Get off, Warne!

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Dave


And Warne's done exactly what to deserve being omitted?

He's bowling rubbish, he's struggling to spin it, he's lost his consistent line and length. It's fairly obvious that he has lost confidence in that he is not going for any flight and is just trying to push them through. He's sick of being belted, that's why he's bowling 10kph faster than he did when he was bowling well....

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Dave
And that's just such a meaningful comparison isn't it.

It is if you look at how well MacGill has bowled with his limited chances. I mean, his best bowling is equal to Warnes second best and Warney's had 168 more goes at it!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Briedis
MacGill is a match-winner, Warne used to be a match-winner....

Which would explain the enormous disparity in their figures the last time they played in the same match. Or Warnes MOM award in the first test against the proteas. Or his 31 wickets in last years ashes series.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Briedis
He's bowling rubbish, he's struggling to spin it, he's lost his consistent line and length.

Rubbish. He bowled well in Melbourbne last week and apart from two overs last night was damn tight.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Briedis
It is if you look at how well MacGill has bowled with his limited chances. I mean, his best bowling is equal to Warnes second best and Warney's had 168 more goes at it!

What a magnificent grasp of statistics you have.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Briedis
He is the weak link in the Aussie bowling....face facts. He has had one good series in 2-3 years, it's just not good enough....

He bowled well against Pakistan last time they toured here, did damn well against the Kiwis in 2000, took 31 wickets in the Ashes series in England (2nd only to McGrath aby ONE wicket) and was the leading bowler in the whitewash of RSA (you know, that good side that kicked our arses).

That's more than one.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Dave


He bowled well against Pakistan last time they toured here, did damn well against the Kiwis in 2000, took 31 wickets in the Ashes series in England (2nd only to McGrath aby ONE wicket) and was the leading bowler in the whitewash of RSA (you know, that good side that kicked our arses).

That's more than one.

He was only average against Pakistan, taking 12 wickets at over 30. And if you're going to mentiion his good series, you might as well mention his bad series since his shoulder operation.

• 2 wickets at 134 in the Caribbean 1999
• 8 wickets at 41 against India here in Australia 1999/00
• 10 wickets at 50 in India last year
• 6 wickets at over 70 against New Zealand this summer

Even the series he has performed relatively well (in New Zealand 2000, South Africa this summer) his average for the series has been 27, hardly complete dominance of the opposition.

 

[Groucho]

It should be mentioned that MacGill's most recent One Day International was for Australia A a coupla weeks ago. Went for 72 off 10!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by wagstaff
He was only average against Pakistan, taking 12 wickets at over 30.

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

And if you're going to mentiion his good series, you might as well mention his bad series since his shoulder operation.

As I was responding to a claim that he'd only had one good series in three years they aren't relevant. I wasn't saying he hadn't had bad series, I was highlighting that he'd had well and truly more than one good one.

Even the series he has performed relatively well (in New Zealand 2000, South Africa this summer) his average for the series has been 27, hardly complete dominance of the opposition.

And the point is? Was I suggesting "complete dominance of the opposition."? He's not the bowler he was prior to the shoulder opp, but to suggest that he is not worth having in the side is as fanciful as Breidis claim of his form over the past 3 years.

 

[barry]

I wonder what the comparisons would be between Warne and McGill if SCG games werent counted.
SCG being a very spin friendly pitch which MacGill as a domestic player, plays half his games at, and pretty much all his international games at.

As someone said, Warne got 2/65 and people call for his head. MacGill gets 0/72 against NZ a few weeks ago, and some misguided fools call for his selection.

 

[CoastBhoy]

 

[CoastBhoy]

http://www.afl.com.au/lib/images/photos/20010513/9198/9198f.gif

 

[wagstaff]

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

Statistically speaking, the only Aussie bowler to have a worse average then him in that series was Scott Muller. As for the others:

• Damien Fleming took 18 wickets at around 22
• McGrath took 14 wickets at around 28
• Even Kasprowicz took 7 wickets in one test at 18

 

[Frodo]

As a world class fantasy cricket leggy myself I can sympathise with Warney. In reality it takes a very special leggy to get picked in a one day side. The control needed in line and length is far more difficult than off spin meaning there is a greater likeleyhood of getting whacked. Also, the leggy usually depends on a turning wicket on the fourth or fifth day of a game, which doesn't happen in the one dayers. Where Warney makes good is when the opposition is a few early wickets down and the incumbent players cannot afford to lose their wickets. The problem is when he is bowled when the opposition has batsmen in hand, they can then take risks and whack him.

Couple of things I have noticed though with Warney 1) His lethal flipper that got so many LBW's is gone. 2) When he pushes the ball through faster he tends to give away runs a lot more than when he tosses it up.

