Renshaw’s biggest problem is that he hasn’t improved his technique at all and people know his weaknessesHighly speculative
surely Gillespie is either ahead of both hazlewood and starc or behind both of them
and it's simply wrong imo.Hazelwood and Starc aren't that close. He sits in between them.
Gillespie also played in a much flatter batting era, no? Or a good chunk of his career was post 2000. Starc and haze have definitely had more conductive pitches and easier opposition to bowl at.I know there's a game going on but I've been thinking about this
and it's simply wrong imo.
average-wise, yes, Haze is 24, Dizzy 26 and Starc 27. So that's simple. But consider the advantage Dizzy had: he won 71% of his test matches. Haze and Starc are in the 50%'s. Dizzy has a far worse record in lost/drawn matches, a bowling average of over 40, so you can't use performance in losing matches to mark Starc down (it's 33 for Starc, 30 for Haze). Starc and Haze have been part of Aus teams that have been bowled out for under 250 far more often than Dizzy (over twice as many occasions for Starc, almost twice as many for Haze despite playing only 4 more games than Dizzy).
Do we think Gillespie was a major mover and shaker in those games that Aus won? for me, of course not. scoreboard pressure from Australia's all star batting line-up put Aus on the front-foot, then you have Warne and McGrath on the bowling front. Gillespie was a very good bowler no doubt, but my orginal thought stands: Gillespie is either better than both of them, or worse than both of them. Saying he's better than one and but not the other doesn't make sense to me
But that goes into my point: if you want to consider that as a factor, than surely It's Dizzy > Haze as well then.Gillespie also played in a much flatter batting era, no? Or a good chunk of his career was post 2000. Starc and haze have definitely had more conductive pitches and easier opposition to bowl at.
He still looks nervous, but he's putting a very high price on his wicket which is certainly more than can be said for some of the othersHe's had a fair amount of luck, as anyone who lasts in these conditions needs to, but this has been a really important fighting knock from Green here. He's done well this test in tough counditions.
Friend of mine is of the view that Root, Smith and Williamson are the last of a breed of test batsmen who play like traditional batsmen: high price on wicket, prepared to grind bowlers down etcHe still looks nervous, but he's putting a very high price on his wicket which is certainly more than can be said for some of the others
Depends, some of the decks Starc and Haze have had to bowl on were flat as anything. Meanwhile 90’s Australian decks (when Gillespie started his career) were far from roads.Gillespie also played in a much flatter batting era, no? Or a good chunk of his career was post 2000. Starc and haze have definitely had more conductive pitches and easier opposition to bowl at.
Yeah Stac and Haze have definitely kind of had two separate careers in terms of the flatness of their home decks.Depends, some of the decks Starc and Haze have had to bowl on were flat as anything. Meanwhile 90’s Australian decks (when Gillespie started his career) were far from roads.
Gillespie only played 14 games in the 90s so didn't really get a huge benefit from that. Gillespie played 29 home tests with 42 away while Haze is 41 home and 35 away.Depends, some of the decks Starc and Haze have had to bowl on were flat as anything. Meanwhile 90’s Australian decks (when Gillespie started his career) were far from roads.
Wait are you talking about the catch to his left at first slip?No third umpire should ever deny a fielder a catch after they allowed Joe Root's this week. What a disgrace that was.
Yep. Blatantly not out. Can't believe they didn't withdraw the appeal.Wait are you talking about the catch to his left at first slip?
True, but I bring up the 2000s Aussies more to say that simply, Gillespie had the benefit of huge scoreboard pressure in probably close to 70 percent of his games, a natural benefit from playing in a team that almost always would have at least 2 to 3 players who would be in the top 7 of a contemporary world XI. I've used win percentages because that's what statsguru offers, but I'd rather use something else. Still, the point is, I don't think Dizzy averaged 16.8 in the fourth innings of games Australia won because he was getting it to turn square from the rough on day 5. He had the benefit of playing in a much stronger & successful team than Starc/Haze and he still only just has a better average than Starc. And I mean, we saw what happened to 30yo Jason Gillespie in the 2005 Ashes when the scoreboard pressure disappeared....Gillespie only played 14 games in the 90s so didn't really get a huge benefit from that. Gillespie played 29 home tests with 42 away while Haze is 41 home and 35 away.
Someone previously mentioned about removing minnows Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from Gillespie and it pushing his average above 27 but Haze has 49 wickets at 15 against the WI. Their batting has been minnow tier for his entire career and that pushes Haze up to 26 if you remove them.
I still think Gillespie and Haze are close to equal at this stage. Both are high quality but with different strengths and weaknesses, both are injury prone and both played in quite strong teams relative to their eras.
Aus batting hasn't been piling up runs recently but I don't see the 2000s Aus batting line up piling up 400+ regularly like they used to in these conditions either.
bad example. He was bowling garbage leading up to the series as well and never should have been picked, which was commented by many at the time. Nothing to do with "scoreboard pressure"And I mean, we saw what happened to 30yo Jason Gillespie in the 2005 Ashes when the scoreboard pressure disappeared....