Anil Kumble v Stuart MacGill

[Salamuddin]

Who do you think is the better test match bowler ?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Kumble is more consistent, but if MacGill has a good day I'd say he'd be a little better.

Kumble though, consistency is what's important.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

I agree with you DCYE, Anil Kumble just shades it for me

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Agreed. It's quite close, but Kumble's done it for years and is absolutely deadly with conditions in his favour, as well as being consistent enough when they aren't.

I'd pick MacGill on a pitch that didn't offer anything for spinners, but Kumble would get the nod in most cases.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's an interesting one actually. Instinctively I go for Kumble, as he has the greater track record, offers more control & definitely bowls fewer bad balls, but MacGill is clearly the more prodigious spinner of the ball.

If the nationalities of the two were reversed & Kumble had had to live in Warne's imposing shadow I wonder what people's decision would be.

 

[Jono]

I'd pick MacGill on a pitch that didn't offer anything for spinners, but Kumble would get the nod in most cases.

Interesting because during the 2003/04 test series between India and Australia the first 3 pitches offered hardly anything for spinners, and the fourth test at Sydney only started helping the spinners by day 3, yet Kumble well and truly out-bowled MacGill in that series. MacGill copped an absolute flogging.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting because during the 2003/04 test series between India and Australia the first 3 pitches offered hardly anything for spinners, and the fourth test at Sydney only started helping the spinners by day 3, yet Kumble well and truly out-bowled MacGill in that series. MacGill copped an absolute flogging.

I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware (as I'm sure you are) that MacGill didn't bowl particularly well in that series, and Dravid, Laxman and company aren't the most forgiving bunch to have a bad series against as a leg-spinner.

Kumble has a relatively poor record outside of the subcontinent over a lengthy career, and while he's certainly improved on that in recent years and he is a better bowler than MacGill in most situations, I still think he does his best work by some distance on home pitches. Generally speaking, if the match was to be played in (say) Australia or South Africa I'd take MacGill, and in most other situations I'd take Kumble.

The main difference between the two is that when Kumble gets a pitch that is in his favour he takes full advantage of it and is an incredibly dangerous bowler, while MacGill could be anything from unplayable to utterly crap on any sort of surface. Both underrated bowlers though.

 

[Pothas]

The massive number of wickets means it has to be Kumble

 

[benchmark00]

MacGill.

 

[Dasa]

Kumble easily for me...he has to perform the dual role of attacking while keeping the runs down, and has to almost carry the bowling attack. Contrastingly, MacGill can pretty much attack constantly because he generally has high quality bowlers backing up.

 

[Jono]

The main difference between the two is that when Kumble gets a pitch that is in his favour he takes full advantage of it and is an incredibly dangerous bowler, while MacGill could be anything from unplayable to utterly crap on any sort of surface. Both underrated bowlers though.

I rate MacGill and I agree that both are underrated, and are just unlucky to be in the same era as Warne and Murali. I'm just not entirely sure that MacGill would automatically be the choice on a non-spinner friendly wicket. He may well be, and Kumble's record is far from outstanding on non-spinning tracks, but MacGill has barely bowled on wickets which don't aid spin, and when he has, he's mainly been spanked to all parts of the ground.

I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware (as I'm sure you are) that MacGill didn't bowl particularly well in that series, and Dravid, Laxman and company aren't the most forgiving bunch to have a bad series against as a leg-spinner

Dravid has struggled against Warne even when Warne has bowled poorly though, but he handled MacGill like he was nothing. True with Laxman and Sachin, they always play spin well whether its Murali or MacGill, though Sachin didn't get stuck in to MacGill as much that series. VVS and Sehwag did most of the damage.

Kumble has a relatively poor record outside of the subcontinent over a lengthy career, and while he's certainly improved on that in recent years and he is a better bowler than MacGill in most situations, I still think he does his best work by some distance on home pitches. Generally speaking, if the match was to be played in (say) Australia or South Africa I'd take MacGill, and in most other situations I'd take Kumble.

