Re: Cricket
Bill James said:
Now that Warne has gone what think ye all of S MacGill. Personally I think he is flattered by two factors. Firstly he has played a dispraportinate number of matches against Bangladesh and at Sydney. Secondly because he rarely plays a full series against any team the batsmen never have the opportunity to get a look at him and get hold of him.
S MacGill | Matches | O | R | W | BBI | BBM | AVE | Econ | SR | 5 | 10 |
Overall | 40 | 1702 | 5387 | 198 | 8/108 | 12/107 | 27.20 | 3.16 | 51.50 | 12 | 2 |
v Bangladesh | 4 | 161 | 520 | 33 | 8/108 | 10/133 | 15.75 | 3.22 | 29.20 | 4 | 1 |
@ Sydney | 8 | 418 | 1297 | 53 | 7/50 | 12/107 | 24.47 | 3.10 | 47.30 | 5 | 1 |
Rest of Career | 28 | 1123 | 3570 | 112 | 5/57 | 9/113 | 31.88 | 3.18 | 60.16 | 3 | 0 |
poppa x said:
So excluding Sydney and Bangladesh, Warney has a much better average, strike rate and economy than Macgilla. This is an interesting stat that most have overlooked.
Great Stuff Bill !!
More MacGill bashing? :
So we've established Warne is a better bowler than Stuey MacGill hey??
Well I never..he's only like the greatest leg spinner ever! :hihi
In spite of the heavily spiked stats, 31 for the rest of his career is still a very respectable average for a traditional leg spinner.
Have a look at how MacGill's stacks up against Richie Benaud's statistics for a comparison Bill.
Or Bob Holland's, Abdul Qadir or Anil Kumble for that matter!
Talk about wrangling statistics but that's rarely a surprise from BJ.
If you look at at the Sydney statistics as part of your argument, how does that explain McGill's average at the ground is considerably better than Warne's by some margin? They are both leg spinners, surely Warne enjoyed similar benefits of bowling on a spinning pitch? He also likely played in the majority of the same games as MacGill.
As for the Bangladesh argument. MacGill has played 2 more games than Warne against them.
2 games! Hardly enough to reach a conclusive decision on that basis.
You can only bowl out the teams you are selected against and MacGill has usually done well when selected.
As for the feeling that he's a selfish player? Since when was wanting to do well personally a crime in cricket?
It's very much an individual game despite the fact that 'teams' play it.
Why can't people just let it be that MacGill is the next best leggie in Australia who played in the shadow of a legend and let it be?
The fact that you have to resort to comparing him to Warney at all should be a compliment of the highest order.
He would have played plenty more cricket for the green & gold had he not been in Warne's era.
I won't be surprised to see him play more now that the genius he was competing with for a game has retired.
I hope he does.