Justin Langer smacked 109 runs in the first session as he took a heavy toll on Stuart MacGill and Western Australia raced towards New South Wales' 305. MacGill's figures were 0 for 68 from five overs as Langer showed he had recovered from a back injury with an unbeaten 134 off 113 balls. Langer, who blasted 19 fours and five sixes, hit MacGill for 22 in one over to bring up his century, and a total of 65 runs from 24 deliveries. Chris Rogers was the only batsman dismissed when he was caught at midwicket off Nathan Bracken for 29.
From Baggy Green ...
Nice going Langer.
He's certainly done plenty of late to shake the "grafter" tag.
Mike Holmans 25 February 2005 13:06:14 [ permanent link ]
On 25 Feb 2005 00:44:53 -0800, "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Justin Langer smacked 109 runs in the first session as he took a heavy>toll on Stuart MacGill and Western Australia raced towards New South>Wales' 305. MacGill's figures were 0 for 68 from five overs as Langer>showed he had recovered from a back injury with an unbeaten 134 off 113>balls. Langer, who blasted 19 fours and five sixes, hit MacGill for 22>in one over to bring up his century, and a total of 65 runs from 24>deliveries. Chris Rogers was the only batsman dismissed when he was>caught at midwicket off Nathan Bracken for 29.>
From Baggy Green ...>
Nice going Langer.>
He's certainly done plenty of late to shake the "grafter" tag.
Anothe brilliant performance from the so-called second-best sipnner in the world.
Mike Holmans wrote:> On 25 Feb 2005 00:44:53 -0800, "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> tapped> the keyboard and brought forth:>
Justin Langer smacked 109 runs in the first session as he took a heavy>>toll on Stuart MacGill and Western Australia raced towards New South>>Wales' 305. MacGill's figures were 0 for 68 from five overs as Langer>>showed he had recovered from a back injury with an unbeaten 134 off 113>>balls. Langer, who blasted 19 fours and five sixes, hit MacGill for 22>>in one over to bring up his century, and a total of 65 runs from 24>>deliveries. Chris Rogers was the only batsman dismissed when he was>>caught at midwicket off Nathan Bracken for 29.>>
From Baggy Green ...>
Anothe brilliant performance from the so-called second-best sipnner in> the world.
It's a good point, but it's on arguably the least spin-friendly pitch in the world, on the second day, against one of the finest batsmen in the world on his home pitch. They're not exactly favourable conditions.
Mike Holmans 25 February 2005 16:48:57 [ permanent link ]
FRAN wrote:> Mike Holmans wrote:> > Yes, I do have a downer on MacGill, but it's more the rubbish which> > drum-banging Australians trot out about him than the reality with> which> > I have the problem.>
And yet, as someone said recently, his average is just three more
than> Warne's.
And people who look at crude career average figures mostly end up spouting nonsense.
MacGill picked up a great deal of credit when he took a whole bunch of wickets against the 98-99 England team, who were under the weird impression that *any* leg-spinner was as deadly as Shane Warne.
MacGill played in that series because Warne was undergoing surgery and recovery, and it's widely accepted that Warne hasn't been quite as dangerous since then as he was in most of the 90s.
Even so, in the last five years, ie since the beginning of 2000, the difference in their averages isn't 3.
M O R W Ave SR ER PI SKW 40 1845 5495 215 25.56 51.50 49.63 36.28 SCGM 21 986 3235 101 32.03 58.59 54.66 43.32
My problem has always been the high number of poor deliveries he
sends> down.
Gosh, what a surprise - since the main difference between a good spinner and a bad spinner is that the good spinner doesn't give you free balls to hit and relax the pressure with. Any fool can deliver a good spin delivery every so often - the hard part is not bowling hittable rubbish surrounding it.
I guess if you want to give it the kind of rip he does you are> going to look silly on a regular basis.
As the careers of such big rippers of the ball as Harbhajan Singh and Muttiah Muralitharan graphically show.
It's certainly going to be> entertaining. Attacking batsmem are sometimes said to "give the
bowlers> a chance". Maybe the same can be said of MacGill with the ball.
