SA Footy

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/276375.html

And good on him too.

Good stuff by Dizzy there - all of it is 100% true. Give them the

All he can do is to continue bowling well and take plenty wickets, as he has been doing.

Warne, S K* 145 6784.1 708 25.42 8/71 37 10
McGrath, G D* 124 4874.4 563 21.64 8/24 29 3
Lillee, D K 70 2834.1 355 23.92 7/83 23 7
McDermott, C J 71 2764.2 291 28.63 8/97 14 2
Gillespie, J N* 71 2372.2 259 26.14 7/37 8 0
Benaud, R 63 2727.2 248 27.03 7/72 16 1
McKenzie, G D 60 2629.5 246 29.79 8/71 16 3
Lee, B* 59 2046.3 231 31.61 5/30 7 0
Lindwall, R R 61 1970.2 228 23.03 7/38 12 0
Grimmett, C V 37 2408.3 216 24.22 7/40 21 7
Hughes, M G 53 2047.3 212 28.38 8/87 7 1
Thomson, J R 51 1589.3 200 28.01 6/46 8


Good on him I think - 1 of only 12 bowlers in our history to take over 200 test wickets so he qualifies to have a crack !!!

Just keep takin wickets Dizz !!!

Foot note lookin @ the records just shows how good Lillee was !!!

He's also got a very good point that he is considered older than he actually is. Only 31. Brett Lee is 30 isn't he and Stuart Clarke 31 i think.

In my opinion the current 3 quicks aswell as bracken and johnson are ahead. Hilfenous and Griffith are bowling well too. Lets not forget Bichel either. Dizzy is not what he was. People forget how ordinary he was in his last 5 or so tests before the serious against the club side.

It is funny how Clark & Symonds (both the same age as Gillepsie, 31) are considered as being "at their peak" or "prime age", but Gillespie is seen as being too old?!?

You could say that Gillespie may have peaked already, but if he was playing for Australia right now instead of say Stuart Clark, then he would probably be doing just as well.

Add to that the fact that Cameron White made 42 runs in his last ODI, plus took a wicket and now his form is being touted as red-hot, even calls have been made that he is virtually undroppable now for the World Cup!

In his last Test Match (not an ODI, which is inferior to a Test but seeing as it was Bangladesh we'll call them even) Gillespie took 3/25 off 9 (total of both innings) and made 201*, but he was dropped for the following match.

blink wrote:Add to that the fact that Cameron White made 42 runs in his last ODI, plus took a wicket and now his form is being touted as red-hot, even calls have been made that he is virtually undroppable now for the World Cup!

Whoever said that is an idiot. White isd teetering on the edge of the team and needs to keep making runs to stay there. His bowling certainly won't help him. While he's batting at 7, he will never make enough runs to cement his place in the team.

While probably true I dont think Dizzy should have said this in the media...he should be having this discussion with the selectors, theses days you have to push your own barrow, Im sure all the youngsters are...

Jason Gillespie once said in an interview:-
If he wasn't playing cricket at the top level, what would he rather be?
... & he said "Roadie with MOTORHEAD!"
Dizzy's alright in my book!
RAWK N" ROLL!!!

blink wrote:It is funny how Clark & Symonds (both the same age as Gillepsie, 31) are considered as being "at their peak" or "prime age", but Gillespie is seen as being too old?!?

You could say that Gillespie may have peaked already, but if he was playing for Australia right now instead of say Stuart Clark, then he would probably be doing just as well.

BWAHAHAHAHA Clarky is averaging under 20 so far. Another classic case of 'redcapitis'. How parochial can you get?

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

blink wrote:It is funny how Clark & Symonds (both the same age as Gillepsie, 31) are considered as being "at their peak" or "prime age", but Gillespie is seen as being too old?!?

You could say that Gillespie may have peaked already, but if he was playing for Australia right now instead of say Stuart Clark, then he would probably be doing just as well.

BWAHAHAHAHA Clarky is averaging under 20 so far. Another classic case of 'redcapitis'. How parochial can you get?

regards,

REB

Now Reb

Clarke has got of to great start but let him have another 25 test matches to see where the average stands up !!!

Bye the way Clarke has done nothing wrong at all !!!

Bye the way also will always be what ever you said - about SA bias !!!

Blue Boy wrote:Foot note lookin @ the records just shows how good Lillee was !!!

