View Full Version : MacGilla vs Warney
Pretty difficult issue to discuss since warney is so loved by everyone, but what do people think of macgills form compared to warne? Sure macgill bowls loose ones but he always manages to get wickets. I think its pretty hard to separate the 2 this summer.
Why bring this up again? Let the MacGill bashing begin.
Cooldude
5 Jan 2005, 11:28
MacGill would be a great leg spinner in any other era, he is still a great leg spinner of the modern era, but he was, is and always will be living under the giant shadow of Warne.
No comparsion
Boof was on an adelaide radio station last night and he was saying that warney gives you absolutely nothing to hit, but with macgill, there is 2 or 3 loose balls to hit every over.
Fairly similar economy rates this test, but MacGill is all over Warne in terms of strike rate.
Cooldude
5 Jan 2005, 11:50
Fairly similar economy rates this test, but MacGill is all over Warne in terms of strike rate.
All over any other spinner in history, in fact
When Warne & MacGill have played in the same test...
Player O M R W SR ER Ave
SCG MacGill 314.2 65 1002 43 43.8 3.2 23.3
SK Warne 373.4 70 1893 35 64.0 5.1 54.1
1397 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1997-98/RSA_IN_AUS/RSA_AUS_T3_30JAN-03FEB1998.html),1439 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/ENG_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/ENG_AUS_T5_02-06JAN1999.html),1448 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/AUS_WI_T1_05-09MAR1999.html),1451 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/AUS_WI_T2_13-17MAR1999.html),1453 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/AUS_WI_T3_26-30MAR1999.html),1582 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2001-02/RSA_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/RSA_AUS_T3_02-06JAN2002.html),1685 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T1_08-12MAR2004.html),1688 (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T2_16-20MAR2004.html),1731 (http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/NEW/LIVE/frames/PAK_AUS_T3_02-06JAN2005.html).
Does anyone even like Macgill
Does anyone even like Macgill
Does it matter?
Ipaidmy200in89
5 Jan 2005, 14:44
Gee Warne Bowls with alot of luck.....
McGill bowls with hardly any.......gee I think the selectors might have got this wrong for all these years......
Seriously McGill is a very good player on tracks that suit him......Warne is the most complete Leg Spinner in the history of the game. No need for a poll or discussion. Warne is to Leg Spin as Bradman is to batting.
It must suck knowing no matter how insanely well you bowl, you're gawn at the first opportunity.
TheSheik
5 Jan 2005, 15:04
Gee Warne Bowls with alot of luck.....
McGill bowls with hardly any.......gee I think the selectors might have got this wrong for all these years......
Seriously McGill is a very good player on tracks that suit him......Warne is the most complete Leg Spinner in the history of the game. No need for a poll or discussion. Warne is to Leg Spin as Bradman is to batting.
Warne has a lot of luck ??????? You have to be kidding !!!
McGill gets a ton of his wickets off bad balls and if that isn't bowling with luck then I don't know what is.
Funkalicous
5 Jan 2005, 16:28
Warne has a lot of luck ??????? You have to be kidding !!!
McGill gets a ton of his wickets off bad balls and if that isn't bowling with luck then I don't know what is.
It was sarcasm. He acidently left out the :rolleyes: When they bowl together it always seem to benefit MacGill. I think it's because people look to score off MacGill as he can bowl all over the place. Warne has had no luck in bowling this season I must admit. I mean when does Warnie get a wicket off a full toss? IMO MacGill can make a good second spinner but NOT as number one. MacGill got slaughtered against India last year...
you idiot sheehan
5 Jan 2005, 16:39
There are a couple of explanations for this. Isn't it interesting that none of the NSW commentators on Nine and the ABC mention them. The first is that the majoriity of those games were when Warne was coming back from injury.
Remember these games?
England, Sydney, 98/99 - Warne's first game back from the shoulder injury. MacGill takes 7 wickets in the second innings.
West Indies, First 3 tests, 98/99 - Warne was bowling rubbish after coming back from his shoulder. Was dropped for the last test.
The second reason is that the batsmen get a bit comfortable when MacGill comes on to bowl. The first day in this last test match was a perfect example. Warney was bowling tight then Macca comes on and they hit his long hops and full tosses down the outfielders' throats.
The real indication of MacGill's worth is not what he produced on the first day against Pakistan but what he did on the first two days against India in Syndey last year when Warne wasn't there. 7/700 dec.
Yes, it's an interesting fact that MacGill's record is better than Warne's when they play together, but that's about it.
I think its pretty hard to separate the 2 this summer.
1 played in 5 tests. The other played in 1.
It ain't that hard to separate them.
docker_azza
5 Jan 2005, 17:17
Warne
1 played in 5 tests. The other played in 1.
It ain't that hard to separate them.
I guess the word summer was stupid. But look at their figures when they played in the same game.
eddiesmith
5 Jan 2005, 19:31
Lets just face it, Macgill is a much better bowler and should replace Warne on the tour to NZ, send Warne back to Victoria to find some form :D
Ill be interested in the One day game at the SCG between the 2 of them on opposite sides.
johnnyhoward
5 Jan 2005, 20:14
I'd be interested to see stats on MacGill's Test record without Warne in the same XI.
And isn't there a lot of love in the Australian 11 when Warney and MacGill play in the same side... :)
MacGill looks like he is about as popular as Mr Average... (Bevan)
Lets just face it, Macgill is a much better bowler and should replace Warne on the tour to NZ, send Warne back to Victoria to find some form :D
Ill be interested in the One day game at the SCG between the 2 of them on opposite sides.
Finally starting to speak some sense Eddie!
In all seriousness, i'd think that MacGill would rather bowl with Warne up the other end because he knows that Warne will tie them down and try and go after him. Warnes his perfect foil.
Even tho MacGill was strangely more economical that Warne today.
eddiesmith
5 Jan 2005, 20:49
I want to see Warney batting against Macgill in the One dayer, that will be fun to see. Then again NSW will be lucky to get enough wickets to make Warnie bat
Pretty difficult issue to discuss since warney is so loved by everyone,
Not me.
Good cricketer. Complete Pinhead.
dan warna
5 Jan 2005, 21:06
Warne is the greatest leg spinner of the modern era and some say of all time.
Mcgilla is just a good leg spinner.
Warne
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 5558.1 1540 14309 561 25.50 8-71 28 8 59.4 2.57
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 1407.5 292 4441 152 29.21 7-50 9 2 55.5 3.15
warne is 4 runs a wicket better, has a better economy rate and bats better than mcgilla (16 vs 8) so really Warne is worth about 8 more runs per innings PLUS 4 runs per wicket, and they both get about 5 wickets a test match.
SO on average Warne is worth 20 runs an test match for bowling BETTER than McGilla, and Warne is worth 8 runs per innings MORe than McGilla.
over their careers, warne wins hands down.
Warne is the greatest leg spinner of the modern era and some say of all time.
Mcgilla is just a good leg spinner.
Warne
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 5558.1 1540 14309 561 25.50 8-71 28 8 59.4 2.57
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 1407.5 292 4441 152 29.21 7-50 9 2 55.5 3.15
warne is 4 runs a wicket better, has a better economy rate and bats better than mcgilla (16 vs 8) so really Warne is worth about 8 more runs per innings PLUS 4 runs per wicket, and they both get about 5 wickets a test match.
SO on average Warne is worth 20 runs an test match for bowling BETTER than McGilla, and Warne is worth 8 runs per innings MORe than McGilla.
over their careers, warne wins hands down.
Surely someone who takes wickets more frequently than 'the greatest legspinner of all time' has to be more than 'just a good....'?
dan warna
5 Jan 2005, 21:15
Surely someone who takes wickets more frequently than 'the greatest legspinner of all time' has to be more than 'just a good....'?
basically he takes a wicket every 56 balls, against warne who takes a wicket every 60 balls. however in that 56 balls his economy rate is much worse than Warnes
effectively he beats warne on probably the LEAST significant statistic, every other statistic I think Warne is ahead of him.
