Hogg or McGain?

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Micheal Clarke is another "golden boy" who seems to be given a hell of a lot of slack.

He used to, but in the last couple of years he's fully deserved his place in the side. He's also probably the only batsman in the Australian team (besides maybe Ponting) who actually looks comfortable and semi-decent against good spin bowling. Being dropped in 2005 was the best thing that ever happened to 'Pup' (he needs a new nickname).

[Quagmire]

Michael Clarke has been transformed into a genuine superstar batsman since making his return to test cricket.


Michael Clarke's Test Innings since his return

1. 56 vs England
2. 124 vs England
3. 21* vs England
4. 37 vs England
5. 135* vs England
6. 5 vs England
7. 11 vs England
8. 145* vs Sri Lanka
9. 71 vs Sri Lanka

9 innings, 605 runs at 100.83, hs 145*, 3x100, 2x50

Also Bryce McGain is not worthy of representing Australia he is a very good district bowler for Prahan but he is nothing special even in State Level. If he was 22 years old and as good as he is now it would be a different story because he would improve if given the chance but not at 35 years old. To MacGill's defence he didnt bowl badly he just bowled without luck. He was very unlucky.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Seamer

But that is the secret of Australia's success. We think of the here and now.

While the English are looking backwards talking about players that are past it, like Jones, Harmison and Flintoff,

I think you have confused the England selectors with Ern. A few people on here might be talking about them, but no selector or serious journalist is. In fact England's problem is not "how do we get the old guard back" but how do we get a very talented generation experienced enough to make them effective at the top level. Hence why the current side has a 21 year old, and two 22 year olds.

[greg]

I think this actually smacks of desperation by Australia to be considering a 35 year old with only 10 first class matches behind him.It shows the spin cupboard is bare at present and doesn't bode well for the future as the 3 pretenders to Warne's crown are all 35+ so will have very limited shelflife.

They may well do ok at home but you can't see Australia doing much in Asia with such a poor spin line up.

[Quagmire]

There has been no mention in the media or the cricketing world about McGain. Australia have short term options but the problem is that there are no up and coming spinners that look anything special at all. The young Indian leg spinner looks to be quality Chawla (what ever his name is) But there are no others that look like one day being the quality of Warne, Kumble or Muralitharan.

There are a lot of average spin bowlers around, I am afraid that the death of spin bowling might just be around the corner again. Warne brought back leg spin and Muralitharan is something else with the ever amazing Kumble still going for a little while once Muralitharan in gone it might be the end of world class spin bowling for a while.

Class test spinners

Murallitharan - 713 test wickets at 21.69
Kumble - 578 wickets at 28.65

Average test spinners

Harbhajan Singh - 247 wickets at 30.18
Daniel Vettori - 232 wickets at 34.71
Danesh Kaneria - 219 wickets at 33.61
Monty Panesar - 79 wickets at 31.07

I dont think that Australia is the only one with the problem. Kumble wont be around too much longer that would make Sri Lanka the only country without the problem of not having ary quality spin bowlers.

[Aurelius]

There are a lot of average spin bowlers around, I am afraid that the death of spin bowling might just be around the corner again.

I can't agree with you there. You have a cut-off of 30 to distinguish between "good" and "average" spin bowlers, when this is quite innacurate. It's perfectly reasonable for an orthodox finger spinner (left-arm or right-arm) to have a bowling average in the high-twenties to low-thirties. Two of the greatest spinners in history are Errapalli Prassana and Vinoo Mankad, who averaged 30 and 32 respectively.

Now I'm not the biggest fan of Kaneria or Harbhajan, however Panesar's had an excellent start to average 31, besides which, it's early days for him and he's very likely to improve it. Dan Vettori's average of 34 may seem a little high on paper, however don't forget that (apart from Chris Cairns) he's been New Zealand's only reliable bowler for the past 10 years, so he's had to be their strike and stock bowler. I think quality spin might in fact be on the rise- England have Panesar and the very impressive Graeme Swann, South Africa have Paul Harris, Vettori's still going strong for New Zealand, while Jeetan Patel looks good at least for the ODIs, the Windies have Dave Mohammed, Omari Banks and this Amit Juggernaught guy, Bangladesh has a solid core of left-arm spin talent and as you mentioned, India have Piyush Chawla as well as Ramesh Powar.

As for Australia, it looks a little bleak for the moment, but eventually a new spinner will come and do a decent job- my money's on Cullen or Heal.