And Lindwall

Blue Boy wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

blink wrote:It is funny how Clark & Symonds (both the same age as Gillepsie, 31) are considered as being "at their peak" or "prime age", but Gillespie is seen as being too old?!?

You could say that Gillespie may have peaked already, but if he was playing for Australia right now instead of say Stuart Clark, then he would probably be doing just as well.

BWAHAHAHAHA Clarky is averaging under 20 so far. Another classic case of 'redcapitis'. How parochial can you get?

regards,

REB

Now Reb

Clarke has got of to great start but let him have another 25 test matches to see where the average stands up !!!

Bye the way Clarke has done nothing wrong at all !!!

Bye the way also will always be what ever you said - about SA bias !!!

That's true blue, but remember Bill said that if Dizzy was playing now he'd be doing just as well as Clark and that is obviously bulltish.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:That's true blue, but remember Bill said that if Dizzy was playing now he'd be doing just as well as Clark and that is obviously bulltish.

regards,
REB

Why wouldn't Dizzy not be able to do as well as Clark has been in Tests? You have shot down my statement without backing up why you think so?

The way he has been bowling lately there is no reason why he couldn't. Most quality domestic batsman are as good, if not better than Englands (bar maybe Pietersen) Definitely not a parochial view and for the record I am a Clark fan, he is the one who desrves to be in the side right now. Having said that, I am sure that if other bowlers like say Hilfenhaus, Bichel, Tait and Johnson (not just Gillespie) were in the side, they would have done as well as Clark did, because England's batting line-up is weak.

Greetings Blinky. I have shot you down and with good reason..here are the stats that back it up. For the record, I am a big Dizzy fan and from what I have heard about the guy, he is a top bloke as well.

Jason Gillespie has played 5 shield matches this season and is having a top year as you have suggested. Dizzy has claimed 20 wickets at an average of 27.90 runs apiece. Compare this with Stuart Clark whose five Ashes tests have netted 26 wickets at an average of 17.03.

Dizzy in 2006/07: 5 Pura Cup matches, 20 wickets at 27.90 < 26 at 17.03

But you reckon that this England team is rubbish and has no batsmen and that Pura Cup batsmen are just as good as England's batsmen. If that is the case, why doesn't Gillespie have the better average? However, it is of course not the case. England are the second best test team in the world, and as such are not batting bunnies. Let's have a look at Gillespie's record against England so we can actually compare Apples with Apples.

Let's start with the 2005 disaster.

Dizzy in 2005: 3 tests, 3 wickets at 100.00 < 26 at 17.03

But that isn't exactly comparing Apples with Apples either as Dizzy was not in his prime, and England were on fire in 2005.

Dizzy career against England: 18 tests 65 wickets at 29.03 < 26 at 17.03

Let's compare Clark's gun series against Dizzy's best series statistically (1997)

Dizzy in 1997: 4 tests 16 wickets at 20.75 < 26 at 17.03

So in just one Ashes series Stuart Clark has already statistically bettered Gillespie's best ever series against the Poms. Did England have a better batting line up in 1997 than they do at the moment? I'd suggest not. Clark's figures of course will not remain as high but your comment was that Dizzy would do just as well as Stuart Clark if he was still in the team, a feat that was not managed by Shane Warne, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath. Nice try though.

regards,

REB

Cheers for the explanation REB!

You make a good point, and there would be no point arguing this further with you. What I will say is though is if Dizzy was given the chance, I am sure he would have performed above most critics expectations of him.

Your stats do highlight what I said earlier that it is rubbish for selectors not to be picking guys based on age, because your stats prove that two guys (Clark & Gillespie) who are over 31, are up there with the best bowlers in the world. Clark is the form bowler in the best side in the world, and Dizzy would walk into any other current Test bowling attack.

BTW - Dizzy's average in 05/06 Pura Cup is 22.90

Blue Boy wrote:Foot note lookin @ the records just shows how good Lillee was !!!

And to think he was probably at his peak during the World Series Cricket Days. Imagine how his Test record would have read if it weren't for WSC or long term injuries. To my mind Lillee was the greatest fast bowler ever to play the game, certainly the best in the 40 years I've been watching cricket.

blink wrote:BTW - Dizzy's average in 05/06 Pura Cup is 22.90

What is it in 2006-07?

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

blink wrote:BTW - Dizzy's average in 05/06 Pura Cup is 22.90

What is it in 2006-07?

Dizzy's average in 2006-07 Pura Cup is 22.90 - sorry 05/06 was a typo