McDermott or Gillespie?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, same. Got the two videos of the 1994/95 Ashes series where McD was just awesome. Has Blewwy's tons in his first two Tests as well. Quite possibly the best cricket vids I own.

plzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplz send copies

 

[Top_Cat]

plzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplz send copies

The copyright is owned by ACV, I'm afraid. Can't help ya.

FB.

 

[DaRick]

Can't help reading the above that you didn't see a lot of McDermott. For example, he actually had a lethal off-cutter. Was partly why his outie was so good.

Ah, I was too young to really remember him, unfortunately. I've only just turned 20, so all I can do is look back at highlights reels and read what the likes of Steve Waugh had to say about him and go by some impressions.

I find his lack of subcontinental success slightly odd, then (unless injury was a factor, which is certainly possible for McDermott). Bowlers who use legcutters and offcutters well tend to be more successful on the subcontinent (i.e - Kaspr, Gillespie and even McGrath).

 

[Top_Cat]

Ah, I was too young to really remember him, unfortunately. I've only just turned 20, so all I can do is look back at highlights reels and read what the likes of Steve Waugh had to say about him and go by some impressions.

I find his lack of subcontinental success slightly odd, then (unless injury was a factor, which is certainly possible for McDermott). Bowlers who use legcutters and offcutters well tend to be more successful on the subcontinent (i.e - Kaspr, Gillespie and even McGrath).

Only played a few times in Pakistan and SL, never in India. Did alright in '94 considering his knees were about to fall to pieces.

 

[iamdavid]

Gillespie for me, I'm a bit biased in that I only saw the final stages of McDermott's career due to my age.
They both had all the tools but I think the way Gillespie seemed to lift on a couple of occasions against the best sides in the toughest conditions (namely India in 2001 and 2004) puts him ahead.

 

[stephen]

Gillespie just edging ahead of McDermott now.

 

[Rant0r]

McDermott just for reasons already covered in depth here so I won't repeat them.

Gillespie was awesome on his day though, severely underrated, I remember some absolute rip snorting finger breaking deliveries in England '01 that would scare young folk from taking up the sport. Apparently prior to one of his many injuries he was observed by Ian Healy in the nets as being 'Scarily fast'.

 

[funnygirl]

Craig Mcdermott.He was a fantastic bowler.I always loved watching him,got an attitude.If i remember correctly,he was the most successful bowler of the world cup 87(Reliance cup) too.He was equally good in both formats of the game.

Gillespie was a brilliant bowler too.Really can't seperate them.

 

[Rant0r]

Fence sitter

 

[aussie]

Gillespie for me, I'm a bit biased in that I only saw the final stages of McDermott's career due to my age.
They both had all the tools but I think the way Gillespie seemed to lift on a couple of occasions against the best sides in the toughest conditions (namely India in 2001 and 2004) puts him ahead.

McDermott's performances in WI 90/91 is comparable to what Dizzy did then TBF.

 

[Shri]

Can't go past the Jesus of cricket. Gillespie for me coz I have never seen McDermott bowl.

 

[Burgey]

Rate McDermott much higher. This man carried the Australian attack for so many years, and it is ridiculous the pressure this man was under to create the early breakthrough. Enjoyable bowler to watch, emotive guy with the ball in hand and he made you feel a part of the action.

Don't remember a time Gillespie was anything more than the 2nd or 3rd choice bowler in the Australian lineup, still a fine bowler when fit though.

But McDermott didn't carry or lead the attack for that long. He toured England in 85 when he wasn't ready, but not as the spearhead (which was Lawson). Then he was out of the side for significant portions of the late 80s. He didn't even tour in 89.

Not saying he wasn't a fine bowler though. By 91 he was leading the attack and he formed a pretty decent new ball attack with Hughes for a few years. He's like Garth Mackenzie in that he's often forgotten when the fine Aussie bowlers are spoken of.

Personally I'd have Gillespie ahead of him on the basis he seemed to bowl more genuine wicket-taking or threatening balls. But their careers had interesting parallelsan with young debuts, injury set backs and then a decent period where each was very, very good.

 

[Jono]

Gillespie in India 2004 is one of the best fast bowling performances I've ever seen over a series. Was fantastic.

I think I watched all of my McDermott when I was too young to make a proper assessment as to whether he was better than Dizzy.

 

[age_master]

Gillespie, he also has a test double century and better hair.

 

[Rant0r]

I wouldn't consider a mullet better hair, but when you're up against a ranga then maybe so

 

[archie mac]

I think you have to give the older player an increase of 20%. It should be noted that a number of people have voted for Dizzy simply because they did not see or were very young when Billy played.

The score atm is Dizzy 16 Billy 14 but when this is adjusted it is

Billy 16.8 Dizzy 16

( I hope this is not considered in the same light as the "first Chance Theory")

 

[stephen]

I think you have to give the older player an increase of 20%. It should be noted that a number of people have voted for Dizzy simply because they did not see or were very young when Billy played.

The score atm is Dizzy 16 Billy 14 but when this is adjusted it is

Billy 16.8 Dizzy 16

( I hope this is not considered in the same light as the "first Chance Theory")

Yeah. Actually I'm not surprised at how close it is, but I'm also surprised at how many have said they've never seen McDermott.

 

[grecian]

I think you have to give the older player an increase of 20%. It should be noted that a number of people have voted for Dizzy simply because they did not see or were very young when Billy played.

The score atm is Dizzy 16 Billy 14 but when this is adjusted it is

Billy 16.8 Dizzy 16

( I hope this is not considered in the same light as the "first Chance Theory")

Umm, I've got great respect for you rather then the founder of FCT, but it's not like Billy was from the sixties or before, plenty that have seen both have gone for Dizzy.

Gillespie in his prime was much more devastating then Craig on much less responsive pitches IMHO.

 

[Uppercut]

I picked Gillespie, I know what I am gonna get from him and rate him highly. I think had he been on another side other than the Aussies he would have had much more impressive stats - he had to share wickets with two of the greatest bowlers of all-time.

How does this make any sense?

 

[GIMH]

It makes sense doesn't it? i.e there were less wickets available for him because he had two absolute legends taking them all for themselves