanted to go to the CT. The Australian team are very competitive, and whilst the CT is fairly irrelevant compared to the Ashes Series, a champion team like Australia don't exactly like having a whole ICC tournament be something that they've never won. It doesn't sit well I imagine.

Chappelli Shoots Down Flying Pidgeon

"Shane Watson has got a long way to go with his bowling before he is in the all rounder class for Test cricket," Chappell said.

"Every time Watson claims a victim, Australian players converge and the congratulatory ceremony leads you to assume he's performed a minor miracle and dismissed Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara with the same delivery."

LOL! Chappelli is and always will be the king.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

With respect, on the evidence, I honestly don't see how (both in terms of beating the bat and creating chances) that McGrath has looked anything like penetrative or threatening in the last month. I don't see, looking at his performances and stripping away reputation, how the signs are any better now - let alone much better. I think 'much better' is a real stretch.

He bowled well in Malaysia and troubled some very good batsmen, albeit on some helpful surfaces. One wicket in three games is of course a poor return, but I'm far more interested in how many chances he created, beating the bat and so on (which you mentioned), and he certainly did plenty of that, and an economy rate of 2.7 is pretty good too.

In the CT so far he's been fairly average, but he's been bowling first change with the field up when the ball isn't doing anything, which is hardly a place McGrath would usually thrive in ODIs. There's a big difference between bowling first change on a docile wicket with the white ball and taking the new ball in an Ashes test at Brisbane, so I don't think it's correct to imagine that because he's not beating the bat twice an over in the current situation means he won't be doing so in three weeks.

Incidentally, if one wishes to bring figures into the equation like people did to criticise him in Malaysia, he's got three wickets @ 26 and had a catch dropped, which isn't exactly a poor return for a guy who is bowling out of position. Also worth noting that he has bowled 43 overs in international cricket since coming back into the side, which isn't exactly a huge sample to judge him on. There's nothing we can do but wait and see, but I think you're judging his comeback far too harshly and making too much out of relatively insignificant things like a single game where he was down on pace etc.

The gradual decline that I'm talking about is the one you've outlined. I think there's a pattern there (both before his lay-off, and now in his comeback) of lacking penetration. It's incredibly un-McGrath like to average 40 and strike at 100, in a home series against a pretty ordinary batting line-up (like he did against South Africa last summer).

Of course it's "un-McGrath", but it's not a gradual decline. Basically, you're talking about one bad test series. He was starting to find some touch again before he withdrew from cricket for a few months in the VB series ODIs (though he was bowling without luck), and as I said I think he's shown some promising signs since returning in Malaysia. A gradual decline would suggest an extended period of poor performances, presumably getting worse, not one poor period. Even if you think he's bowled just as unthreateningly since returning as he did against South Africa, he really hasn't played enough cricket since then to judge.

A "gradual decline" would be a valid argument if he has a poor Ashes series, and would give real concerns about his ability to come back in international series after that. For now, we're talking about a brief slump, which is certainly something that McGrath has gone through before, and people have certainly written him off as too old, too slow and so on before as well. Based on the way he's bowled since coming back into the side, I'm confident he'll be ready for the Ashes and will bowl well.

 

[howardj]

I guess time will be the judge.

I wouldn't be the first person that McGrath has served humble pie to.

I'll take my spoon and dessert plate to the Gabba on Day 1, just in case.