I too think warne has been a bit of pinhead off the field, but every captain he has played for, Gilchrist, ponting, Border, Taylor rate him very highly, even captains he hasn't played for rate him highly.
mervyn Hughes
(6 ball overs) Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
overall 53 2047.3 6017 212 8/87 13/217 28.38 2.93 57.9 7 1
Paul Reiffel
6 ball overs) Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
overall 35 1067.1 2804 104 6/71 8/152 26.96 2.62 61.5 5 0
damien Fleming
(6 ball overs) Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
overall 20 688.1 1942 75 5/30 9/91 25.89 2.82 55.0 3 0
Gee whiz all these players must be better than McGilla, its amazing that reiffel was dropped and hughes was dropped... far more important to AUs than McGilla...
certainly better than bing lee
effectively he beats warne on probably the LEAST significant statistic
I don't agree with this. Taking wickets = winning matches.
dan warna
5 Jan 2005, 21:39
561 test wickets at an average of 25.5 not good enough?
I dont know about all you folks.. but.. is it just me or has Shane Warne now become just a top spinner..? I'm serious.. I am a Victorian and I have loved what he has done over the years.. but I really miss the Warne of 93/94 who could actually bowled 'leg spin.' His shoulders maggoted, with his fingers and thumb now so inept of pulling a big leg break that all the wickets he now gets are LBW's, fooling the batsmen into thinking the ball is actually going to spin from leg to off!! Its not happening anymore people..
Stuart MacGill is a breath of fresh air.. He's so rough around the edges unlike all the boring cricketers we have today.. and whats more Stuie MacGill rips the ball like no others leg spinner in the world at this point in time.. His ball today bowling Youhana I think around his legs and also his top spinner come wrong un to deceive Kaneria..!! wow!! That kind of leg spinning magic was what Warney used to be able to do.. From my perspective its Shane Warne who technically and statistically should be in MacGilla's shadow.. saying 'I"ve never felt the ball feel so good out of my hand" and MacGilla hasn't been the adulterer we've come to know of S.K Warne.
So in summation, they're both exciting, brilliant players, but Warney's flame is slowly being defused.. Unleash the fury MacGilla!!!!
dan warna
5 Jan 2005, 21:59
shane warne since his return from suspension
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
Aus 3 168 521 26 5/43 10/155 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2
Sri Lanka in Australia, 2004 [Series]
Aus 2 100.5 280 10 4/70 7/199 28.00 2.77 60.5 0 0
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 2004/05 [Series]
Aus 3 140 421 14 6/125 6/125 30.07 3.00 60.0 1 0
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in Australia, 2004/05 [Series]
Aus 2 95.2 256 11 4/15 8/112 23.27 2.68 52.0 0 0
Pakistan in Australia, 2004/05 [Series]
Aus 3 124.3 402 14 4/111 6/169 28.71 3.22 53.3 0 0
Thats what 75 wickets in 13 test matches thats 5.76 wickets per test match, at an average of 25 with an economy rate of under 3...
Tired old Warne looks pretty good still on the report card.
Cooldude
5 Jan 2005, 22:47
I dont know about all you folks.. but.. is it just me or has Shane Warne now become just a top spinner..? I'm serious.. I am a Victorian and I have loved what he has done over the years.. but I really miss the Warne of 93/94 who could actually bowled 'leg spin.' His shoulders maggoted, with his fingers and thumb now so inept of pulling a big leg break that all the wickets he now gets are LBW's, fooling the batsmen into thinking the ball is actually going to spin from leg to off!! Its not happening anymore people..
Then I don't know if you're watching the same Warne as I've been. He's still ripping them a long long way, albeit not as consistently as 10 years ago.
Warne's method have never been simpler: Nowadays, he just bowl leg breaks, then the slider to try to go for the stumps. Unlike back then in his prime, nowadays, he understands that he doesn't need to rip every leg break. Back then, he rips 6 unplayable leggies that turn square, nowadays, it's more subtle change of the degree of spin and the amount to try to outfox batsman.
