Better leggie
Printed From: Cricket World
Category: Letter To The Editor
Forum Name: Cricket World Ratings
Forum Discription: Who is the Most Valuable Player?
URL: http://www.cricketworld.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1397
Printed Date: 22 May 2013 at 7:58pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.71 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Better leggie
Posted By: dips_december
Subject: Better leggie
Date Posted: 05 April 2006 at 2:17pm
| I know warney has 650+ wickets but whenever both him and macgill play mangill had the better of the 2 so who is better of the 2 for me its macgill because ha also has a lesser average than shane |
Replies:
Posted By: Clobber
Date Posted: 05 April 2006 at 2:30pm
| *speechless* |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 05 April 2006 at 2:38pm
|
Whilst Stuart McGill is a fine leggie , Shane Warne is simply the best bowler of any type the game has ever seen.
You'll not have much support here dips , I'm afraid. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: SEHWAG NO.1
Date Posted: 05 April 2006 at 10:13pm
| come on theres no comparision here obviously warne is better |
Posted By: crownmethod
Date Posted: 06 April 2006 at 1:42pm
|
Warne is simply the best bowler ever. He's prescence can send fears to the batsman. Macgill doesn't have this power, dips december, how can you possibly think than Macgill is better? ------------- |
Posted By: bighitter
Date Posted: 06 April 2006 at 4:35pm
| Shane Warne is the best bowler that has ever lived and will ever live. |
Posted By: ANIL KUMBLE
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 6:25am
|
so 1000 years later warne would still be the greatest bowler ------------- Check out my blog http://crictopia.blogspot.com/ pretty bad though... |
Posted By: jumbo
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 6:26am
we won't be there to see it
|
Posted By: warnester
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 10:55am
|
where have the 4 votes for mcgill come from? and my answrr is warne, is there any competition at all? |
Posted By: ANIL KUMBLE
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 11:01am
|
macgill is the bigger spinner i think but warne is better had these 2 played gether from when warne debuted till now and playred every test i think macgill would have more wickets ------------- Check out my blog http://crictopia.blogspot.com/ pretty bad though... |
Posted By: Clapo
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 1:57pm
|
no comparison... if Macgill was better, how come he is the second choice spinner... need i say anymore ?? ------------- 5-0 You Beauty!!!!! Thanks for the many fantastic memories Marto, Langer, Warney & Pidg |
Posted By: crownmethod
Date Posted: 07 April 2006 at 2:42pm
|
The only pitch Macgill can play on is the SCG. Warne can play anywhere! ------------- |
Posted By: spin wizard
Date Posted: 12 April 2006 at 9:10pm
|
yeah right crownmethod (sarcastic). how come macgill got 8 wickets in fatullah if he can only play on SCG (his initials are SCG macgill). the only reason warne is over him is because he is more economical you can really say. How can you all say mcgill isn't good. mcgill average is better (27 while warne is 28), strike rate is better as well. macgill averages a wicket every 8 and a half overs while warne is about 10 overs. i am sure mcgill rip it more than warne as well. Both are very good but warne is a little better. Macgill does well on pitches that warne has struggled on in the past. You can all disagree and hate me but i don't care. you can say when he is in tandem with warne he is up for the challenge and wins it Anyway, warne is my cricket idle ------------- In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage. |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 13 April 2006 at 4:49am
| anil is right macgill is a bowler of the olden times who bowls a moddle and off line whereas warne bowls middle and leg thats where warne becomes easier to play.macgill of course gives a boundary ball every over something warne dosent give but i hae to say that macgill's potential is underused and had both played together i am sure macca would have more |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 13 April 2006 at 4:50am
absolutely i agree with u spinwiz
|
Posted By: Jay dee
Date Posted: 13 April 2006 at 3:34pm
| Warne is the greatest, warne ruffens the batsman up and then macgill would take the wicket and therefore the credit. |
Posted By: darlo_lad
Date Posted: 14 April 2006 at 8:54am
| Warne for me by far, but I think MacGill is being taught by the great one and will more than likely be the main Aussie spinner when Warne retires. |
Posted By: warnester
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 10:48am
i couldn't agree more, warne is the best leg spinner, ever |
Posted By: ANIL KUMBLE
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 10:51am
|
Is MacGill older he's something like 35 so is Warne ------------- Check out my blog http://crictopia.blogspot.com/ pretty bad though... |
Posted By: RightHandBat
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 11:24am
| MacGill is 35 and 52 days. Warne is 36 turning 37 this year. |
Posted By: doosoogly
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 9:01pm
|
Macgill would get into any other test side in the world- but warne is keeping him out of the aussie side. You can't say if they both had played the same amount of tests macgill would have come out better, because he might not have had the consistency that warne has had throughout his career- there is no way to tell. Plus macgill has not got the persona and presence that warne does.. people play the man rather than the ball and this is partly why warne has had so much success. Macgill plays the role of quiet achiever- much like Paul Collingwood compared to kevin pietersen, Collingwood is much better technically but isn't noticed except when he plays poorly-Pietersen is always noticed because he talks himself up and has a strong media related personality- in Pakistan and India Collingwood outplayed Pietersen consistently but no-one really noticed! |
Posted By: crick
Date Posted: 18 April 2006 at 10:37pm
|
