• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

McDermott or Gillespie?

Who is the better bowler


  • Total voters
    42

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, not the greatest fan of Ikki, but this is a particularly valid point, Warne and Broad senior were two of the greatest bowlers that have ever walked the Earth, people have been complaining that Gillespie was only the third best bowler in his side, but honestly wouldn't of Craig been exactly the same if he'd been born ten years later?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, not the greatest fan of Ikki, but this is a particularly valid point, Warne and Broad senior were two of the greatest bowlers that have ever walked the Earth, people have been complaining that Gillespie was only the third best bowler in his side, but honestly wouldn't of Craig been exactly the same if he'd been born ten years later?
:notworthy
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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
You can say Gillespie would have taken more wickets had he not played in such a good team, but it makes no sense to say he'd have taken them at a better average. Which is what I interpreted "he would have had much more impressive stats" as saying.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You can say Gillespie would have taken more wickets had he not played in such a good team, but it makes no sense to say he'd have taken them at a better average. Which is what I interpreted "he would have had much more impressive stats" as saying.
Well he'd have had more wickets, which is a stat. He'd also have had the choice of ends, and got first go at the tailenders when they were needed to be cleaned up, something M & W excelled at.
 

archie mac

International Coach
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.
There were still a few tbh. I personnally have no problem with Dizzy being given the nod over Billy, just thought I would throw that out there. As it does concern me that people vote simply because they watched player A but not player B.

Although in the scheme of things it is no big deal:)
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Gillespie had the better career no doubt, but I still think McDermott was the better bowler, but only just!
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
McDermott was the better bowler for mine - better aggression and was able to keep himself on the field more often. On the other hand, If I was looking at investing cash into property, "Billy" wouldn't be my man...
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
There were still a few tbh. I personnally have no problem with Dizzy being given the nod over Billy, just thought I would throw that out there. As it does concern me that people vote simply because they watched player A but not player B.

Although in the scheme of things it is no big deal:)
To be fair, when you've seen a player as a 10 year old, compared to one as a 20 year old, it's harder to give a direct comparison of the players.

I remember watching McDermott, but I can hardly say I can analyse his bowling like I did with Dizzy. For that reason I wouldn't vote.

I could do a comparison based on stats and comments from analysts, experts and fellow players... but I can't be arsed :ph34r:
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
That's the thing, a few people have said "I didn't see McDermott, so I vote Gillespie", rather than sensibly abstaining like you did.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Well in that case for those folk, Marcus North > Allan Border? :ph34r:
 
Last edited:

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There were still a few tbh. I personnally have no problem with Dizzy being given the nod over Billy, just thought I would throw that out there. As it does concern me that people vote simply because they watched player A but not player B.

Although in the scheme of things it is no big deal:)
That's the thing, a few people have said "I didn't see McDermott, so I vote Gillespie", rather than sensibly abstaining like you did.
Yeah good points, actually I probably agree:)

Well in that case for those folk, Marcus North > Allan Border? :ph34r:
Well I personally much prefer North's contribution to OZ then Borders:ph34r:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You have not voted nor commented until now. What are your thoughts?
That there's no definitive answer. McDermott was less weak of body than Gillespie but also probably his best bowling wasn't quite as good as Gillespie's best bowling.

I really don't think there's much between them but they had different virtues and weaknesses.

McDermott almost certainly accomplished more but I'd have a hard time saying he was definitively the better bowler.
 

Top