More precision and deep thinking has been injected to his bowling since his injuries, part of the reason is because of the injuries, but without those big, in-curving leg breaks, he's added a brain to compensate for it.
His bowling has never been more beautiful and more lovely to watch, trying to second guess his plan and the way he's trapping a batsman. Yes, he might not be able to fool batsmen with dazzling flippers or bowl them around their legs for fun anymore, but instead of being the exciting entertainer that he was, he is now like a master chess player throwing out bluffs and baits to draw a false move from his opponent, then pounce on it.
His record of recent times suggests that his powers have not waned at all but in fact is on the rise, Warne still has much more left in him yet, in his peak, too.
Let's face it. MacGill will always be in Warne's shadow. Warne is the greatest ever, and most Australians will always dismiss MacGill's record as good rather than great.
In this thread, I've heard that Warnes average is far superior to MacGill, however they dismiss MacGill's far superior strike rate as 'not important'. I always thought that to win test matches you needed to take 20 wickets.
I've heard about MacGill's ordinary record in India, bowling by himself. No mention of Warne's equally unimpressive record in the same country.
I've heard about MacGill's 'poor' temperament, and that he's hated by every teammate he's ever played with. Funnily enough, every radio and tv interview I've heard him do, he comes across as a great bloke. Not to mention his MOTM speech yesterday.
Two things are certain. 1. At MacGills current rate of wickets per test, if he was to play the same number of tests as Warne, he would have smashed his world record. And 2. If MacGill had been proven guilty of taking a banned substance and known steroid masking agent, he would have been thrown out of the country in disgrace.
Bottom line is we are lucky to have witnessed these two play in the same test arena. Warne is the greatest leg spinner to ever play the game, and statistically MacGill is not far behind. Comparison's will only continue to divide the two.
eddiesmith
6 Jan 2005, 11:33
Warne I believe looked like he was back in his best form at the start of the year, and he showed it in Sri Lanka. BUT in India, Gilly kept using him as a stock bowler to bowl overs whilst the quickies rested. He didnt see Warne as a wicket taker but a stock bowler, and all the experts agreed.
If Ponting lets Warne be the head of the attack instead of 4th or 5th bowler, then he will show the great talent we all know he has. Just isnt given the same opportunities anymore
you idiot sheehan
6 Jan 2005, 20:54
A few stats to add to what I said yesterday. I was saying the MacGill V Warney stats were flattering to MacGill because Warney has always been coming back from injury etc. Well, in The Australian today they published all of the stats when the play together, and in Sri Lanka last year when Warne as super fit his record vs MacGill was 20 wickets to MacGill's 5 at a better average. I think those figures are a more realistic indication of their respective worths.
johnnyhoward
6 Jan 2005, 21:19
I haven't noticed it myself, but to those saying the Warne magic is fading, you have to say he's not bad for a 35 year old ;)
MacGill has a better strike rate, but that's because he goes for more runs in fewer balls before he takes a wicket. He bowls plenty of loose balls, which is why he gets smashed, but that's how he gets his wickets.
Warne and MacGill are both great players, I like em both. MacGill gives you a bit of laugh though with his towel hanging out of his pants. ;)
you idiot sheehan
6 Jan 2005, 21:28
I haven't noticed it myself, but to those saying the Warne magic is fading, you have to say he's not bad for a 35 year old ;
I've noticed the knockers mainly come out of NSW.
i hope that sheehan in your name isnt a reference to Mike, otherwise it's an indictment upon yourself and your credible persona.
tomaraya
6 Jan 2005, 22:05
one thing that must be taken into consideration is that macgill has been chosen to play for australia, for the most part, on wickets that suit his bowling. warne on the other hand plays game in, game out regardless of the pitch or the opposition.
would macgill have had the same,better or worse record had he been australia's #1 leg spinner for the last 10 years?
vastly inferior would be my guess.
you idiot sheehan
6 Jan 2005, 22:35
i hope that sheehan in your name isnt a reference to Mike, otherwise it's an indictment upon yourself and your credible persona.
You're the first person to ask me that but I'll answer it. When a frustrated Collingwood supported picks up the Hearld Sun and reads another unfair Collingwood bashing article what do you think he would mumble under his breath? He's a great journo, when he doesn't bash Collingwood!
nicho_magic
6 Jan 2005, 22:56
i hope this guy is just trying to stir cause he has done a good job, your a nob head, macgill is ******** and is in a complete different league to warne, warne has a little thing called control, and he sets batsmen up, macgill just chucks it down and hopes he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as warne u nob head.
warne 500+ test wickets
Macgill - sh1t all
You're the first person to ask me that but I'll answer it. When a frustrated Collingwood supported picks up the Hearld Sun and reads another unfair Collingwood bashing article what do you think he would mumble under his breath? He's a great journo, when he doesn't bash Collingwood!
psst, it's Sheahan.
;)
Bombers_Forever
7 Jan 2005, 08:02
Warne, hands down
To paraphrase a quote: There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Warne is by far the superior the bowler. Macgill may not be a hack but he is NOT in the same class, regardless of statistics. Warne's 2004 was exceptional and shows that he is still a force.
you idiot sheehan
7 Jan 2005, 09:56
psst, it's Sheahan.
;)
Yeah, I know. I realised that as soon as I created the name. How do you change your name? If you can tell me, I'd obviously do it.
i hope this guy is just trying to stir cause he has done a good job, your a nob head, macgill is ******** and is in a complete different league to warne, warne has a little thing called control, and he sets batsmen up, macgill just chucks it down and hopes he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as warne u nob head.
warne 500+ test wickets
Macgill - sh1t all
Macgill has 150+ wickets, which is not bad for a guy with limited opportunities. He also has a good strike rate, better than warne. Also, other stats show that macgill bowls better than warne when they bowl together. Im not tryign to stir anything. A lot of people rate macgill, just not as much as warne.
U know less than u think, or do u hate him cos hes not from vic? Theres been some proper responses and i suggest u read and learn.
Bentleigh
7 Jan 2005, 13:16
Does anyone even like Macgill
As$hole in real life.
Warne = Best Spinner in the history of the game.
MacGill = good/very good leggie.
crowsarethebest
7 Jan 2005, 13:48
you can't compare stats.. Warne bought leg spin back into the game and has taken 550+ wickets while macgill has taken only 150+ wickets.Yes warne has a better average and economy but macgill gets wickets a bit faster than warne. Warne has played WAY WAY WAY more matches than warne. Stats can change by a mile. Macgill spins the ball more than warne. Warne uses the crease more and has more variety. Its harder to play warne because you never know what he is going to bowl at you.. a normal leggie or a slider etc..and he keeps it very tight. Macgill turns the ball alot so its hard to play defensive against himm so they attack macgill and thats why macgill has a better strike rate than warne. Warne tests the batsmans consentration... sort of playing mind games. Macgill doesnt mind tossing it up and trying to get them playing a false shot. They are different kind of leg spinners.. No one is the same as each other. We can not compare them.
Ipaidmy200in89
7 Jan 2005, 14:29
you can't compare stats.. Warne bought leg spin back into the game and has taken 550+ wickets while macgill has taken only 150+ wickets.Yes warne has a better average and economy but macgill gets wickets a bit faster than warne. Warne has played WAY WAY WAY more matches than warne. Stats can change by a mile. Macgill spins the ball more than warne. Warne uses the crease more and has more variety. Its harder to play warne because you never know what he is going to bowl at you.. a normal leggie or a slider etc..and he keeps it very tight. Macgill turns the ball alot so its hard to play defensive against himm so they attack macgill and thats why macgill has a better strike rate than warne. Warne tests the batsmans consentration... sort of playing mind games. Macgill doesnt mind tossing it up and trying to get them playing a false shot. They are different kind of leg spinners.. No one is the same as each other. We can not compare them.
LOL. Your last sentence is we can not compare them, but all the text prior to that is just that....a comparsion!
Black Thunder
7 Jan 2005, 23:25
MacGill would've been regarded as one of the great leg spinner's if he was born in any other era. He's got a FC and test record that matches just about any to have played the game.
