View Full Version : The unfortunate case of Stuart MacGill
courtjester
19 Mar 2009, 08:49
I know the guy got to play a few tests, but remember how he could hardly crack the team with Warne incumbent. Poor bloke! Such bad timing.
We'd kill to have him in his prime now, going into the Ashes!
MacGill: 44 tests, 208 wickets, average of 29, SR of 54.
Warne: 145 tests, 708 wickets, average of 25.5, SR of 57.
Some blokes are just born at the wrong time!
Add to that when he finally gets his chance, he breaks down with injuries that end his career.
Did come off as a bit of a wanker but still unlucky.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
19 Mar 2009, 12:23
"Unfortuante case"
He took over 200 wickets for Australia, he had a superb career for Australia.
44 test matchs.
It is a great set of numbers that MacGill would be rightly proud of.
courtjester
19 Mar 2009, 12:58
"Unfortuante case"
He took over 200 wickets for Australia, he had a superb career for Australia.
44 test matchs.
It is a great set of numbers that MacGill would be rightly proud of.
I loved the guy. In no way am I dismissing his achievements, just saying that without Warne around, or in a different era (like now) he would have played 100+ tests and probably taken 500-600 wickets.
In fact had he played the same amount of tests as Warne he probably would hold the all time record for most test dismissals.
Got to feel for a guy who is the second best leg spinner Australia has had since the Bradman era and he misses out playing so much cricket for Australia because the two best spinners career's coincided.
Anyway, that's the sort of stuff I ponder when it's quiet at work!
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
19 Mar 2009, 14:28
Why feel sorry for him?
Not too many guys take over 200 wickets playing for their country?
MacGill may have gone on to take over 500 wickets if he was playing in a different era but in saying that, one could make a case that Warne bought the wrist spinner back into the domain of test cricket. As such, if MacGill was playing in a different era would he have been as successful?
Too many ifs, buts and maybes.
There is no need to feel sorry for MacGill, he took over 200 wickets FFS and had a successful career.
coke_zero
19 Mar 2009, 15:24
LtD we dont feel sorry for but he had all the talent in the world and wasted alot of his career
Yeah, very unlucky. Would have dominated and held a regular spot at any other period of time, you would think.
aaronm46
19 Mar 2009, 15:58
Very unlucky, but his stats are a little inflated when you consider Warne tied down one end and Macgilla got a lot of wickets off loose balls
Ill Chicken
19 Mar 2009, 16:31
Warne took 8 less wickets than him at better than his career strike-rate, bowled on average 8 overs more per match and averaged 4.6 wickets per test down from his 4.8. The difference is minimal to say the least.
DeadlyAkkuret
19 Mar 2009, 16:42
Very unlucky, but his stats are a little inflated when you consider Warne tied down one end and Macgilla got a lot of wickets off loose balls
Just like McGrath tying down one end for Warne?
The 747
19 Mar 2009, 16:52
Just like McGrath tying down one end for Warne?
Well no, MacGill bowled a lot more loose stuff than either McGrath or Warne.
But you could reverse it and say Warne tying down one end for McGrath too.
On MacGill, yes he was unlucky but still had a pretty good career as far as leg spinners go. Not too many ahead of him in the record books but would have been nice had he been born about 5 years later.
Not to worry, NSW will deliver us a leggie soon eh DA? Cheers for the openers btw. :thumbsu:
DeadlyAkkuret
19 Mar 2009, 16:57
Well no, MacGill bowled a lot more loose stuff than either McGrath or Warne.
But you could reverse it and say Warne tying down one end for McGrath too.
My point exactly. You could say the same about either of our top 3-5 bowlers over the past 2 decades.
The 747
19 Mar 2009, 17:09
My point exactly. You could say the same about either of our top 3-5 bowlers over the past 2 decades.
Yup. I always thought MacGill bowled much better as the lone spinner, the tandem thing did not really work that well.
Now have you got a leggie for us somewhere in NSW? We needs one. :D
Belnakor
19 Mar 2009, 17:11
Very unlucky, but his stats are a little inflated when you consider Warne tied down one end and Macgilla got a lot of wickets off loose balls
I think it was more the fact Mcgill played alot of tests on pitches that take spin, compared to Warne who got picked regardless of the pitch.
DeadlyAkkuret
19 Mar 2009, 17:12
Yup. I always thought MacGill bowled much better as the lone spinner, the tandem thing did not really work that well.
Now have you got a leggie for us somewhere in NSW? We needs one. :D
We need a leggie form anywhere at the moment.
BigCat2
19 Mar 2009, 17:47
Very unlucky, but his stats are a little inflated when you consider Warne tied down one end and Macgilla got a lot of wickets off loose balls
Uhh...that's not quite right. MacGill played most of his games when Warne was unavailable. We didn't go in with 2 spinners that often.
courtjester
19 Mar 2009, 18:32
Why feel sorry for him?
Not too many guys take over 200 wickets playing for their country?
