Magoo in trouble - even Roebuck's jumped off his bandwagon.

From the SMH

MacGill as flat as yesterday's lemonade
Stuart MacGill did not look much like taking a wicket until it was too late to matter, whereupon a lower-order man tried something more often seen on Moore Park. Admittedly the pitch was slow and the batsmen were set but a bowler of his class ought to trouble modest opponents battling to save a match on any surface. Instead, his work lacked sparkle and his opponents were able to counter him comfortably off front and back foot. Indeed the willow-wielders were confident enough to step down the pitch to take the ball on the bounce. That the leggie sent down several loose deliveries was to be expected in his first match back from a break, and in any case he has never been the tightest of operators. More disconcerting was his inability to coax anything from the track even when the ball landed as intended. MacGill's bowling was as flat as yesterday's lemonade.

Meanwhile, news arrived from Melbourne about his rival taking a stack of poles and scoring handy runs. Brad Hogg is the form bowler, the man at the peak of his powers. MacGill can only hope that his record is enough to get him across the line. But the selectors will want some proof that he has not lost his nip, a fate sooner or later suffered by all bowlers.
<ends>

Keep the fingers crossed...

Purely as a bowler, still think Macgill would be better than Hogg. Will get you more wickets against top sides.

doremi wrote:Macgill ... Will get you more wickets against top sides.

Queensland is a top side. He didn't get many against them. On a wicket that shjould have assisted him a bit late in the game. And he leaked runs like a bottomless bucket.

Australia could be in big trouble this summer.

Stupid Ponting went for MacGill too early on his return. Are they now committed to him and ready to make another stubborn Hodge type blunder?

I hope they do play Hogg in the next Ashes. Will be a walk in the park compared to the years of Warne.

LOL, look at the idiot pom talking it up already

Yep, the poms knew Warnie didn't have a wrong 'un and still couldn't handle his stock ball. Imagine facing a bowler with the best wrong 'un in the game . . .

tac wrote:Yep, the poms knew Warnie didn't have a wrong 'un and still couldn't handle his stock ball. Imagine facing a bowler with the best wrong 'un in the game . . .

yeah, we'll be wetting our pants against Hogg and his Ashley Gilesesque first class average of 39....

JKLever wrote:

tac wrote:Yep, the poms knew Warnie didn't have a wrong 'un and still couldn't handle his stock ball. Imagine facing a bowler with the best wrong 'un in the game . . .

yeah, we'll be wetting our pants against Hogg and his Ashley Gilesesque first class average of 39....

29.60, thankyouverymuch. Don't sell the KOS short.

If you want a closer comparison, look no further than the recently jacked-it-all-in Alex the Loudon: 39.75.

But he had the 'doosra'...

Aye... although given Englands ability to play leggies we'd probably make him look a world champ.

Over the last three years his FC average is under 20...

You bastard, Ross, flinging facts.

Roebuck spends his day jumping on and off things..........

Can change his view on a matter three times an hour.

Ross wrote:Over the last three years his FC average is under 20...

Sounds a bit like the Flintoff excuse, which was poo-pooed by most Australians for a couple of years on C4....

Ross wrote:Over the last three years his FC average is under 20...

At an average of about 12 wickets a season. Hardly setting the world on fire is he?

JKLever wrote:Sounds a bit like the Flintoff excuse, which was poo-pooed by most Australians for a couple of years on C4....

"You know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a major: got pooh-poohed; made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh - he pooh-poohed it. Fatal error, because it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers, who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment - morale totally destroyed...by pooh-pooh!"

ASPOVOR

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I hope they do play Hogg in the next Ashes. Will be a walk in the park compared to the years of Warne.

Well, he will be hittable, so runs will be available from one end at least. Ditto with MacGill. That was never the case against Warne.

Hogg and MacGill will both be both be staring 40 straight in the face come the next ashes. They'd probably still do a better job than Dan Cullen, though.

Winkle Spinner wrote:Hogg and MacGill will both be both be staring 40 straight in the face come the next ashes.

This makes tweaking from the leg more difficult because ....

ten years after wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:Hogg and MacGill will both be both be staring 40 straight in the face come the next ashes.

This makes tweaking from the leg more difficult because ....

Look at Warnie. He could still eat most other spin bowlers for breakfast, but he's not nearly the force now he was even in 2005. Even though spinners don't bowl as quickly, obvioulsy, as fast bowlers, it still takes a lot of effort and exertion to give the ball a reasonable-sized tweak. An international standard leg-spinner puts in just as much effort per delivery as a fast medium bowler, who you wouldn't expect to go on much past 35. Much like Gillepsie and Pollock have lost their 'nip', with age, so can a spinner lose his 'fizz' (I think you'll find those are the technical terms).

Especially for MacGill, who's most potent weapon has always been his huge turn, rather than his accuracy or ability to outthink a batsman, age will naturally make him less effective.

Winkle Spinner wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:Hogg and MacGill will both be both be staring 40 straight in the face come the next ashes.

This makes tweaking from the leg more difficult because ....

Look at Warnie. He could still eat most other spin bowlers for breakfast, but he's not nearly the force now he was even in 2005. Even though spinners don't bowl as quickly, obvioulsy, as fast bowlers, it still takes a lot of effort and exertion to give the ball a reasonable-sized tweak. An international standard leg-spinner puts in just as much effort per delivery as a fast medium bowler, who you wouldn't expect to go on much past 35. Much like Gillepsie and Pollock have lost their 'nip', with age, so can a spinner lose his 'fizz' (I think you'll find those are the technical terms).

Especially for MacGill, who's most potent weapon has always been his huge turn, rather than his accuracy or ability to outthink a batsman, age will naturally make him less effective.

Generalisation.

Hogg is fit and bowling brilliantly.

Minnesota Fats wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:Hogg and MacGill will both be both be staring 40 straight in the face come the next ashes.

This makes tweaking from the leg more difficult because ....

Look at Warnie. He could still eat most other spin bowlers for breakfast, but he's not nearly the force now he was even in 2005. Even though spinners don't bowl as quickly, obvioulsy, as fast bowlers, it still takes a lot of effort and exertion to give the ball a reasonable-sized tweak. An international standard leg-spinner puts in just as much effort per delivery as a fast medium bowler, who you wouldn't expect to go on much past 35. Much like Gillepsie and Pollock have lost their 'nip', with age, so can a spinner lose his 'fizz' (I think you'll find those are the technical terms).

Especially for MacGill, who's most potent weapon has always been his huge turn, rather than his accuracy or ability to outthink a batsman, age will naturally make him less effective.

Generalisation.

Hogg is fit and bowling brilliantly.

MacGill is fat and bowling like shit.

And now Craddock's opened the dirt file too.

Oh dear, it appears Crash thinks he speaks fluent "Tugga". While I don't disagree with Craddock's sentiments, to say SRW was saying all that about MacDill is a classic tabloid journo stretch.