Yep, if you ask me the future of spin is looking sweet, especially as I don't impose unreasonable statistical standards to distinguish between quality and mediocrity.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

As for Australia, it looks a little bleak for the moment, but eventually a new spinner will come and do a decent job- my money's on Cullen or Heal.

I don't see even the Aussie the situation as bleak: get Heal on pitches anywhere else in the world and I suspect he'd do just fine... and the same might well be true of others. What they need is some experience in leagues that give spinners a chance.

Encouraging a few join a breakaway league in India might be a start....

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I don't see even the Aussie the situation as bleak: get Heal on pitches anywhere else in the world and I suspect he'd do just fine... and the same might well be true of others. What they need is some experience in leagues that give spinners a chance.

You have always been dead on the money on this point Rachel. I don't agree that Australia should start preparing spin-friendly wickets however.

Spinners in Australia have an advantage over every other nation in the sense that they have to bowl against a higher quality of batsman, on wickets that leave them at a disadvantage.

It's like a video game. Australan spinners have to bowl with the settings set to a "high" difficulty level. The rest of the spinners around the world get to bowl at "medium" or "easy" settings. While this might give the impression that they are good bowlers, the chickens generally come home to roost when they are taken out of their comfort zone. Ask Murali about that in regards to bowling down here.

Yet for Aussie spinners, their comfort zone is in the "difficult" setting. They don't go to water because they are used to it, and once they get out of Australia, they generally prosper far more than spinners from outside Australia, because to them it seems so much easier.

My question. Name one nation that has a better spinners than Australia. Good luck. The fact is that apart from Murali, the rest are basically just run of the mill. They don't have the variations, flight, and dip of Warne, or the rubbery arms of Murali that allows them to impart such a high amount of revs.

To guys like FF and greg. Don't delude yourselves fellas. "Monty" is run of the mill - nothing more. He is no different to Harbijan, Kaneria, Hauritz, Vettori or any other finger spinner from the last century. He throws them up, gives a little bit of a tweak, and sometimes he comes off, sometimes he doesn't. I have seen a lot of overs bowled by both Hauritz and "Monty" can say with certainty that the only difference between the two is that they bowl with a different arm. That's it.

If we decide to roll out Hauritz someday, he will certainly do just as well as the other run of the mill spinners going around at the moment. But i suspect he will probably do better, because he has learned his craft in the hard knocks of the Australian domestic scene. Just like "funky" Colin Miller a few years back. He was nothing special, but learning his craft at such a high difficultly level made him far more prepared and mentally tougher than his counterparts, which allowed him to be Australian test player of the year in 2001. Test player of the year - and franky he was nothing special.

Those of you that think Australia is weaker in spin relative to the rest of the world. Sorry guys, but you are deluding yourselves.

[Aurelius]

He throws them up, gives a little bit of a tweak, and sometimes he comes off, sometimes he doesn't. I have seen a lot of overs bowled by both Hauritz and "Monty" can say with certainty that the only difference between the two is that they bowl with a different arm. That's it.

Well, Hauritz is obviously much more successful in the one-day game than in first-class cricket. I remember one of the domestic commentators saying that Hauritz is bowling a lot flatter than he used to, whcih would certainly account for the varying levels of success.

Let me ask you a question- are you saying that Mallett, Prassanna, Gibbs, Tayfield and Laker pretty much relied on pot luck? I mean, sure, obviously finger-spinners don't have the same level of variation available to them that wrist-spinners do, but they can still vary their flight, line, length and angle, so I think there must be a little more to finger-spin than you're making out. Plus, you're implying that all finger-spinners are basically the same. All right then, why weren't, say, Nicky Boje or Ashley Giles as successful as Dan Vettori or Monty Panesar have been? Isn't it because they weren't as good as the latter two? Doesn't that suggest that finger-spin, therefore, has its own levels of skills to perfect, which can be done to varying degrees? And so doesn't that mean that not all finger-spinners are the same?

[Rachael]

Seamer is being disingenuous: Warne's flight, drift and dip would never have been developed on pitches that were low and slow... and no finger spinner is going to develop a natural game based on trying to tempt the batsman into something injudicious on pitches where the pitch offers so little purchase (and so little to exploit in the way of cracks, rough and balls going through the top) that batsmen don't have to worry about getting to the pitch of the ball.

What partially-killed finger spin over here was covered wickets: sure, you still get finger spinners (lots of them)... but where captains in the 1950s were routinely able to put fielders around the bat and attack with finger-spinners... captains in the era of uncovered wickets have generally used finger-spinners to block up and end whilst wickets are sought from the other end.