Congratulations India...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

... on outplaying, outthinking and outfighting Australia for the majority of this test match (and for a good portion of the Gabba test too). The Aussies need a major attitude readjustment before Boxing Day. Also, if anyone wants to smash Stuart MacGill's knees with a crowbar between now and then, that would really help. I was hoping when he took that caught and bowled that he had broken his hand. (Katich was the more penetrative spinner in this match - says it all)

― ojitarian (ojitarian), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 06:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Does it have to be a crowbar? I've heard that baseball bats are particularly effective . . .

― tailender (tailender), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe someone should frame him on substances or something (although his bowling is most distinctive for its lack of substance).

(Shane, you didn't by any chance keep any of those pills did you?)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Congrats India. Since tea Saturday you were very clearly the better side.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Given Ponting's performance, 556 was not enough. All the batsmen got starts, no-one else really went on with it.

Overconfidence again?

― tailender (tailender), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Time to swing the axe but none of the batsmen are in bad enough form to stand out as candidates. Martyn has yet to fail outright and is batting appreciably better than last season, Langer has a ton and a half ton, Hayden only needs to concentrate and bat sensibly, Katich is doing OK and taking wickets. The bloke we need to come to the batting party is Gilly.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

FFFFFFS get rid of MacGill. 68 overs for 4 wickets and heaps of runs.
Katich got 4 wickets in fewer overs and was just as "economical" if not more so. MacGill v India and in particular Dravid and Laxman is charity that is not required.

― pieman (pieman), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

btw how ironic that SRT won the game for India with his leg-spin ...

― pieman (pieman), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Who do you replace MacGill with? We could get away with not playing a spinner in Melbourne(maybe) but not Sydney. There are no spinners sticking their hand up at the moment. It's not a good situation.

It may be time to give Rofe a go. I get the feeling that the selectors will pick Nicholson though.

― chrisso (chrisso), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)

hello SCG curators. One greentop please! ;)

― Cleavy, Tuesday, 16 December 2003 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

So long as they leave Magoo "can't bat, can't field" out, I don't care who they play. He has been useless when the pressure is on, time after time after time. Katich can bowl at least as well as Magoo and he can at least bat. Give Hoggy another go if you insist on playing 2 leg-spinners; alternatively give Hauritz a chance. They can all warm Warne's seat equally well I guess. Roll on 10/02/2004.

― pieman (pieman), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Nicholson deserves another go; he can bat as well. To be honest I would prefer him over Lee. Rofe is a player of the future but is probably not ready yet. Innes is ill and may have missed his opportunity for the moment. Wright is the other bloke who would probably perform creditably. Are Gillespie and Williams fit to play in Melbourne?

― pieman (pieman), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Hauritz would be an OK choice for the spinner's position, since he at least has good control. On the other hand, if no spinner is good enough, why pick one at all? Go with the best 4 bowlers, which at the moment is probably 4 quicks. (we'd still have Katich for a bit of variety)

― ojitarian (ojitarian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

cameron white

― horace, Wednesday, 17 December 2003 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

White has been captaining well and batting well but lately his bowling's been very average.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

MacGill has got 10 wickets -9 perhaps- in the two tests. An average of five wickets a game is more than reasonable.

He bowled poorly in the last innings - still got the vital Tendulkar wicket.

Warne he ain't. Crap he ain't either.

― powwow (powwow), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Stuart MacGill isn't just crap compared with Warne. He's crap compared with Stuart MacGill of two years ago. Two years ago he troubled top-order batsmen all the way up the ladder to Lara. He can no longer do that. Tendles is in a rut at the moment (doubtless very temporary) where anybody can get him out with the right ball at the right moment. But if we lose Melbourne I'd keep MacGill for Sydney even if he turns in 0-250.

Chances are whoever bowls spin in Sydney in the dead rubber will be flogged all over the park, then unceremoniously dumped when Warne comes back, and if it's a new bloke he'd be then left stewing in State cricket with a Test bowling average of maybe 70+, for however many years Warne stays a) fit, b) motivated, c) anywhere near his peak and d) out of trouble. MacGill is already gawn, so in his case another hiding will mean diddly squat.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Last time I checked MacGill was a good bowler. What happened? Australia just happened to run into Dravid on irresistible form is all, surely.

― Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Welcome to our humble board Matt. We're mainly Aussies in here (as you probably guessed) but we're not limited to Oz cricket. If you want to bring up any topics about England cricket feel free (I'm guessing you're English from your email tag).

(However, if you want to so much as MENTION rugby union, you might like to set up your own board!)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

You forgot to mention *almost* everyone on this board also hates MacGill and will contest Matt's first statement to the death. ;-)

― Poseiden (Poseiden), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 04:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Welcome Matt. Magill is a good bowler, we're just used to great ones...

regards,

REB

― Rik E Boy (Rik E Boy), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 05:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you'll find Matt is an expatriate Kiwi ?? living in UK

Welcome anyway Matt - pieman/lardbucket

― pieman (pieman), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

>>Chances are whoever bowls spin in Sydney in the dead rubber...<<<

The only way Sydney will be a dead rubber is if India win at the MCG. Are you throwing in the towel already, Fred?

― tailender (tailender), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 08:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Fred, if Matt is indeed a Kiwi like pieman suggests there is no way in hell he'll mention the Rugby.:-)

― chrisso (chrisso), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 09:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't dream of being so rude as to mention the rugby. And yeah, I'm English. Given the dross currently being served up in Sri Lanka though I don't feel much like expanding on that.

― Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

>>Chances are whoever bowls spin in Sydney in the dead rubber...<<<
The only way Sydney will be a dead rubber is if India win at the MCG. Are you throwing in the towel already, Fred?

Tails, in the last line of the previous para I said, 'if we lose Melbourne...' and everything that followed was based on the same 'if'.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Thursday, 18 December 2003 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Sydney will be the decider.

certainly hoping so ....

― pieman (pieman), Thursday, 18 December 2003 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry Fred.

But my mind won't accept the concept "we lose Melbourne . . ."

― tailender (tailender), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.