 

[iceman]

Even if Warne is still performing well, MacGill should be given the opportunity to play at the international level. Its obvious that if Warne were to get injured etc then MacGill would be the only logical replacement we have

Its time to give him a chance

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Statistically speaking, the only Aussie bowler to have a worse average then him in that series was Scott Muller.

That does not mean his series was not good, it simply means theirs was better.

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Frodo
As a world class fantasy cricket leggy myself I can sympathise with Warney. In reality it takes a very special leggy to get picked in a one day side. The control needed in line and length is far more difficult than off spin meaning there is a greater likeleyhood of getting whacked. Also, the leggy usually depends on a turning wicket on the fourth or fifth day of a game, which doesn't happen in the one dayers. Where Warney makes good is when the opposition is a few early wickets down and the incumbent players cannot afford to lose their wickets. The problem is when he is bowled when the opposition has batsmen in hand, they can then take risks and whack him.

Couple of things I have noticed though with Warney 1) His lethal flipper that got so many LBW's is gone. 2) When he pushes the ball through faster he tends to give away runs a lot more than when he tosses it up.

I agree with you 100% Frodo.

 

[wagstaff]

That does not mean his series was not good, it simply means theirs was better.

That wasn't what you implied in your earlier post where you said about that particular series:

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

which suggested that his figures stacked up well against the other Australian bowlers; when as a matter of fact they didn't.

In that Pakistan series, Warne struggled in Brisbane (Fleming was easily the stand-out bowler), bowled very well in Hobart and was hardly used in Perth and when he was, was hit out of the attack by Ijaz and Wasim Akram.

All in all, an adequate series effort but nothing more.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by wagstaff
which suggested that his figures stacked up well against the other Australian bowlers; when as a matter of fact they didn't.

Actually I was talking about all the bowlers in the series, both sides. And looking at his figures they weren't much worse than Flemmings with McGrath the only standout.

In that Pakistan series, Warne struggled in Brisbane (Fleming was easily the stand-out bowler), bowled very well in Hobart and was hardly used in Perth and when he was, was hit out of the attack by Ijaz and Wasim Akram.

All in all, an adequate series effort but nothing more.

Ok, so it's 3 not 4. That's still more than 1

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Dave


Actually I was talking about all the bowlers in the series, both sides.

Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.

My final comment on this is that in each of the six Tests that Warne and MacGill have bowled together, Warne has failed to take more wickets in a match then MacGill.

The reason I've been rather relentless on this issue is that I'm tired of those in the cricketing media assuming that Warne is the better bowler than MacGill when the statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

Of course, no prizes for guessing who you and I think are the better bowlers.

 

[Denno]

Originally posted by wagstaff

Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.
The statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

But didn't Jimmy Adams average more than Brian Lara at one stage a few years ago???

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.

Funny, my statement was in reply to somone saying Warne had one good series in 3 years. Period. Nothing to do with MacGill at all. So excuse me if I feel that comparing his performances against all bowlers IS relevant.

My final comment on this is that in each of the six Tests that Warne and MacGill have bowled together, Warne has failed to take more wickets in a match then MacGill.

And from what I recall most of those tests took place shortly after Warnes return from injury. In the most recent test Warne took one less wicket and only then becuase Waugh gave MacGill the ball before him.

The reason I've been rather relentless on this issue is that I'm tired of those in the cricketing media assuming that Warne is the better bowler than MacGill when the statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

There's more to cricket than statistics. Statistics would suggest that Mark Taylor should have been dropped long before he was, but the same NSWelshman (not meaning you) calling for Warnes exclusion in favour of MacGill did not call for his head.

Of course, no prizes for guessing who you and I think are the better bowlers.

None at all. I'm comfortable backing the fat bloke with over 400 test wickets to his name though

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

McGill may have a better average than Warne, but Warne has done it over tonnes more tests. If McGill had played as many tests as Warne he would have nowhere near as much wickets. And when they play together, half the wickets McGill gets can be put down to Warne anyway

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
McGill may have a better average than Warne, but Warne has done it over tonnes more tests. If McGill had played as many tests as Warne he would have nowhere near as much wickets. And when they play together, half the wickets McGill gets can be put down to Warne anyway

I'm a Warne fan, as you will see around the boards, but that's bull****. How do you know Macgill wouldn't have done just as well? Every time he gets a game he goes well. In any other country he would have played 70 tests and have 250-300 wickets I reckon.

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by Fat Red



I'm a Warne fan, as you will see around the boards, but that's bull****. How do you know Macgill wouldn't have done just as well? Every time he gets a game he goes well. In any other country he would have played 70 tests and have 250-300 wickets I reckon.

True - theres no way to determine who wouldve taken more wickets...

MacGill has to bide his time and should be brought into the team sooner than later