| | |
| |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| England Cricket Forum A forum for domestic cricket discussion. Tell us about your favourite club in England. Who are the key players to watch? - Featured Link: Cricbuzz.com - Fastest live text coverage & Live Audio |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Quote:
But in regards to Australia's need for spinners. Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Now looking back on the recent Sri Lankan series i ask myself, who would have been more effective - McGill or Hilfenhaus? I would have to say Hilfenhaus. Maybe Australia does not need a top line spinner. I think back to the Ashes 2005. Did England have a top line spinner? No. They had a spinner in Giles, who could only be described as adequate. Even so, it did not stop them ripping through a high class Aussie batting lineup. What Australia does have is a full cup of pace bowlers. If you have such quality in depth and variety, maybe Symonds and Clarke can fill in the gaps. I know when Warne was out injured in India in 2004, Clarke got a six-for. It was a spinning wicket sure, but still, we got by without Warne that game Cricinfo - 4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004
__________________ The thought police are everywhere.............. |
| ||||
| MacGill may be dropped if he doesn't prove his fitness, however Quote:
|
| | ||||
| ||||
| Apart from South Africa & Australia the rest of the cricket in the world is less than poor. Maybe it is a perfect time to blood a spinner now rather than later. I have never been a fan of blooding players but if MacGill's knee is not right then he shouldn’t be playing and Hogg is not good enough with the red ball to get a spot in the side. You cannot judge a bowler on two tests against players who are brilliant against spin bowling, if MacGill had have played England on turning wickets his stats would have looked a lot better. Muralitharan has also come out and slammed MacGill saying that he is not the same bowler he once was, by memory I don’t think Muraltiharan is the same bowler he was either MacGill Vs Muralitharan (series) MacGill - 95 overs, Mds 14, 326 runs, 5 wickets at 65.20, Econ 3.43, Sr 114.0. BBI 2/81, BBM 3/183 Muralitharan - 116 overs, Mds 9, 400 runs, 4 wickets at 100.00, Econ 3.44, Sr 174.0, BBI 2/170, BBM 2/170 From my memory Muralitharan has no right to talk out against an individual spinner’s performance when his series was worse. MacGill beat him on all levels. In a series where only two bowlers averaged under 30 with the ball I don’t think any one can comment negatively on his performance.
__________________ Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet. |
| ||||
| I have a feeling that Australia's bowlers will be Lee, Tait, Johnson and Hilfenhaus. Clark will disappear before the next Ashes. Bracken might be the reserve. |
| | ||||
| ||||
| I hope Tait doesnt play test cricket,
__________________ Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet. |
| |||
| I'd not be at all surprised if Noffke or Hogg ended their careers with more Test caps than Tait... but I don't rate the chances of any of that trio too highly. Clark should be a fixture right up until he retires. Johnson should soon be even more secure. I suspect the interesting discussions will, before long, involve Brett Lee (great tail-end batsman, shame about the bowling) and Hilfenhaus - and sooner rather than later, Hilfenhaus should start winning that argument. |
| | |||
| |||
| Quote:
Steyn has yet to be properly tested. Akhtar is just a strange choice as the rest of your picks seem to aimed at potential for the future. |
| ||||
| Quote:
Macgill is now finished, no point worrying about yesterday's when we thought he was OK No matter how much Brett Lee and Ricky Ponting try to defend him in the media. Like Murali says he is now a spent force, much like Trescothwick. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |