*Official* Australia Tour of West Indies 2025

[TheJediBrah]

was Beau bowling offies or mediums?

 

[Nintendo]

was Beau bowling offies or mediums?

Got his wicket bowling mediums.

 

[Daemon]

Yep. Blatantly not out. Can't believe they didn't withdraw the appeal.

Oh

 

[Spikey]

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"

crazy the timing of that. keep in mind the "lead up" was....Australia's poor (based on our standards at the time) performances in the OD series beforehand

average of 40 in the 33% of tests that australia didn't win in his career. enough said. Haze and Starc > Gillespie

 

[TheJediBrah]

crazy the timing of that. keep in mind the "lead up" was....Australia's poor (based on our standards at the time) performances in the OD series beforehand

This is why you have to actually watch cricket

I'm not disputing the logic behind anything else you're saying, just that this one specific example is poor

 

[Spikey]

This is why you have to actually watch cricket

I'm not disputing the logic behind anything else you're saying, just that this one specific example is poor

I watched most of those games. Gillespie was poor. So was the team. In the rare times that Australia was poor during Gillespie's career, he was a poor in a lot of those matches, more than Starc and Haze have been. He is 100% behind Haze and Starc for me, but if for someone else he's not behind Starc, that's fine, but based on whatever logic one wants to use to justify that (conditions, batting opposition, etc), I'd then argue it's almost impossible to justify Haze > Dizzy under that same logic. he's either better than both of them or worse than both of them.

People are rewarding Gillespie for being a side-player in the most successful team of all time. Lee and Gillespie are both absoutaly behind Haze and Starc

 

[Beamer]

Another superb bowling performance from us. That was memorable. I've never seen. Steve Smith worked over so obviously like that and them bowled with the fuller ball. Great stuff.

But if one of the games greats looked like a novice, no wonder everyone else struggled as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I watched most of those games. Gillespie was poor. So was the team.

He wasn't just poor on that tour, he was diabolical. Struggling to hit the pitch. There was clearly an issue with his run up and rhythm. It wasn't just because he was suddenly put under pressure.

 

[Spikey]

haddin having to be careful with his words here.......

note: for those that weren't watching live: straight after Carey's dismissal, Haddin said that it was an "interesting" shot. Haddin, of course, once played a very similar, "interesting" shot at 6/21 or whatever it was

 

[Coronis]

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

fwiw Boland has a winning % of 77

 

[Spikey]

He wasn't just poor on that tour, he was diabolical. Struggling to hit the pitch. There was clearly an issue with his run up and rhythm. It wasn't just because he was suddenly put under pressure.

 

[Spark]

note: for those that weren't watching live: straight after Carey's dismissal, Haddin said that it was an "interesting" shot. Haddin, of course, once played a very similar, "interesting" shot at 6/21 or whatever it was

Still think Hussey's shot in that innings was worse

 

[Spikey]

fwiw Boland has a winning % of 77

yeah, Stuart Clark ended up at 75%. I can't imagine any Australia bowler with more than 15 tests touches Clark and Boland winning percentage (Boland's not at 15 tests yet but will be soon). Obviously Clark and Boland were central parts in some of their wins, as shown by their multiple man of the match awards

(Dizzy got two in his career. and one of them was for his batting)

 

[Spikey]

Still think Hussey's shot in that innings was worse

Absolutely agree. I could see Haddin's logic and whilst I disagreed with it, at effectively 6/21 (shaun marsh was injured iirc) and after all the mayhem on that day, I could understand Haddin's shot. Hussey's one though...

But it was still very funny that Haddin didn't reflect on his own interesting shot.

 

[Coronis]

yeah, Stuart Clark ended up at 75%. I can't imagine any Australia bowler with more than 15 tests touches Clark and Boland winning percentage (Boland's not at 15 tests yet but will be soon). Obviously Clark and Boland were central parts in some of their wins, as shown by their multiple man of the match awards

(Dizzy got two in his career. and one of them was for his batting)

Yeah even Gilchrist is at like 76% iirc. Hard to imagine another player at all getting close to that over a decent sample size.

 

[social]

He wasn't just poor on that tour, he was diabolical. Struggling to hit the pitch. There was clearly an issue with his run up and rhythm. It wasn't just because he was suddenly put under pressure.

Yeah Gillespie fell off a cliff at the age of 29ish

I saw him at the Gabba against the Kiwis in late 2004 and something was off about his bowling then so it wasn’t as if he got to England in 2005 and suddenly crumbled under pressure

He went from very sharp to floaty in the space of 12 months

He retired at about the same age as Cummins is now because he had lost whatever had made him a top bowler

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah Gillespie fell off a cliff at the age of 29ish

I saw him at the Gabba against the Kiwis in late 2004 and something was off about his bowling then so it wasn’t as if he got to England in 2005 and suddenly crumbled under pressure

He went from very sharp to floaty in the space of 12 months

He retired at about the same age as Cummins is now because he had lost whatever had made him a top bowler

He did get a bit better by 2006 but by then he'd lost a lot of pace as well and Stuart Clark came along, he was done (he was also perpetually injured which didn't get better with age)

 

[morgieb]

Honestly his existence alone makes me feel better about the future of Aus bowling because everyone here thought he was just a slightly-above-average Shield trundler before his debut, and he's turned out to be absolutely world class. So maybe the standard of Shield bowling is actually higher than we all assume.

In my lifetime there's only been like two series (at home at least) where our bowling has clearly been exposed. We always seem to find a half-decent bowling unit somehow.

 

[the big bambino]

In my lifetime there's only been like two series (at home at least) where our bowling has clearly been exposed. We always seem to find a half-decent bowling unit somehow.

I'm a little concerned with what's beneath the top 4, especially with Richardson perpetually injured. I agree the Boland selection turned out unexpectedly good but its not such a mystery when you see his strength, consistency and ability to move the ball. The nature of Australian test wickets coinciding with his career have helped him too. However I'm not so confident with guys like Spencer Johnson or even Lance Morris. They're good but I can't see them becoming as good as our current bowlers.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah Gillespie fell off a cliff at the age of 29ish

I saw him at the Gabba against the Kiwis in late 2004 and something was off about his bowling then so it wasn’t as if he got to England in 2005 and suddenly crumbled under pressure

He went from very sharp to floaty in the space of 12 months

He retired at about the same age as Cummins is now because he had lost whatever had made him a top bowler

Recently I compared videos of him in 04 against India compared to the 05 Ashes. While since, say, 2000 his action had changed subtly and he'd lost pace since, it looked pretty much identical between the two series as were his speeds. Yet in one he picked up lots of wickets, and in the other he was totally ineffective and never recovered what made him good in India.