But doesn't that just follow your argument that they enjoy their home conditions (or conditions they are familiar with) more? Its like when we discussed that sub-continent pacers (Shoaib and Pathan come to mind) doing well on flat sub-continent pitches don't get credit they deserve, but you countered saying its their home conditions so they're used to it. Same can be said for Macgill right? I mean he's played most of his career on Australian wickets. Wouldn't he obviously be used to the characteristics of those (bounce for eg.) more-so than Kumble.

Out of curiosity, what is MacGill's record on wickets that haven't favoured spin, and also how many tests has he actually played on them (You'd assume most would have been when Warne was missing (injured, dropped or banned), as its unlikely Warne and MacGill have played together too many times on non-spin friendly wickets).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I never actually argued that MacGill was in some inherent sense a better bowler on Australian pitches than Kumble. Obviously both bowlers are more familiar with their home conditions, but the question wasn't "if Kumble was Australian would he be better on Australian pitches than MacGill", it was merely about which bowler you would choose in those conditions.

I have no idea what MacGill's record is on "pitches that don't favour spin", because you can't quantify something like that. His record in Australia is 100+ wickets at around 26, and his record away is around 60 wickets @ 29 or so.

 

[Perm]

Definately Kumble. He has had to perform in all conditions whereas MacGill usually only plays when Australia need two spinners because the wicket is turning.

 

[C_C]

One thing must be remembered - Kumble dominates Indian batsmen in domestic cricket- even the likes of Sidhu,Azhar,Ganguly,Dravid,Tendy,etc. treats him very cautiously in domestic cricket...McGill on the other hand gets slaughtered against good players of spin.
And the reason is, McGill, despite having just as much variety and far more turn than Kumble misses the most important skill for a spinner (something that Kumble is as good as anyone else in the world at) :accuracy.
Thats all the difference there is between even McGill and Warne- accuracy. McGill can rarely build pressure against a good batting side because he has this habit of throwing in a four-ball every over.

 

[silentstriker]

Accuracy > Legbreaks


Gotta go with Kumble.

 

[Goughy]

Has to be Kumble. He has an exceptional Test record and has been destructive in County Cricket on tracks not traditionally recognised as turners.

Also, people forget how confusing Kumble was for batsmen early in his career. Do you play him as a leg spinner, medium pacer etc? He was really a player that was unusual and of a type that batsmen had not seen before.

 

[Anil]

kumble, mcgill hasn't played enough to come close...

 

[silentstriker]

Has to be Kumble. He has an exceptional Test record and has been destructive in County Cricket on tracks not traditionally recognised as turners.

Also, people forget how confusing Kumble was for batsmen early in his career. Do you play him as a leg spinner, medium pacer etc? He was really a player that was unusual and of a type that batsmen had not seen before.

Its actually true today as well, to a certain degree. He is not a big turner of the ball, so the batsman are confused on the best way to defend him. He turns it "just enough" for you to miss, but he'll never produce the "warne to gatting" type turn (he doesn't need to). He is very accurate.

After Warne and Murali, I think he is clearly the next guy in line as the best in cricket. I rate MacGill highly, but imo its clearly Kumble.

 

[silentstriker]

He has an exceptional Test record and has been destructive in County Cricket on tracks not traditionally recognised as turners.

An idea pitch for him is the one that has bounce, not turn. For Warne/Murali and most other spinners, they like turners. Obviously a turner will help him a lot, but a bouncy pitch is where he will thrive the most.

 

[adharcric]

Its actually true today as well, to a certain degree. He is not a big turner of the ball, so the batsman are confused on the best way to defend him. He turns it "just enough" for you to miss, but he'll never produce the "warne to gatting" type turn (he doesn't need to). He is very accurate.

After Warne and Murali, I think he is clearly the next guy in line as the best in cricket. I rate MacGill highly, but imo its clearly Kumble.

It's amazing how it still seems like no one has figured out what the hell Kumble is doing. He just keeps prodding the ball in there with deadly accuracy and minimal turn and batsmen are confused as to how they're managing to get owned and how they should play him.