**Official** Pakistan in Australia Thread

[Linda]

Its probably because both are played together only when conditions favour spin. One of them is bound to perform well.

Exactly. Fair enough to play MacGill when the conditions call for it, and good on him if he does better than Warne too, haha. However, how often does that happen? What Im saying is, that unless Warne carks it, or suspiciosly gets thumped over the head with a classy wine bottle in his sleep, MacGill is always going to play second fiddle.
Which might sound obvious, but with all the garbage in the news the last couple of days, I am just having a bit of a vent.

 

[Mister Wright]

AFAIK MacGill hasn't said anything about this. It will be interesting to see what happens to Shane Watson when they go back to Kasprowicz - keep Watson or bring in Katch?

Having a look at the Test averages for this series, Kyle will be pleased to know about boy-wonder (Michael Clarke) averaging less then 21 with the bat v Pakistan and Gillespie averaged more with the bat then Hayden did!

I'm not surprised Clarke didn't perform against quality pace, I am surprised he was bamboozled against Kaneria, I thought he was supposed to be a good player of spin?

Gillespie should be more worried about his performance with the ball, than the bat, I think he finished the worst of the regular bowlers, only in front of Watson.

Gillespie might have averaged more than Hayden, but Hayden had more innings, and he didn't get a duck.

 

[SJS]

Exactly. Fair enough to play MacGill when the conditions call for it, and good on him if he does better than Warne too, haha. However, how often does that happen? What Im saying is, that unless Warne carks it, or suspiciosly gets thumped over the head with a classy wine bottle in his sleep, MacGill is always going to play second fiddle.
Which might sound obvious, but with all the garbage in the news the last couple of days, I am just having a bit of a vent.

Its very interesting, this debate about Warne and McGill.

McGill does not have Warne's control nor his variation. To that extent Warne is by far the superior bowler. Having said that, there is one facet of McGill's bowling which I have always found lacking in Warne.

McGill is an attacking bowler like all orthodox leg spinners have been over time. His line and length are meant for attack. He bowls on the middle and off or outside the off stump (by and large) and pitches up enough for the batsmen to have a go at him by trying to drive him through the off side.

Shane Warne bowls a middle and leg stump or outside leg stump line (by and large) and bowls a length which forces the batsmen to play defensively off the front foot to him. This is a defensive mode of attack. That is why, when batsmen use their feet well, as the Indian's do, Warne is so much less effective.

I have always felt that Warne would have been a greater bowler if he had bowled a traditional line and invited the batsmen to drive.

It was fascinating to see how MacGill got his wickets as the batsmen went to hit him and Warne got his as the batsmen struggled to keep their wickets intact.

With Warne's control, he should not have become the defensive bowler he has. I think we have been denied a great contest between say Warne abd Tendulkar or Warne and Dravid by Warne not encouraging them to hit him through the covers of the front foot. I firmly believe that had he done so, he would have performed better against the Indians that he has done so far.

An opinion...just an opinion.

 

[Mister Wright]

Its very interesting, this debate about Warne and McGill.

McGill does not have Warne's control nor his variation. To that extent Warne is by far the superior bowler. Having said that, there is one facet of McGill's bowling which I have always found lacking in Warne.

McGill is an attacking bowler like all orthodox leg spinners have been over time. His line and length are meant for attack. He bowls on the middle and off or outside the off stump (by and large) and pitches up enough for the batsmen to have a go at him by trying to drive him through the off side.

Shane Warne bowls a middle and leg stump or outside leg stump line (by and large) and bowls a length which forces the batsmen to play defensively off the front foot to him. This is a defensive mode of attack. That is why, when batsmen use their feet well, as the Indian's do, Warne is so much less effective.

I have always felt that Warne would have been a greater bowler if he had bowled a traditional line and invited the batsmen to drive.

It was fascinating to see how MacGill got his wickets as the batsmen went to hit him and Warne got his as the batsmen struggled to keep their wickets intact.

With Warne's control, he should not have become the defensive bowler he has. I think we have been denied a great contest between say Warne abd Tendulkar or Warne and Dravid by Warne not encouraging them to hit him through the covers of the front foot. I firmly believe that had he done so, he would have performed better against the Indians that he has done so far.

An opinion...just an opinion.

Great post. Although Laxman was able to hit Warne through the covers from balls pitching a metre outside leg stump in his epic innings.

 

[SJS]

Great post. Although Laxman was able to hit Warne through the covers from balls pitching a metre outside leg stump in his epic innings.

Hitting the balls pitching outside the legstump is not that difficult because the spin brings the ball towards the batsman. A bowler whose main weapon takes the ball away from the batsman must bowl there - on or outside the off stump.

Sure. He would be hit through covers too. But great bowler that he is, he should welcome it. All the leg spinners I have played against have relished bowling to batsmen who drove them through covers. They would change the length, the loop of the flight ever so slightly to finally get the batsman to err.

It was fascinating to see some Pakistani batsmen lime the wicket keeper Akmal drive MacGill through the covers and MacGill didnt seem to mind one bit.

Indians would have driven him through covers but a great bowler, that Warne undoubtedly is, would have lured them into making mistakes.

Kaneria too is not a bad example. Martyn, Clarke and Gilchrist were all stumped off him. Its amazing how few of the top order batsmen are stumped off Warnes bowling. He just doesnt bowl there to top batsmen.

 

[Craig]

I'm not surprised Clarke didn't perform against quality pace, I am surprised he was bamboozled against Kaneria, I thought he was supposed to be a good player of spin?

Gillespie should be more worried about his performance with the ball, than the bat, I think he finished the worst of the regular bowlers, only in front of Watson.

Gillespie might have averaged more than Hayden, but Hayden had more innings, and he didn't get a duck.

Yes you are right. Gillespie took 7 wickets @ 36.5. Surprisingly as the Pakistani leading wicket taker Kaneria took 15 wickets @ 37. Mind you he bowled the most amount of overs which was 149.2.

 

[shaka]

Imran Khan says that Inzy should lose the captaincy. He says on cricinfo that he wants younis Khan to replace him as captain.

 

[Sehwag309]

Imran Khan says lotta things lotta times

 

[Scallywag]

I saw two replays - in the first the ball pitched just outside Hawkeye
s shaded area, and in the second replay, it pitched just inside.

Go figure.

hehehe I predicted that would happen.

 

[Sehwag309]

Imran might have a point

Pakistan skipper is 'depressed'

 

[Unattainableguy]

Imran Khan says that Inzy should lose the captaincy. He says on cricinfo that he wants younis Khan to replace him as captain.

Agree with Imran Khan that Inzamam shouldn't be the captain. However, I, very much, don't say this because Pakistan team lost the series against Australia. Losing is a part of the game, and you don't expect your captain, on his own, to win the game for you. But it's important to consider a captain's character. And looking at Inzaman, I would say he doesn't look like someone who can lead a side. I would prefer a captain like Graeme Smith for Pakistan.

 

[marc71178]

AFAIK MacGill hasn't said anything about this. It will be interesting to see what happens to Shane Watson when they go back to Kasprowicz - keep Watson or bring in Katch?

I'd say that's a no brainer - Katich any day of the week.

 

[marc71178]

Interestingly, of the 9 tests they have both featured in together, MacGill has outperformed Warne in 7. MacGill averages 23 to Warnes 30 in those 9 tests.

I wonder how much of that is owing to batsmen playing it safe against Warne?

 

[marc71178]

hehehe I predicted that would happen.

Predicted what would happen? Technology again being inconclusive?

 

[Smudge]

Predicted what would happen? Technology again being inconclusive?

Inconclusive? The cynic within me would suggest they altered it to suit.

 

[Mister Wright]

I'd say that's a no brainer - Katich any day of the week.

I wouldn't be so sure. The pitches in New Zealand are usually seamer friendly and Watson's first class batting record justifies his selection in the top 6 or 7. That isn't saying that I think he should be there ahead of others, but the selectors have been known to take the risky options.

 

[mavric41]

I wouldn't be so sure. The pitches in New Zealand are usually seamer friendly and Watson's first class batting record justifies his selection in the top 6 or 7. That isn't saying that I think he should be there ahead of others, but the selectors have been known to take the risky options.

I also think that the selectors might try to get more tests out of McGrath etc with Watson bowling more and the others bowling a bit less to keep them fresh.

 

[Scallywag]

Predicted what would happen? Technology again being inconclusive?

Well sort of Marc, what I said was that accepting the decision was the problem not the umpires and if we change over to technology then those that have a problem accepting decisions would still have problems acceping decisions even though it was from a machine and would find some way of claiming that there was a bias. I will try to find the post.

 

[social]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Shane Watson when they go back to Kasprowicz - keep Watson or bring in Katch?

QUOTE]

The lineup for the last test was a step in the right direction. For many years, Australia has "gotten away" with playing only 4 bowlers, being exposed on only a few occasions.

However, our attack is not getting any younger and backup in the form of a legitimate all-rounder is necessary.

Watson, if handled correctly, can be a 10 year cricketer and one of the most significant finds of the last decade. IMO, he must be given the opportunity to find his feet as a test cricketer.

On the other side of the coin, I am not convinced that Clarke has the technique to be consistently successful at Test level yet. I think you'll find him coming under increasing pressure from Katich in the coming months.

 

[social]

Im really quite sick of hearing about poor MacGill in all the papers and all over the news. Its pretty clear hes not as good as Warne, and never will be, so how does anyone expect he'll get a more permanent place in the side? He played well (not Man-of-the-Match-well, but thats a different matter), but that doesnt mean he scores an instant trip to New Zealand.
QUOTE]

Like it or not, there have been occasions when McGill has clearly deserved to be picked in front of Warne but, for one reason or another, this has only happened once.

In any event, the fact that White and Haurritz were selected ahead of him to tour India was nothing short of a disgrace.