people will also play more watchfully against warne becuase they know what he can do, and relax a bit towards mcgill, thus giving him a better chance at a wicket, im sure if macgill had known about warne, before he played for aus, he would have tried to go to another country! |
Posted By: mazzybabe.uk
Date Posted: 24 April 2006 at 1:14pm
| Magill has a better tally of wickets in a match the only reason he doesn't play I think is because whenever he and warne play together he out plays warne and warne is such an important intimidating figure you wouldn't want him to go flat |
Posted By: Top Cat
Date Posted: 14 May 2006 at 10:08am
|
no comparison,its warne who's better! ------------- |
Posted By: Phil-from-Lancs
Date Posted: 14 May 2006 at 12:48pm
| to me this is slightly silly, who is better out of warne or macgill?, only one answer |
Posted By: wccc
Date Posted: 21 May 2006 at 9:32pm
| there should be arguements. warney is the best |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 22 May 2006 at 8:28am
|
Warney the greatest bowler ------------- |
Posted By: mazzybabe.uk
Date Posted: 22 May 2006 at 9:25am
|
not sure if magill had the same amount of matches we might be talking about him more ------------- The First Century I ever saw was Heschelle Gibbs' 228 against Pakistan |
Posted By: crick
Date Posted: 22 May 2006 at 10:25am
|
i definately think warne is better, but i think mcgill is good enough that the team can play two spinners, but they seem to like people like gillespie instead, who then get hammered in the ashes, do you think the ashes could have been slightly different with mcgill as well as warne, considering the english didn't play warne that well? ------------- boo ha ha! |
Posted By: wccc
Date Posted: 22 May 2006 at 4:44pm
| i think the pom bashers have got great spinners |
Posted By: cricket_mstr
Date Posted: 24 May 2006 at 4:11am
|
MacGil isn't consitent, he can get 5 for 60 or 1 for 120 ------------- Cricket watcher but tennis player :) |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 24 May 2006 at 5:28am
|
yeah but when he gets wickets he does get quite a few o them ,remember he took 9 wkts in the match against the worldxi ------------- |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 24 May 2006 at 6:09am
Dips , I'd have taken 9 wickets against that mob , they batted terribly! ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 24 May 2006 at 12:52pm
|
what kind of a bowler are u Sledger a leggie as well ------------- |
Posted By: wccc
Date Posted: 25 May 2006 at 9:41pm
|
they didn't play like a world xi |
Posted By: wiseguy
Date Posted: 26 May 2006 at 1:05pm
|
Just look at those matches where both bowlers played together, Macgill has certainly performed better, so I think has better strike rate than warne, to compare him properly will not be possible becos he will never get a chance to show his full potential. ------------- so far so good! |
Posted By: Charlie
Date Posted: 02 June 2006 at 1:24pm
| yes i agree with wiseguy |
Posted By: ahses winners!
Date Posted: 02 June 2006 at 2:25pm
| come on guys magill i would say is equal lets just leave iit at that they both are simply amazing and magill takes more wckets sooner thatn warny.the only reason warny is better (by reputation)is cos he plays for australia and magil dosent am i right?if im wrong sorry but magill can rip it a mile and so can warne so they are equal in my eyes. |
Posted By: Top Cat
Date Posted: 02 June 2006 at 3:57pm
|
How on earth did macgill get 15 votes ------------- |
Posted By: ahses winners!
Date Posted: 02 June 2006 at 4:15pm
| cos he is very good |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 03 June 2006 at 7:10am
ask someone outside the earth maybe and hell give you the answer ------------- |
Posted By: slogger72N/O
Date Posted: 21 June 2006 at 7:28am
How did Collingwood do better than Pieterson, when Pieterson had a higher average. back on topic Warne is way better than Macgill, 8 wickets is a great achievment but it was against Bangladesh, also Warne has bowled brilliantly whenever, and wherever he's been. ------------- |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 21 June 2006 at 1:20pm
------------- |
||||||||||||||||
[66.67%]Posted By: ANIL KUMBLE
Date Posted: 21 June 2006 at 1:22pm
|
I wonder how many wickets MacGill would have had Warne never played cricket.450+ maybe probably obver 500 if he started at a young age. ------------- Check out my blog http://crictopia.blogspot.com/ pretty bad though... |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 21 June 2006 at 1:40pm
|
Definately but because he has not played so many matches he does not have so many wickets ------------- |
Posted By: Wal Bada
Date Posted: 09 July 2006 at 4:56pm
There was a guy from Sri Lanka named Muralitharan who was bowling off spin and taken 600+ wickets . . . . . |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 09 July 2006 at 5:02pm
|
Why are you posting crap read the rules . ------------- |
Posted By: TCA123
Date Posted: 09 July 2006 at 5:55pm
Warne and mcgill cannot be compared - because was is just easily better  ------------- Offspinner, Right Arm Bat |
Posted By: Wal Bada
Date Posted: 10 July 2006 at 7:47am
No. I was reacting to what has been said. I have not started it. So you are asking not to react to any thing even if it's off topic eh? |
Posted By: Hawks fan
Date Posted: 11 July 2006 at 4:21pm
| I think Warne is better. He just looks good when he bowls. He looks confident and ready to roughen the batsman up. He is a better leggie and with (in my opinion) a cleaner action. When he steps up to bowl he creates a fear for the opposing teams batsman by his mere presence. |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 12 July 2006 at 6:41am
Started it??? Debate is encouraged on this forum and all having our favourites , opinions will differ. To post "I have not started it" suggests you're more interested in confrontation - if that is the case I can guarantee you will come second. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 12 July 2006 at 1:49pm
|
THIS THREAD SHOULD BE LOCKED ,ITS ONE OF THOSE SILLY AND STUPID ONES I HAVE MADE ------------- |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 13 July 2006 at 5:59am
|
Your wish is my command! ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |