• 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.

*Official* Australia Tour of West Indies 2025

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I know there's a game going on but I've been thinking about this

surely Gillespie is either ahead of both hazlewood and starc or behind both of them
Hazelwood and Starc aren't that close. He sits in between them.
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
 

Nintendo

Cricketer Of The Year
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
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.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
But that goes into my point: if you want to consider that as a factor, than surely It's Dizzy > Haze as well then.
 

Skyliner

International Debutant
'Prince Louis of France's invasion of England in 1216 saw him besiege Dover Castle, a formidable and strategically vital fortress. During the course of the siege the gate at the northern extremity of the outer defences was undermined by the French and collapsed. While the castle was likely in a vulnerable state, the French army was itself weakened due to logistical problems and growing discontent among its English allies. This prevented it from effectively exploiting the castle's weakened defenses, even though it remained a thorn in their side.'
 

Spark

Global Moderator
He'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.
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 others
 

social

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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 others
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 etc

Green is obviously a far lesser player (& I actually think that his nerves play a role in his conservative approach) but it’s refreshing to see a relatively young player being prepared to do the hard yards
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
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.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
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.
Yeah Stac and Haze have definitely kind of had two separate careers in terms of the flatness of their home decks.
 

Justo

U19 Debutant
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.

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.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
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....

To my mind, it's just illogical to pick Gillespie ahead of only one of Starc/Haze. It's both or neither. If someone wants to say conditions and batting line-ups were tougher back then, then that's fine, but then he should be ahead of Haze too. Putting him ahead of Starc just reeks of rewarding Gillespie for being in a more successful team, but let's be real, while he had great games and moments, he wasn't driving the bus. Andy Bichel and Damien Fleming have got real solid records in that 1999 to 2004 era too.

Warne & McGarth > the four > Gillespie > Lee for me.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And I mean, we saw what happened to 30yo Jason Gillespie in the 2005 Ashes when the scoreboard pressure disappeared....
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"
 

Top