Superior Bowler: Vaas or Gillespie?

[Richard]

westpac park 97, newlands 98,queens 99-00, harare 99-00, newlands 00-01, edgbaston 02, wanderers 02-03, supersport park 02-03, galle 04-05 vs SA, and probably a few more.

Hmm...
I can truthfully say I've seen only 2 of those games and haven't read extensively on any of the others.
Guess I'll take your word.

 

[marc71178]

No, you don't need to do said - because everyone knows that McGrath doesn't have an utterly polarised playing persona.
To do that for McGrath would be utterly pointless.

Why?

Because it makes your comment look completely wrong?

 

[aussie]

If you weren't so blindly pro-everything-Australian I might be inclined to take your word about the relative performances.
I'd reckon Vaas has matched McGrath on several occasions.

come on richard m views on the game are not entirely pro-aussie, i blend , plus its possible that Vaas may have matched pigeon but i doubt if he has ever done better.

 

[Richard]

Why?

Because it makes your comment look completely wrong?

No.
Because of the reason I've already stated.
To make it easier, I'll say it again.
McGrath's career does not fit into two almost completely polarised halves.

 

[Richard]

come on richard m views on the game are not entirely pro-aussie, i blend

Yes, true, but if it comes down to an Australian being involved in a close-run thing you rarely go with the other.

plus its possible that Vaas may have matched pigeon but i doubt if he has ever done better.

He probably bowled more wicket-taking deliveries for similar figures - in my book that's doing better.

 

[aussie]

Yes, true, but if it comes down to an Australian being involved in a close-run thing you rarely go with the other.

He probably bowled more wicket-taking deliveries for similar figures - in my book that's doing better.

1.Duhhhhhhh

2.we will never know

 

[Richard]

Well... I will never know, put it that way.

 

[marc71178]

No.
Because of the reason I've already stated.
To make it easier, I'll say it again.
McGrath's career does not fit into two almost completely polarised halves.

So Vaas's does then?

No matter how you look at it, Vaas is nowhere near the bowler McGrath is - not even if you restrict it to their best bowling.

 

[dinu23]

ok, Vaas may not be asgood as McGrath.but he's definitely better than Gillespie on current form.

 

[Richard]

So Vaas's does then?

Er, yes.
Something I thought you had the sense to realise.

No matter how you look at it, Vaas is nowhere near the bowler McGrath is - not even if you restrict it to their best bowling.

If you look at the fact that Vaas is usually either brilliant or hopeless, he's nowhere near the bowler McGrath is.
If you restrict it to Vaas' good half he's better than McGrath overall.

 

[aussie]

If you restrict it to Vaas' good half he's better than McGrath overall.

urrr , this is a scintallating hypothesis of Vaas Richard , u mind explain more in depth how you came up with that....

 

[Richard]

I've done it elsewhere - if you take the half of Vaas' career, selectively picked, that contains his best performances his average is better than McGrath's, which shows as far as I'm concerned that when Vaas bowls well he's better than McGrath.
And there is virtually no other bowler - with the possible exception of Gillespie - whose performances are so polarised as to make such a split other than pointless.

 

[andyc]

I've done it elsewhere - if you take the half of Vaas' career, selectively picked, that contains his best performances his average is better than McGrath's, which shows as far as I'm concerned that when Vaas bowls well he's better than McGrath.
And there is virtually no other bowler - with the possible exception of Gillespie - whose performances are so polarised as to make such a split other than pointless.

is that when comparing to mcgrath's good spells as well? or just his average?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've done it elsewhere - if you take the half of Vaas' career, selectively picked, that contains his best performances his average is better than McGrath's, which shows as far as I'm concerned that when Vaas bowls well he's better than McGrath.
And there is virtually no other bowler - with the possible exception of Gillespie - whose performances are so polarised as to make such a split other than pointless.

This is just insane. ANY BOWLER looks good if you only take half their performances! McGrath's average would be much lower than it is now if you only took his best half! Warne's would be in the low 20s, both Murali and McGrath would average in the teens, Gillespie would average close to what McGrath does now, Harmison would look a world class performer, Shoaib Akhtar would have the best strike rate ever seen, even the much maligned Stuart Macgill would look a terriffic bowler.

If Vaas' average in his best half was better than McGrath's in his best half, THAT would show your point... that Vaas at his best was better than McGrath's best. No matter what criteria you choose though, if you apply it equally to both bowlers, McGrath would come out ahead.

 

[Swervy]

This is just insane. ANY BOWLER looks good if you only take half their performances! McGrath's average would be much lower than it is now if you only took his best half! Warne's would be in the low 20s, both Murali and McGrath would average in the teens, Gillespie would average close to what McGrath does now, Harmison would look a world class performer, Shoaib Akhtar would have the best strike rate ever seen, even the much maligned Stuart Macgill would look a terriffic bowler.

If Vaas' average in his best half was better than McGrath's in his best half, THAT would show your point... that Vaas at his best was better than McGrath's best. No matter what criteria you choose though, if you apply it equally to both bowlers, McGrath would come out ahead.

I wouldnt waste you finger strength on it mate..its one of the most incredibly stupid things Richards ever come up with..which indeed implies its a real hum-dinger

 

[marc71178]

is that when comparing to mcgrath's good spells as well? or just his average?

Oh no, he wouldn't possibly do that - would blow all his theories out of the window.

 

[Richard]

This is just insane. ANY BOWLER looks good if you only take half their performances! McGrath's average would be much lower than it is now if you only took his best half! Warne's would be in the low 20s, both Murali and McGrath would average in the teens, Gillespie would average close to what McGrath does now, Harmison would look a world class performer, Shoaib Akhtar would have the best strike rate ever seen, even the much maligned Stuart Macgill would look a terriffic bowler.

If Vaas' average in his best half was better than McGrath's in his best half, THAT would show your point... that Vaas at his best was better than McGrath's best. No matter what criteria you choose though, if you apply it equally to both bowlers, McGrath would come out ahead.

Err, no-o-o-o.
I couldn't give a flying fu<k about that.
The ONLY bowler for whom there is any point in doing a half-and-half thing is Vaas, because his career has so often lurched from the ridiculous to the sublime and back again. Vaas is usually either very good or extremely poor, and almost no other bowler fits that sort of pattern.
So splitting a career into two halves for most players is utterly pointless, it says nothing about them.
But for Vaas it does say a hell of a lot - it says that when bowling well, Vaas is about as good as anyone on the planet.

 

[Richard]

I wouldnt waste you finger strength on it mate..its one of the most incredibly stupid things Richards ever come up with..which indeed implies its a real hum-dinger

No, it's not, denying that it has worth is one of the most stupid things anyone has ever come-up with. Almost everyone can tell that Vaas' performances are utterly polarised in a way few others are.
It's far MORE stupid to take Vaas' career as a whole when it's so obviously more appropriate to split it into two parts. The rubbish Vaas says nothing about the good one. The good one says nothing about the rubbish one. Understand?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, no-o-o-o.
I couldn't give a flying fu<k about that.
The ONLY bowler for whom there is any point in doing a half-and-half thing is Vaas, because his career has so often lurched from the ridiculous to the sublime and back again. Vaas is usually either very good or extremely poor, and almost no other bowler fits that sort of pattern.
So splitting a career into two halves for most players is utterly pointless, it says nothing about them.
But for Vaas it does say a hell of a lot - it says that when bowling well, Vaas is about as good as anyone on the planet.

Except it doesn't mean that, because averaging 20 in your best performances isn't that good, and having an average 10 better than your career effort in your best 50% isn't that remarkable when your career average is 30. The same would doubtlessly be true of Stuart Macgill for example.

I mean, if you take just the innings in which Glenn McGrath has taken a five wicket haul, he has 150 wickets @ 10.03. Quite remarkable, isn't it? It's also, in every sense, utterly meaningless, because you can pull out any bowler you like and their five wicket hauls would look pretty good. In fact, I'd say McGrath's would be better than most as he has only conceded more than 100 runs in an innings where he took 5 once, but still having a good average in your best performances alone is hardly a rarity. I can absolutely guarantee you that McGrath's best 50% is better than Vaas's best 50%, which clearly completely debunks your idea that Vaas at his best is better than McGrath. If McGrath's best is better than Vaas's best, and McGrath's worst is better than Vaas's worst, how can Vaas be anywhere near as good as McGrath? He can't, obviously.

 

[Steulen]

No, it's not, denying that it has worth is one of the most stupid things anyone has ever come-up with. Almost everyone can tell that Vaas' performances are utterly polarised in a way few others are.
It's far MORE stupid to take Vaas' career as a whole when it's so obviously more appropriate to split it into two parts. The rubbish Vaas says nothing about the good one. The good one says nothing about the rubbish one. Understand?

Please tell me how this shows that Vaas is a very polarised bowler.

For comparison: Jason's Manhattan