On Bailey - he's just so slow through the air. Oh my goodness. Every batsmen seems to have about eight-hundred-years to think about how they'll hit each particular ball for six. He doesn't seem to adjust his speed for different surfaces. Good thing about him and Dan though is that they're both very young.Bailey is bowling really badly atm and as far as i am concerned he doesn't even deserves to be in this side or for that matter he doesn't even deserve to play first-class cricket!
Terry Jenner is one man who should be kept away from the young Aussie spinners because he seems to be ruining their careers , first Cameron white and now Bailey.
Exactly. They both have time on their side, and can go a long way to improving their game. Remember, they are playing against quality opposition week in, week out...It'll only be good for their game in the long run.On Bailey - he's just so slow through the air. Oh my goodness. Every batsmen seems to have about eight-hundred-years to think about how they'll hit each particular ball for six. He doesn't seem to adjust his speed for different surfaces. Good thing about him and Dan though is that they're both very young.
On Terry Jenner - yeah, the guy's a loser. How much he helped Warne I don't know, but it's given him the rep to ruin every promising turner-of-a-ball in Australia.
Legend T_C. Very interesting about Sanath, much appreciated.I was at the ground and a few things came to mind;
- Sanath, whilst he batted well, was barely tested. He was cruising in this knock which shows you just how good he still is but also how poor this bowling attack bowled to him. All of his sixes were in roughly the same spot and they generally fed his legside shots. Decent hit out for him but not an indicator of form I reckon.
- Cullen Bailey was spanked by Jayasuriya and the over where he went the journey three times in a row was telling; all in the same spot. Yet he was persevered with. I mean, I understand giving young spinners a go and accepting they might go for a few but geez, when three successive deliveries are lifted into the stands having bowled poorly to that point anyway, it's time for a rest, son.
- Why on Earth was Heal bowled only after 41 overs had gone??? He was the pick today. if the others had bowled well, it may have been understandable but in light of events, he should have bowled earlier.
- Doug Bowled better than his figures suggested. As did Mick Lewis. Mick especially was tough to get away early. Still, that was only due to his accuracy; he was largely unthreatening and don't think he beat the bat. There was one catch dropped off his bowling off Attapatu at gully but that would have been an amazing catch had it been dragged in.
I mean can you remove the runs and wickets against WA? If you can't remove those scored against Bangladesh, you shouldn't be able to remove those against WA either. Or SA for that matter. Or Qld.What do you mean?
Of course they both did. Warne and McGrath are both way, way better than MacGill and if he bowls better than them, clearly they've been quite a bit below their best.Haha, what a copout, guess McGrath bowled poorly as well when MacGill outperformed him?
What's torture is your 43, 814 posts.I hate the way Corey keeps popping-up for 1 post. It's borderline torture.
Sorry, forgot to mention that post was in jest.Poor showing from a Mod, frankly.
Hahaha, yeah, bowled so horrible he took 10-fer (twice), which of course isn't bowling genuinely well either...despite the fact that you've also out-bowled 2 of the top 3 wickets takers of all time.Of course they both did. Warne and McGrath are both way, way better than MacGill and if he bowls better than them, clearly they've been quite a bit below their best.
It is possible for a lesser player's peak to be higher than a better players best.Of course they both did. Warne and McGrath are both way, way better than MacGill and if he bowls better than them, clearly they've been quite a bit below their best.
Well, you said that MacGill was better than Johnson and Tait, but that any "decent" seamer would be better than MacGill. It's not exactly a huge stretch to see the implication that Johnson and Tait aren't "decent", which is ridiculous, so I offered appropriate ridicule. If you don't like it try not to say stupid things.Are you unhappy if a day in your life goes by without laying some form of attack on some form of perceived (and pretty well invariably totally incorrectly so) stereotype on my part? There's at least three in that two-line post.
Johnson and Tait to date have had careers of no notable length at either Test or ODI level. I've barely even commented on their prowess at the domestic level. Where did you concoct that one then? Same stupid sort of chain you concocted the notion that I rate Craig White > McGrath?
And that's exactly the sort of stupid non-chain of events you used to incorrectly identify (and repeatedly pedal, despite my pointing-out its incorrectness) the "fact" that I rate Craig White > Glenn McGrath.Well, you said that MacGill was better than Johnson and Tait, but that any "decent" seamer would be better than MacGill. It's not exactly a huge stretch to see the implication that Johnson and Tait aren't "decent", which is ridiculous, so I offered appropriate ridicule. If you don't like it try not to say stupid things.
Where did I say MacGill had never, ever bowled well in a Test? I could out-bowl McGrath and Warne if I had enough chances, so could you or anyone else who knew how to bowl.Hahaha, yeah, bowled so horrible he took 10-fer (twice), which of course isn't bowling genuinely well either...despite the fact that you've also out-bowled 2 of the top 3 wickets takers of all time.
Face it, MacGill is a quality bowler, no, he's not Warne or Murali, but he's still ****ing good.