But he doesn't have the consistency that Warne has - which is what seperates him from the rest. No leg spinner has been able to get close to Warne in terms of ability to hit the same spot time and time again.
I would argue, however, that MacGill's best ball is better than Warne's best ball (although the Gatting ball could probably put paid to that theory.....).
If i was batting and trying to save a test match and had 10 overs to bat out, i'd probably rather have Warne bowl to me then MacGill. Warne tends to look for wickets based on a 10-15 over plan of frustrating the batsmen so you'd back yourself a chance to see him out for 5 overs, whereas MacGill just bowls and randomly comes out with balls that are just unplayable.
But Warne is the better bowler. Ultimately, the key thing to leg spin bowling is consistency and he is just the king of it.
I always wonder though how things could've been if MacGill was a couple of years older than Warne, rather than one year younger. MacGill probably would've then got first crack at test cricket, and would've netted decent returns. And generally, if you find a leg spinner who can average under 30 you'd be considered insane to drop him for another leg spinner.......
Meanwhile, Warney's Sheffield Shield returns back when he began (and still are now) are quite modest. For some reason, he's just never dominated the way you'd think he would. So you could only assume that this wouldn't have changed and the performances he has put out in the SS aren't exactly what you'd call worthy of displacing someone who averages 28 in test cricket.
MacGilla must sit down every night and think 'what could've been' for him.
But in the end, i think the better person got the right end of the deal. SKW comes across a just a yobby, good natured great guy. MacGill is very intense and not the most likeable character - proved by the fact he's spent time at five different grade clubs in Sydney.
eddiesmith
8 Jan 2005, 03:27
As some people said, Warne bowls everywheren against everyone. MacGill mainly plays at spinner friendly grounds.
Macgill is also an arrogant little ********. Says he will outlast Warne and get a few years of playing as the no1 spinner. Which is funny considering he is only about 18 months younger than Warne and surely in 3-4 years the selectors will be looking for a younger, long term replacement than a 1-2 year prospect. I dont think MacGill realises how much longer Warne wants to play
MacGill is fairly overrated in the fact he plays at spinner friendly grounds mostly and is always talked about as how great he would be if Warne wasnt around. He would have been a good player, but to say he would have been as good or even better is stupid. He is to damn expensive for one. Also Warne has never had the luxury of having himself keeping the pressure on at the other end
If you needed to last the last 10 or so overs, and MacGill was bowling, anything under 100 you would suddenly back yourself to win instead of trying to save the match
gibbering gerbil
8 Jan 2005, 05:35
Pretty difficult issue to discuss since warney is so loved by everyone, but what do people think of macgills form compared to warne? Sure macgill bowls loose ones but he always manages to get wickets. I think its pretty hard to separate the 2 this summer.
dont know how you could say warnie is loved by everyone, i dont, never have and i hate his guts, cant stand the sight of him, he's the main reason i barrack against oz.
cant wait for his retirement, he's an abomination before god and has done more to tarnish the good name of cricket than anyone else.
eddiesmith
8 Jan 2005, 05:42
Dont know how anyone could like Macgill, his interview in the Australian is a joke and shows why alot of people hate him
According to him, there is no good spinners coming up and he would easily be the 2nd best spinner by the time Warne retires and no one will challenge him. The spot it his till he retires
Yeah, MacGill doesnt have the best attitude, i agree. So its a happy/annoyed emotion battle when he gets wickets for most ppl.
New article on cricinfo about MacGill saying he can outlast warne and will be 'the spinner' when warne retires. Hes also bagged out the young spinners too.
Let me preface this by saying I think Warne is the better bowler overall, but I think the rubbish MacGill cops is unwarranted. There are a lot of holes in people's arguments (and no doubt I'll cop the same accusation in rebuttals).
As some people said, Warne bowls everywheren against everyone. MacGill mainly plays at spinner friendly grounds.
An article on Cricinfo (regarding stats) claimed this. It used MacGill's record at the SCG, where he's taken 40 wickets in 7 Tests, as the sole back up for the claim. Didn't mention that his record at other grounds is 26 Tests for 120 wickets, still almost 5 per Test. Of course no mention was made of Warne's record on spinners' decks.
