Gillespie gone?

[shaka]

According to radio NZ, Mark Gillespie has a virus in which the recovery period is 3 to 4 months, if he does have this virus it will lower NZ's chances of winning the world cup, Tuffey will need to fire, and a replacement will need to be sought. Any thoughts?
the article can be read here:

gillespie

 

[pup11]

Big blow for the Kiwi's weakens their bowling considerably, now i am starting to believe that the team which would see the tournament through with the least number of injuries might win the world cup.

 

[Richard]

Shame for Gillespie, I hope to God they go for Harris ahead of nonsense like Adams, Mason, etc. but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Richard]

the article can be read here:

gillespie

And here.

 

[corza_nz]

Shame for Gillespie, I hope to God they go for Harris ahead of nonsense like Adams, Mason, etc. but I'm not holding my breath.

isnt mason already in the squad

 

[_Ed_]

Mason is in the squad already yes.

I'd like to see them fly Harris over too, but I'm worried they'll go for an in-form bowler in the 4-day domestic games like Iain O'Brien or the proven ODI failure Chris Martin. The NZ selectors often seem to forget there's a difference between 4-day and limited-overs cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not sure what all the fuss is. How poor must New Zealand's bowling attack be when the loss of Mark Gillespie is a huge blow. The guy hasn't done much.

 

[Richard]

He hasn't wholly convinced but I'd not say it's accurate to say "he hasn't done much". Not at all.

 

[Richard]

The NZ selectors often seem to forget there's a difference between 4-day and limited-overs cricket.

NZ selectors? Just selectors at large, pal!

 

[Pup Clarke]

Harris would IMO be the obvious candidate to replace Gillespie with.Will be a very useful bowler on these slow,low tracks and he's a more than useful batsmen at number 7 or 8.Tuffey,Mason and Adams are all very average bowlers and would not have much impact IMO.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Not sure what all the fuss is. How poor must New Zealand's bowling attack be when the loss of Mark Gillespie is a huge blow. The guy hasn't done much.

Agree with that TBH.Whe ever I've seen him he is defientely not consistent and has his good days and his bad much like Franklin.I don't see what the fuss is as well.I think it calls for Patel or Harris to go into the X1 presuming Harris is called up.

 

[Richard]

Gillespie is certainly >>>> Franklin.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Gillespie is certainly >>>> Franklin.

Bit on an exaggeration me thinks.Both are about the same,very ordinary bowlers.Franklin though is a bit more effective than Gillespie as Franklin can occasionaly bowl very good spells IMO.Gillespie doesn't strike me as an out and out wicket taking bowler like Franlkin.They are both more than capable of bowling absolute tripe however.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He hasn't wholly convinced but I'd not say it's accurate to say "he hasn't done much". Not at all.

I think he's looked better than his bowling figures have reflected, but he really has not accomplished much.

He's played 15 games, bowled in 14 and returned an economy rate of less than 5 in 5 of them. In the other 9 games he's taken more than 1 wicket on two occasions.

 

[Richard]

Bit on an exaggeration me thinks.Both are about the same,very ordinary bowlers.Franklin though is a bit more effective than Gillespie as Franklin can occasionaly bowl very good spells IMO.Gillespie doesn't strike me as an out and out wicket taking bowler like Franlkin.They are both more than capable of bowling absolute tripe however.

Gillespie's certainly more of a wicket-taker than Franklin, and his good spells have to date come far more regularly than Franklin's.

Neither are currently great shakes (Franklin almost certainly never will be), indeed, but if I had to pick one of the two (for ODIs) on what I've seen to date I'd go for Gillespie every time.

 

[_Ed_]

I think he's looked better than his bowling figures have reflected, but he really has not accomplished much.

He's played 15 games, bowled in 14 and returned an economy rate of less than 5 in 5 of them. In the other 9 games he's taken more than 1 wicket on two occasions.

True, but he had a spectacular number of catches dropped off his bowling in the CB Series so his figures are far from a fair reflection of his performance.

Franklin is one of our best Test bowlers so I'd choose him in that form of the game but Gillespie looks the better of the two in ODIs. Rather have Mills than either of them though to be honest.

 

[Craig]

Liam out of interest have you seen Gillespie bowl much?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Liam out of interest have you seen Gillespie bowl much?

Yes, through most of the CB Series. That's why I said that he's bowled better than his figures indicate. That still doesn't mean he's achieved anything of note.

 

[thierry henry]

Not a big loss. Gillespie is of a similar standard, imo, to all our other non-Mills-and-Bond (hehehe) seamers.

 

[corza_nz]

i think its a fairly big loss...he seems a reasonable bowler....doesnt take heaps of wickets but usually takes 1 or 2 and doesnt go for that much really. and its certainly a loss if they bring in someone like harris to replace him...surely they cant go back to him, thats a bit desperate i think. hey and wat about gillespies batting...one of the best french cuts going round haha.