View Full Version : Alarm Bells Ringing for Lee...
And for South Africa too. McGill has taken 5 of the first 6 South African wickets in the tour match. No chance of McGrath or Warne being dropped, Gillespie unlikely to go either. And yet you'd think McGill would have to be picked on that effort.
Dippenaar is making runs too. At least that's a bit of encouragement for Sth Africa.
Maybe if those alarm bells and some flashing lights were glued to the stumps, he'd aim for th e f***ing things.
kretchy
21 Dec 2001, 06:42
I reckon Lee will play in the Boxing Day test but i believe MacGill will come into the team for Brett Lee for the Sydney test.
Dippers Donuts
21 Dec 2001, 10:32
He hasn't been the same since his elbow operation really.
So much for breaking the 100mph barrier, these days he seems to average late 130kph, with the occassional ball in the high 140's.
It seems Magilla and Warney will bowl in tandem in Sydney, IMO not a great idea. Leggies bowling in tandem doesn't seem to work, they are both too attacking and similar bowlers to work well together.
Besides warney doesn't like MacGill (understandable really, magilla is a bit of a pork chop).
Have the Aussie selectors dropped MacGill from the Boxing Day Test squad too early?
I can't see Bichel pushing Brett Lee out of the XI, given that Bichel hasn't bowled much while being carted around the country as a drinks waiter.
Had MacGill remained in the 12, would his 9/221* match figures vs South Africa have given him a possible Test berth ahead of Lee? Over the last few years, Shane Warne has taken bags of wickets at the MCG so it's fair to say the conditions are receptive to leg spin.
*out of a possible 15 wickets, as South Africa declared at 5-269 in their second innings
Lee's pace will always give him an edge over Bichel. The selectors always love to have a bowler of genuine pace.
From my cricketing experience, no one really enjoys facing full-on pace. Even batters who are more comfortable against pace than spin couldn't possibly enjoy a 155km'h rocket coming down at their throat.
I used to try to intimidate batters all the time when I played outdoor, and even though I was often wayward, once I got into a rhythm, it was easy to pick up wickets. I do the same in indoor (I've played for 17 years), but the softer ball means the tactic isn't as effective.
I'd keep Lee ahead of Bichel, but I'd replace Lee with MacGill for the Sydney test. Lee, in my opinion is a bit overrated. He doens't have the control of McGrath, but he is nonetheless a dangerous bowler who is only one over away from regaining his best form. His pure pace will always be an assett.
pace aint important if your inaccurate.
Originally posted by Bucks
pace aint important if your inaccurate.
I agree and disagree.
Jeff Thomson was regarded as the fastest bolwer in history. He lacked control, but this also made him unpredictable. At the same time it's more iportant to have control, but blistering pace is still very important if you can cosistently beat the batsman with it.
but it could be useful
if you wanna use his pace for fast boundaries.
lee has no control.
he only getsout tail end batsmen.
I notice in this morning's paper that Lee's tactics to the tail enders were fully endorsed by Steve Waugh, and that Lee was only acting under orders. Why would Waugh encourage Lee to act like an idiot?
And why wasn't Stuart Clark bowling for NSW? He's probably the next best thing as far as a fast bowler goes (Bracken's falling fast; Nicholson and Brad Williams are the next best contenders). Surely Clark could have given the selectors food for thought. Leaving him out of that match was crazy.
Bichel, McGill, Kasprowicz. These guys are all on the wrong side of 30. Picking your best team purely on results is one thing, but we have a number of players that, whether we like it or not, are going to be the mainstays of Aus cricket in three or four years. They need experience.
Originally posted by RogerC
We have a number of players that, whether we like it or not, are going to be the mainstays of Aus cricket in three or four years. They need experience.
Does that mean we deliberatey pick a weaker team, just for the sake of the future? Nothing is guaranteed in the future. Nothing. I say pick the best team for the present, regardless of age. players have to earn their spot. We can't just give them a spot, at the expense of a more deserving player, just because of age.
The most important match is the next match.
If a young player is good enough, they will earn thet way into the team on merit. If they are not good enough, then Australian cricket will have problems in the future regardless. If we pick a player who doesn't deserve it, just to give them experience, that will not magically make them a more talented player.
if there is a dearth of young talent, then picking one of those less-deserving youngsters will not solve the problem will it?
blurton
23 Dec 2001, 16:15
Age is less important for a spinner (MaGill). I think he's got years left.
The Hippie
23 Dec 2001, 21:53
Originally posted by Darky
Have the Aussie selectors dropped MacGill from the Boxing Day Test squad too early?
I can't see Bichel pushing Brett Lee out of the XI, given that Bichel hasn't bowled much while being carted around the country as a drinks waiter.
Had MacGill remained in the 12, would his 9/221* match figures vs South Africa have given him a possible Test berth ahead of Lee? Over the last few years, Shane Warne has taken bags of wickets at the MCG so it's fair to say the conditions are receptive to leg spin.
*out of a possible 15 wickets, as South Africa declared at 5-269 in their second innings
Just watching parts of WA's run chase today, there seemed to be plenty of bounce early for the quicks, so leaving McGill out was the best option. Not that that's any guarentee the Test pitch will be the same.