Stuey MacGill retires

[David]

Actually, it was judged by :

Wasim Akram
Sunil Gavaskar,
Richie Benaud
Sir Richard Hadlee
Dickie Bird
Michael Holding
Allan Border
John Knowles
Ian Botham
Robin Marlar
Ian Chappell
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Tony Cozier
Mike Procter
Martin Crowe

But I see your point.

[AceLosesKing]

As my friends and I say, Macgill was a good bowler, he just had the unfortunate luck of being born in the same century as Shane Warne.

[maccatak11]

Actually, it was judged by :

Wasim Akram
Sunil Gavaskar,
Richie Benaud
Sir Richard Hadlee
Dickie Bird
Michael Holding
Allan Border
John Knowles
Ian Botham
Robin Marlar
Ian Chappell
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Tony Cozier
Mike Procter
Martin Crowe

But I see your point.

Yea i guess if Bacon was on this list of selectors then Stuey surely would have been in the top 50.

Stuey was a good spinner, don't get me wrong, but better than warne??? Check your head for rocks.

[Bacon]

Only three other bowlers - Clarrie Grimmett, Dennis Lillee and Waqar Younis - reached the 200-wicket milestone faster than MacGill, who achieved the feat in his 41st Test.

MacGill might've conceded more runs, but in the age he is playing, with the batsmen we had, he had the fallback of those runs.

[David]

MacGill was a capable spinner. Probably walk into most test sides during the 90s - mainly due to the lack of spinners in the world. But his bad balls (and spells) were really bad - nothing compared to Warne at all. Batsmen had to concentrate every single ball with SKW, but with MacGill, runs came a lot easier.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate SCGM's ability - I just think he's nowhere near the bowler Warne was (and is).

[David]

Jimmy Addams and Virender Sehwag averaged 60 in test cricket for a while, numbers don't always tell the complete story.

[maccatak11]

Warne revived the art of spin bowling and especially leg spin bowling. Without Warne, there wouldnt have been a test side containing a wrist spinner this century. Simple as that.

[David]

To quote a guy I know who just heard the news;

Well this put a smile on my face

I'm hard pressed to think of a worse example of poor winner in domestic cricket. David Hookes was a bit ordinary some of the time. But for consistent bad winner moments, MacGill comes out first.

If Warne had never been, MacGill may well have been one of our better ones. And maybe living in Warne's shadow caused many of his problems. But that is all by the by. The simple fact is the sod is gone, and I for one am happy to know that I don't have to watch him again. If only he would confirm it for domestic cricket as well.

[Bacon]

If you wanna talk about better slow bowlers, then yes I put Warne miles ahead. But the majority of Warne's bowling in his latter years wasn't spin. It was changes in flight and speed. The Flipper, for mine, isn't spin. It's a change in the speed of the ball and the flight.

The Gatting ball was a spinner, early in Warne's career. I'm pretty sure it was Stuey's 200th that spun more than that ball.

[David]

MacGill's "spin" bordered on outright silly sometimes. He would turn the ball at 90 degrees but that doesn't take wickets too often, especially against quality batsmen.

And to say that flippers, using flight et al isn't part of "spin bowling" is a tad out-there. A fast bowler who uses differing bounce and, god forbid a slower ball (well it's hardly "fast" bowling is it) is still a fast bowler - and just as good as another.

Using flight, drip, turn, etc are all part of being a quality spin bowler - you can't just rely on putting the cherry on a dime each time and hoping for the best.

Variety is tantamount in any bowler - and using things like the flipper is so important.