MacGill may have gone on to take over 500 wickets if he was playing in a different era but in saying that, one could make a case that Warne bought the wrist spinner back into the domain of test cricket. As such, if MacGill was playing in a different era would he have been as successful?
Too many ifs, buts and maybes.
There is no need to feel sorry for MacGill, he took over 200 wickets FFS and had a successful career.
FFS yourself. Why attack me when I was saying how good the guy was, and how unfortunate it was he coincided with Warne's career and not right now. FFS.
OzBomber
19 Mar 2009, 19:13
We need a leggie form anywhere at the moment.
My phone's right next to me. I'm just waiting for the call...
Ill Chicken
19 Mar 2009, 23:50
I think it was more the fact Mcgill played alot of tests on pitches that take spin, compared to Warne who got picked regardless of the pitch.
Yet they played 16 tests together and MacGill out performed Warne by 8 wickets with a strike-rate of 41 and an average of 22 and averaging 35 overs per test in comparison to Warne who averaged 29, had a strike-rate of 56 and bowled 43 overs per test.
Yup. I always thought MacGill bowled much better as the lone spinner, the tandem thing did not really work that well.
Now have you got a leggie for us somewhere in NSW? We needs one.
Of the 16 tests they played together, Australia won 13, lost 2 and drew one. They took 142 wickets out of the 260 wickets available in those winning test matches. How does that equate to did not really work that well?
He was certainly a good bowler and probably the third best wrist-spinner in the post-Bradman era (behind Warne and Benaud).
However, while he could turn it a mile and had a great googly, he didn't really have that much else. His topspinner was OK, but he had no flipper or any slider, to speak of.
He seemed to perform best when Shane Warne was in the same side, interestingly enough. Being selectively picked (with a few exceptions) may have helped him, too.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
20 Mar 2009, 02:48
MacGill's best was pre 2003. His best series was against England in 1998.
dan warna
20 Mar 2009, 12:15
Warne was special in so far as he could pin down an end when required, or bowl aggressively when required.
McGill was an international class leg spinner but Warne was once every 3 generations 'cricketer'. He was a showman, a performer, an amateur psychologist as well as a leg spinner.
people went to the cricket to watch warne, much as people went to the footy to watch ablett or lockett, you might argue dunstall was a better FF, but Lockett and ablett were the ones that pulled the crowds.
the brits went to the cricket to boo warne, same in india, pakistan, around the world.
McGill MAY have achieved more statistically had warne been around but he wasn't 1/10 of the showman warne was in a time when people were saying test cricket was dying.
same as botham, botham statistically was an OK medium fast pie tosser and an adequate lower order batsman, but 3/4 of the botham show, was just that, the botham show.
I feel sorrier for guys like Jamie Siddons etc, those batsman in that era who couldnt get a crack. Even guys like Darren Lehman and David Hookes had to wait a long time before getting another (or a) shot, when they were not in their prime.
Also, the one bowler I feel the most sorry for is Bruce Reid. That guy was one of the best bowlers imo and if he was just able to put some muscle on himself he would have had a very long career and been up there with the all-time best pace bowlers.
same as botham, botham statistically was an OK medium fast pie tosser and an adequate lower order batsman, but 3/4 of the botham show, was just that, the botham show.
Uh well, Botham's career isn't that easily explained. From the late 70's until the early 80's, he was a world-class paceman. At the height of his career (vs Australia in 1981), he averaged around 21 with the ball, having taken 200+ wickets. His batting remained fairly consistent throughout his career, but his bowling then fell away as he gained weight and lost his passion for the game. He was definitely a showman, though.
dan warna
20 Mar 2009, 13:05
Uh well, Botham's career isn't that easily explained. From the late 70's until the early 80's, he was a world-class paceman. At the height of his career (vs Australia in 1981), he averaged around 21 with the ball, having taken 200+ wickets. His batting remained fairly consistent throughout his career, but his bowling then fell away as he gained weight and lost his passion for the game. He was definitely a showman, though.
yeah i was definately undermining beefy a fair bit.
he put our bowlers to the stick more than a few times and was a very damaging bowler. justify his position with bat and ball by the standards of the day.
but outside the windians, probably the premier showman of the day in cricket.
yeah i was definately undermining beefy a fair bit.
he put our bowlers to the stick more than a few times and was a very damaging bowler. justify his position with bat and ball by the standards of the day.
but outside the windians, probably the premier showman of the day in cricket.
As you said, it's what people pay to see. NZ and other teams could do with a player like that to draw the crowds even when the team isn't that good.
dan warna
20 Mar 2009, 13:42
yes
even if McGills career was superior to warne's I can't imagine he would pull crowds to see him bowl.
Beefy was as likely to go for sub 20 as smash a 75 at a run a ball.
I can't quantify it, charisma?
McGrath could be statistically superior to Warne, but people wouldn't pay to see McGrath in the same numbers that warne pulled to the outer.
Another anomaly was richie richardson, superb batsman, outstanding leader, but completely lacked the magic of the charisma of the teams that preceded him. Clive lloyd for some reason just sweated charisma and contained violence.