Macgill is also an arrogant little ********. Says he will outlast Warne and get a few years of playing as the no1 spinner. Which is funny considering he is only about 18 months younger than Warne and surely in 3-4 years the selectors will be looking for a younger, long term replacement than a 1-2 year prospect. I dont think MacGill realises how much longer Warne wants to play
I wouldn't be too sure about the selectors looking for a younger spinner. What if there's not much on offer? Australia's spin stocks aren't that flash at the moment, hence Warne and MacGill being well into their 30s and still CLEARLY the number 1 and 2 spinners in the country. They could realistically play into their 40s. Players like White, Casson, Tubb, Hauritz, Doherty, Cullen, Krezja etc might represent Australia eventually, but they have a LONG way to go before being in the same class as MacGill, the incumbent #2 who may have 7-8 years of bowling left. He was a relatively late starter to F/C cricket too.
MacGill is fairly overrated in the fact he plays at spinner friendly grounds mostly and is always talked about as how great he would be if Warne wasnt around. He would have been a good player, but to say he would have been as good or even better is stupid. He is to damn expensive for one. Also Warne has never had the luxury of having himself keeping the pressure on at the other end
You don't think Warne benefits from having McGrath or Gillespie at the other end in just about every Test match?
You may discount the statistic that MacGill has outperformed Warne in seven of the nine Tests they've played together - I'm sure you will - but that's the only time that they've bowled to the same teams, on the same pitches, and have had the same potential results up for grabs.
McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, MacGill - 4 strike bowlers to take 20 wickets.
Take MacGill out and replace with the third string paceman, and it's 3 strike bowlers to take 20 wickets, with Warne bowling longer spells to rest the quicks. Pitch condition aside, it'd increase his chances of getting more wickets, wouldn't you think?
Dont know how anyone could like Macgill, his interview in the Australian is a joke and shows why alot of people hate him
According to him, there is no good spinners coming up and he would easily be the 2nd best spinner by the time Warne retires and no one will challenge him. The spot it his till he retires
Regardless of bravado, I reckon if he outlasts Warne, he's probably right.
If you needed to last the last 10 or so overs, and MacGill was bowling, anything under 100 you would suddenly back yourself to win instead of trying to save the match
And get yourself out in the process.
MacGill would've been regarded as one of the great leg spinner's if he was born in any other era. He's got a FC and test record that matches just about any to have played the game.
But he doesn't have the consistency that Warne has - which is what seperates him from the rest. No leg spinner has been able to get close to Warne in terms of ability to hit the same spot time and time again.
I would argue, however, that MacGill's best ball is better than Warne's best ball (although the Gatting ball could probably put paid to that theory.....).
Like you say, Warne bowls to a bit more of a plan, out-thinking batsmen over the course of a few overs. Doesn't try to take a wicket with every ball.
MacGill attacks from the outset. Bowls the odd shocker, but shockers can be mis-hit. The element of surprise comes into it when MacGill is bowling, really mixes it up. DOES try to take a wicket with every ball, and while this sometimes cops criticism and sometimes gets scored against, 160 wickets in 33 Tests suggests he's good enough to make it work most of the time.
carlos' roos
8 Jan 2005, 08:39
Both can bowl. Warnie for me solely because of the calibre of sides and batsmen he has bowled against. Think back to the Cronje led proteas. India with tendulkar, azzhuraddin in their primes. England with gooch, gatting. When Australia did struggle in some tests when Taylor was captain, warnie won so many matches for the aussies in the last innings.
Now i'm not saying macgill couldn't do this but i just think because warne has the stats behind him its a one sided argument. Sure macgill has a great record but with the overs(huge workload over the years) warne bowled, in both forms of the game would macgills shoulders, fingers, fitness etc.... have stood the test of time? They may well have but like i said warne has been there done it.
Considering Mcgrath can bat higher than macgill and my little brother can field better than him i'll stick with warnie.