MacGill certainly gives the batsmen a chance. That hasn't been a general feature of Australian play or Australian bowlers these last two decades.
"Mike Holmans" <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:1109335737.105858.251840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > FRAN wrote:>>
And yet, as someone said recently, his average is just three more>> than>> Warne's.>
And people who look at crude career average figures mostly end up> spouting nonsense.>
MacGill picked up a great deal of credit when he took a whole> bunch of wickets against the 98-99 England team, who were under> the weird impression that *any* leg-spinner was as deadly as Shane> Warne. >
MacGill played in that series because Warne was undergoing surgery> and recovery, and it's widely accepted that Warne hasn't been> quite as dangerous since then as he was in most of the 90s.>
Even so, in the last five years, ie since the beginning of 2000,> the difference in their averages isn't 3.>
M O R W Ave SR ER PI> SKW 40 1845 5495 215 25.56 51.50 49.63 36.28> SCGM 21 986 3235 101 32.03 58.59 54.66 43.32
IIRC Aslam posted a list of people who'd conceded centuries on most occasions. I noted with glee that MacGill had done so in the last four innings he's played against England. On Australian pitches too, which are more helpful for legspinners (who desire bounce rather than turn) than English ones.
My problem has always been the high number of poor deliveries he>> sends>> down.>
Gosh, what a surprise - since the main difference between a good> spinner and a bad spinner is that the good spinner doesn't give> you free balls to hit and relax the pressure with. Any fool can> deliver a good spin delivery every so often - the hard part is not> bowling hittable rubbish surrounding it.>
I guess if you want to give it the kind of rip he does you are>> going to look silly on a regular basis.>
As the careers of such big rippers of the ball as Harbhajan Singh> and Muttiah Muralitharan graphically show.
I can spin it as much as Warne. Unfortunately, only around 1-2% of my deliveries are in any position to threaten, the rest ranging from straight deliveries where I didn't get the snap right, to wide on either side or bouncing more than once before reaching the bat. That's why I don't get to bowl very often.
It's certainly going to be>> entertaining. Attacking batsmem are sometimes said to "give the>> bowlers>> a chance". Maybe the same can be said of MacGill with the ball.>
MacGill certainly gives the batsmen a chance. That hasn't been a> general feature of Australian play or Australian bowlers these> last two decades.
Yet strangely enough, batsmen don't slaughter my bowling as much as it deserves to be slaughtered. I think they pity me, reasoning that 10 rpo in wides is punishment enough.
"Mike Holmans" <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1109330937.720880.48940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I do have a downer on MacGill, but it's more the rubbish which> drum-banging Australians trot out about him than the reality with which> I have the problem. He'd only be a definite selection for SA and WI.> His chances for England and NZ would be severely blighted by his total> inability with the bat compared to Giles and Vettori, a factor which> would probably also come into play with Zimbabwe if Ray Price is now> back in the fold, and I can't see why any sub-continental side,> including the Bangles, would take even a second look at him - unless SL> for tactical reasons fancied the idea of a big-spinning bowler who's> very different from Murali.
"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns96089873241Djimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...> On Australian pitches too,> which are more helpful for legspinners (who desire bounce rather than> turn) than English ones.
You meant an "English spinner" and not an "English leg-spinner", right? That so-called talent never got his act going.
"lt" <ltusenet_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:388t8iF5k2i1sU1@individual.net: > "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Xns96089873241Djimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...>> On Australian pitches too,>> which are more helpful for legspinners (who desire bounce rather>> than turn) than English ones.>
You meant an "English spinner" and not an "English leg-spinner",> right? That so-called talent never got his act going.
Australian pitches are more helpful for legspinners than English pitches.
"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns96089DF52A2EEjimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...> "lt" <ltusenet_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in> news:388t8iF5k2i1sU1@individual.net:>> "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:Xns96089873241Djimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...>>> On Australian pitches too,>>> which are more helpful for legspinners (who desire bounce rather>>> than turn) than English ones.>>
You meant an "English spinner" and not an "English leg-spinner",>> right? That so-called talent never got his act going.>
Australian pitches are more helpful for legspinners than English> pitches.