I remember the windians come to aus in the 80s, crowds (and girls) loved the windians more than the Australians.
Their hold on the imagination of the cricketing world was self evident.
the beat the windians in anything was treasured.
I think as competent as the AUstralians are now, they seem less magnetic without Warne.
It is still possible, though, that you can attract crowds without exuding charisma and exhibiting showmanship. Look at Sachin Tendulkar, for instance. Then again, Indian cricket fans are amongst the most rabid on the Earth and he still does exude a certain aura - one of indefinable genius, despite what his statistics may indicate.
dan warna
20 Mar 2009, 14:54
i haven't been to india but the press suggests they haven't been getting the audiences for test cricket that they have for 20/20 and 50 over cricket?
certainly we were getting massive crowds to the test cricket in aus, after a lean period in the 80s.
the only time the 'G was filled was when the windians came to torment us.
i haven't been to india but the press suggests they haven't been getting the audiences for test cricket that they have for 20/20 and 50 over cricket?
Perhaps, but that applies to many countries (excluding Pakistan, who are unlikely to get any audience for anything in the near future).
Belnakor
20 Mar 2009, 16:22
Yet they played 16 tests together and MacGill out performed Warne by 8 wickets with a strike-rate of 41 and an average of 22 and averaging 35 overs per test in comparison to Warne who averaged 29, had a strike-rate of 56 and bowled 43 overs per test.
Of the 16 tests they played together, Australia won 13, lost 2 and drew one. They took 142 wickets out of the 260 wickets available in those winning test matches. How does that equate to did not really work that well?
Find me an innings where Macgill took a "bag" where the pitch wasn't taking spin. Macca was a great spin bowler no doubt, but you would always pick him after factoring in the pitch. Warne would play if the pitch was a greentop.
dan warna
20 Mar 2009, 17:53
McGill was a very very good leg spin bowler.
The problem was, he played in an era when one of the greatest leg spinners of all time played.
sort of like darren lehmann, elliot, jones, siddons, devonuto, hodge, Love, etc etc.
we could have fielded 3 effective top class test quality batting line ups in the late 90s.
A bit thinner on the ground in the bowling stakes, but IMO our no.2 test side would not have been too far behind RSA, and our no.3 test side ahead of bangladesh, zimbabwe and competitive against a few other sides.
atm we have a few international class bowlers, but we lack gillespie, warne and McGrath who would be considered AMONGST the greatest bowling line ups of all time.
probably considered with the great destructive bowling squad of holding, marshall, garner, croft and co, and Bradmans teams which included the likes of Miller, lindwall, Bill O'Reilly, Grimmet and co.
Ill Chicken
20 Mar 2009, 21:23
Find me an innings where Macgill took a "bag" where the pitch wasn't taking spin. Macca was a great spin bowler no doubt, but you would always pick him after factoring in the pitch. Warne would play if the pitch was a greentop.
I can't, but you already know the reason why. MacGill could turn it square on glass.
The Reaper
20 Mar 2009, 23:15
McGill was a very very good leg spin bowler.
The problem was, he played in an era when one of the greatest leg spinners of all time played.
sort of like darren lehmann, elliot, jones, siddons, devonuto, hodge, Love, etc etc.
we could have fielded 3 effective top class test quality batting line ups in the late 90s.
A bit thinner on the ground in the bowling stakes, but IMO our no.2 test side would not have been too far behind RSA, and our no.3 test side ahead of bangladesh, zimbabwe and competitive against a few other sides.
atm we have a few international class bowlers, but we lack gillespie, warne and McGrath who would be considered AMONGST the greatest bowling line ups of all time.
probably considered with the great destructive bowling squad of holding, marshall, garner, croft and co, and Bradmans teams which included the likes of Miller, lindwall, Bill O'Reilly, Grimmet and co.
Miller and Lindwall were hardly playing in the same team as O'Reilly and Grimmett
Ill Chicken
20 Mar 2009, 23:29
A bit thinner on the ground in the bowling stakes, but IMO our no.2 test side would not have been too far behind RSA, and our no.3 test side ahead of bangladesh, zimbabwe and competitive against a few other sides.
Bangledesh would have a hard time beating the top couple of grade cricket teams from each state let alone the actual state teams themselves. They couldn't match it with Australian Institute of Sport Cricket team in Darwin last year, Zimbabwe may have faired better during their peak in the late 90's but only because of their batting depth. These days they'd probably make a good club side in the district cricket.
The Reaper
20 Mar 2009, 23:32
Bangledesh would have a hard time beating the top couple of grade cricket teams from each state let alone the actual state teams themselves. They couldn't match it with Australian Institute of Sport Cricket team in Darwin last year, Zimbabwe may have faired better during their peak in the late 90's but only because of their batting depth. These days they'd probably make a good club side in the district cricket.
Heath Streak, Blignaut and Price would have done all right as a first class bowling attack?
Chops_a_must
21 Mar 2009, 20:38
Graham McKenzie board. :P