Hogg or McGain?

[Aurelius]

Couple of interesting pieces here, which may have some bearing on Australia's choice of spinner for Boxing Day:

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/324338.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22888833-2882,00.html

Both Hogg and McGain have very similar figures this season- McGain's played 5 matches and taken 20 wickets at 31.2, whereas Hogg's played 4 and taken 13 at 30.7. They're probably going to go with Hogg at this stage, but if he has an ordinary Chappell-Hadlee Trophy, and McGain has a good couple of games before Boxing Day, then things could get interesting. After all, Nathan Bracken and Brad Williams were complete unknowns when they wrecked India five years ago.

[Seamer]

Sky Sports has been talking up McGain as well. I think this is a hangover from the Warne era, that being unless you are a legspinner, you should not play tests for Australia.

Now i confess that i have not actually seen McGain play, so i cannot judge his technical merits. But like Hogg, he is in his mid-thirties so there is no long term future in using him.

He has not played for Australia and been tested under pressure and in the full glare of lights and cameras. He does not have the history or enjoyed the camaraderie that Hogg has with the Australian team. He cannot bat as well as Hogg. Unlike Hogg, he has no experience against the Indians, nor has he enjoyed the success against them that Hogg has.

Playing McGain in Melbourne is to big a risk and on the balance of things, he has not laid a stronger claim to the position. I reckon Ponting will want Hogg - he knows his game and Hogg has always come up with the goods for him, thus Hogg will be the man playing I suspect.

[Aurelius]

But like Hogg, he is in his mid-thirties so there is no long term future in using him.

That's the problem, isn't it? There are no young spinners really coming through. Cullen hasn't really impressed since his debut season three years ago, Bailey seems to be too erratic, and Heal hasn't really played enough games for WA for selectors to properly judge his abilities. I think spin's the factor most likely to bring Australia back to the field.

Until then, I'd be more inclined to play Hogg as well. But better some competition than no competition at all, and if MacGill and Hogg are unavailable at least it's good to know that there's another in-form spinner to take their place- at least for now.

[acker]

Bryce McGain may be a bit better than we think.

He was standing in the huge shadow of SK Warne in the Victorian team for a long time.

[Seamer]

I think having the Victorian captain being a legspinner has hurt him the most. I don't reckon White wants any competition - it is only him being injured that McGain has been playing.

Has anyone any footage of him on their HD that they would be willing to upload to youtube? This is the only footage of him i could find - a single delivery

"Bryce McGain" Videos - ninemsn Video

[flanflinger]

Love it..finally get an alternative to the 37 year olds, a new name in the mix, and he is 35!!

I am loving Aussie Cricket at the moment!!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Love it..finally get an alternative to the 37 year olds, a new name in the mix, and he is 35!!

I am loving Aussie Cricket at the moment!!

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, and teams like Pakistan are running around with a bunch of kids that are years away from peaking, Australia are picking guys with only the next series in mind.

I remember people (you included from memory FF) that scoffed about Australia going with 30 yo Mike Hussey, instead of picking some young up and comer. Well the guy has gone on and averaged 80, while if we had picked some young kid, he probably would have averaged 25 and been dropped by now.

The here and now FF. That's why Aus are no1 with daylight second, and why England are no2 and about to be overtaken.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

The here and now FF. That's why Aus are no1 with daylight second, and why England are no2 and about to be overtaken.

A slight distortion of the picture: I accept that Aussie selectors have occasionally been brutal in encouraging competition for places (not least in dropping Clarke when it seemed reasonable to let him become the first Aussie ever to become a senior player without suffering that fate)... but the focus on developing players did lead to Australia having a superb academy before everyone else... and you cannot overlook the obscene levels of loyalty to players whose face fitted - aside from anything else, after bursting onto the scene and making a sensation eary impact, Lee had 5 years of at best ordinary (occasionally abject) performances (especially away from home) and yet remained the golden boy.

In the Ashes of 2005 the loyalty card led to a struggling Hayden opening in place of the (obviously in form and superior) Hussey, to a struggling Martyn playing ahead of an in-form Hodge... to a struggling Gilchrist playing ahead of an in-form Haddin, and to a struggling Katich playing ahead of an in form Watson despite clear indications that the seam bowling would need bolstering due to Australia carrying out of form seamers who had taken places that would - on your "here and now" principle - have gone elsewhere (perhaps to Bracken and Noffke).

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

A slight distortion of the picture: I accept that Aussie selectors have occasionally been brutal in encouraging competition for places (not least in dropping Clarke when it seemed reasonable to let him become the first Aussie ever to become a senior player without suffering that fate)... but the focus on developing players did lead to Australia having a superb academy before everyone else... and you cannot overlook the obscene levels of loyalty to players whose face fitted - aside from anything else, after bursting onto the scene and making a sensation eary impact,

Precisely Rachel. Australia lost their way in England 2005 by looking back instead of looking at the here and now - with disastrous results. That was then though. Right now there is none of the "we should drop so-and-so for the other guy" situation - the only exception being Stuart McGill. The current XI on form, is the best side we can select. Once again in the recent S.L series, the Aussie selectors were reminded of the perils of selecting on reputation as opposed to form in light of McGills performance.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Lee had 5 years of at best ordinary (occasionally abject) performances (especially away from home) and yet remained the golden boy.

Now on that point, i must agree. While that was in the past, i have no doubt that that situation will continue. Micheal Clarke is another "golden boy" who seems to be given a hell of a lot of slack. So too, the other "golden boy", Shane Watson.

[acker]

Cricket might be playing second fiddle for Stuart MacGill now.

I saw his new wine connisuer show on Lifestyle food last night, I dont know if preparation for a test series should revolve around bowling tennis at McLaren Vale while carefully keeping your flute full wine of free of spillage.

Cricket might now be secondary to our TV drop in wine taster. He looked woefully underprepped against Sri Lanka.