Will England Choke in 2006/07 Ashes And wats your best aussieXI

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, if you're unable to accept the reality that every single bowler in the world can and does take wickets without deviating the ball sideways off the pitch or in the air against quality batsmen, it's impossible to discuss this issue with you.

Simply put, the viewing of one single high quality game of cricket would dispel this myth utterly, because on all but the most severely difficult pitches, bowlers will bowl good balls that take wickets that do not move any significant distance. Sometimes the ball doesn't move off the wicket much at all, and likewise with swing, both conventional and reverse. In such conditions, good bowlers nevertheless take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you're unable to accept the reality that every single bowler in the world can and does take wickets without deviating the ball sideways off the pitch or in the air against quality batsmen, it's impossible to discuss this issue with you.

Of course it happens, plenty - but if the ball hasn't moved (or if other deliveries preceding it haven't) it's not a wicket-taking ball. It's just a poor stroke.
Of course that happens - but with good batsmen it happens irregularly enough for reliance on this sort of tactic to get your wickets to result in a VERY high strike-rate - high enough to render the bowler utterly useless.

Simply put, the viewing of one single high quality game of cricket would dispel this myth utterly, because on all but the most severely difficult pitches, bowlers will bowl good balls that take wickets that do not move any significant distance. Sometimes the ball doesn't move off the wicket much at all, and likewise with swing, both conventional and reverse. In such conditions, good bowlers nevertheless take wickets.

How does a ball get a batsman out without deviating if he's not made a serious error?
And how many bowlers profit from these serious errors without them being so few and far between as to cause the wicket-taking to take loads of overs?
Few if any (McGrath 2001-2004 one, of course)
Uneven bounce, of course ("moving up and down") comes into the issue too, don't forget. Obviously a ball that doesn't bounce as expected is a wicket-taking ball too.

 

[marc71178]

It's perfectly possible to make judgements on some players without seeing them.

Not by making extreme generalisations.

 

[Dasa]

For a spinner to get wickets, he has to turn the ball. That is simple reality. Even the like of Derek Underwood, who could quite possibly have bowled at 65-70 mph, rarely troubled batsmen when the ball wasn't turning, and as such was infinately more effective pre-covering than post-covering.

Anyone can turn the ball, a spinner (particularly a finger-spinner) will get more wickets by using drift and flight. Even with little turn in the pitch, it is possible for a finger-spinner to be reasonably successful (as Cullen has been).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Swing completely takes the nature of the pitch out of the equation.

...yet completely relies on the surface...

 

[Cloete]

This guy's an idiot..

But anyway, I can't believe you guys can absolutely trash MacGill then talk up Giles and Panesar on an SCG turner. I agree with almost everything that's been said except the criticism of MacGill. Most of the English contingent on here are pertty fair on most matters, but this MacGill thing gets me every time. You'd have to be a fool to think Giles is better than MacGill!

 

[Nate]

Don`t worry, you get used to it. Some people just refuse to accept anything.

 

[aussie]

And how many bowlers profit from these serious errors without them being so few and far between as to cause the wicket-taking to take loads of overs?
Few if any (McGrath 2001-2004 one, of course).

when will you give up on this crap..

 

[luckyeddie]

Not by making extreme generalisations.

Richard only ever talks in extreme generalisations (yes, I recognise the irony in that statement).

Fitting really, for the only person in the South Africa-hating west who thinks that Rampers was a great servant of England in the 1990's.

 

[Richard]

Not by making extreme generalisations.

Except it's not an extreme generalisation, it's basic cricketing fact.

 

[Richard]

...yet completely relies on the surface...

Sorry, how?
Swing is through the air, the pitch makes no difference to it.

 

[Richard]

Anyone can turn the ball, a spinner (particularly a finger-spinner) will get more wickets by using drift and flight. Even with little turn in the pitch, it is possible for a finger-spinner to be reasonably successful (as Cullen has been).

Cullen hasn't been reasonably successful, he's been reasonably poor.
Anyone certainly can't turn the ball - not on most surfaces. Using flight (loop and drift) is all well and good but is nought more than a compliment to the turning ball. Without turn, it won't take wickets in itself.

 

[Richard]

This guy's an idiot..

But anyway, I can't believe you guys can absolutely trash MacGill then talk up Giles and Panesar on an SCG turner. I agree with almost everything that's been said except the criticism of MacGill. Most of the English contingent on here are pertty fair on most matters, but this MacGill thing gets me every time. You'd have to be a fool to think Giles is better than MacGill!

Not really, Giles has proven himself good on a turning pitch pretty much every time. MacGill has proved pretty inadaquete on any surface, due to his lack of accuracy, since Adelaide 2000\01.
Giles is far better than MacGill on a turning surface, MacGill is obviously better on one that doesn't turn for fingerspinners.

 

[Richard]

when will you give up on this crap..

Never.

 

[Richard]

Fitting really, for the only person in the South Africa-hating west who thinks that Rampers was a great servant of England in the 1990's.

Err, sorry, when have I ever said that?
I've said that Ramprakash was far better than most realise he was in 1998-2001 - not that he was aught other than useless 1991-1996.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not really, Giles has proven himself good on a turning pitch pretty much every time. MacGill has proved pretty inadaquete on any surface, due to his lack of accuracy, since Adelaide 2000\01.
Giles is far better than MacGill on a turning surface, MacGill is obviously better on one that doesn't turn for fingerspinners.

Since 2001, MacGill has taken 7 five wicket hauls. Giles has taken 3.

Since 2001, MacGill has 107 wickets @ 30. In the four years Giles has played test cricket since 2001, his best average for a year is exactly that... 30. The other years he has averaged 42, 43 and 56.

In the one year since 2001 that MacGill has actually got to play consistent test cricket, he missed out on topping the yearly wicket taking by just two... with 57 wickets in 11 tests in 2003. Giles has averaged about that many tests per year since 2001, but his best effort is 38 wickets.

Since 2001, MacGill has averaged under 30 in 5 test series out of 11 that he has played. Giles has averaged under 30 in 2, out of 15.

And, as though you would pay any attention, over their full careers MacGill averages 12 runs less per wicket, takes 30 less deliveries to take each wicket, and for all the talk of how inaccurate he is, MacGill's economy rate is only 0.31 runs per over higher.

Only an idiot could possibly think that Giles was even close to MacGill as a test bowler. MacGill isn't an all-time great or anything, but he is a high quality test bowler.

Giles on the other hand has the third highest bowling average of any bowler with 100 test wickets. The bowlers with higher averages? Sachin Tendulkar and Grant Flower. Esteemed company indeed.

 

[luckyeddie]

Err, sorry, when have I ever said that?
I've said that Ramprakash was far better than most realise he was in 1998-2001 - not that he was aught other than useless 1991-1996.

Richard, it's just the impression that you sometimes give - I realise that it's a ridiculous idea, but no more ridiculous than many you subscibe to.

 

[benchmark00]

Not really, Giles has proven himself good on a turning pitch pretty much every time. MacGill has proved pretty inadaquete on any surface, due to his lack of accuracy, since Adelaide 2000\01.
Giles is far better than MacGill on a turning surface, MacGill is obviously better on one that doesn't turn for fingerspinners.

Are you normal!?

Have a look at MacGills stats on the only true spinning wicket in Australia, the SCG.

 

[Richard]

Since 2001, MacGill has taken 7 five wicket hauls. Giles has taken 3.

Since 2001, MacGill has 107 wickets @ 30. In the four years Giles has played test cricket since 2001, his best average for a year is exactly that... 30. The other years he has averaged 42, 43 and 56.

In the one year since 2001 that MacGill has actually got to play consistent test cricket, he missed out on topping the yearly wicket taking by just two... with 57 wickets in 11 tests in 2003. Giles has averaged about that many tests per year since 2001, but his best effort is 38 wickets.

Since 2001, MacGill has averaged under 30 in 5 test series out of 11 that he has played. Giles has averaged under 30 in 2, out of 15.

And, as though you would pay any attention, over their full careers MacGill averages 12 runs less per wicket, takes 30 less deliveries to take each wicket, and for all the talk of how inaccurate he is, MacGill's economy rate is only 0.31 runs per over higher.

Only an idiot could possibly think that Giles was even close to MacGill as a test bowler. MacGill isn't an all-time great or anything, but he is a high quality test bowler.

Giles on the other hand has the third highest bowling average of any bowler with 100 test wickets. The bowlers with higher averages? Sachin Tendulkar and Grant Flower. Esteemed company indeed.

And as I've said countless times, overall averages are relatively meaningless. I couldn't, frankly, give a damn about the fact that MacGill had a good introduction to Test-cricket - one hell of a lot of that had to do with an English side who couldn't play wristspin to save their lives and a downtrodden West Indies team. I've said it so many times - MacGill's recent record is poor. I certainly don't give a damn about 5-wicket hauls because they're none too important.
Nor do I give a damn about how effective Giles is on non-turning pitches. It's just basic fact that he's no use on them. And I've not, if you've noticed, claimed Giles is likely to do anything spectacular at The 'Gabba, Adelaide Oval, The WACA or The MCG.
But I'd be very surprised if he didn't outbowl MacGill at The SCG given a typical wicket.
Nor do I give a damn about the fact that MacGill nearly topped the wicket-taking lists in his only year of consistent Test-cricket - that had a lot to do with Bangladesh. It's no coincidence that, when Bangladesh are removed, 2003 was actually MacGill's WORST year as a Test bowler, because teams had the chance to get on top of him instead of him being whisked out of the side as soon as he was looking dodgy a la Afridi.
You will get nowhere using MacGill's early career, nor his record against the wonderful Bangladesh, against me. I've never mentioned it. Nor will you get anywhere going-on about how useless Giles is on non-turning surfaces, because I've said that countless times, too.

 

[Richard]

Are you normal!?

Have a look at MacGills stats on the only true spinning wicket in Australia, the SCG.

Then add it to his record in Sri Lanka.
Then check-out Giles' record on turning pitches - everywhere, not just 1 ground.
Incidentally - MacGill's last 7 SCG Tests have produced an average of 29.02 - and one hell of a lot of that had to do with taking 9-82 against the World XI tailenders.