Gillespie - All Rounder??

[andyc]

Dizzy, out of curiosity, is English your second language?

 

[Dizzy #4]

I still can't wait 4 months for the next series againest.............. Who the hell do we play? The Netherlands?

 

[Dizzy #4]

Dizzy, out of curiosity, is English your second language?

I'll put it this way, I'm ****** with a keyboard!

 

[Smudge]

I'll put it this way, I'm ****** with a keyboard!

Wouldn't it be better to use baby oil and tissues?

 

[benchmark00]

Wouldn't it be better to use baby oil and tissues?

Hahahaha.

Brilliant

 

[Matt79]

I hesitate dip my toe into this heated philosophical debate, but this seems to be the right thread to say how nice it is to be able to let Andrew Symonds go back to pyjama cricket and Shane Watson go back to his cotton wool padded room where he can't hurt himself. Dizzy has resolved Australia's long search for an allrounder.


Ok, I'm not quite being serious - however, with three bowlers who can legitimately "bat a bit" in Warne, Lee and Gillespie, we can get away with five specialist bats and Gilchrist. I'd actually bring Gillespie up to 7 because although he doesn't score as fast as Warne or Lee, he's a damned sight harder to get out and could stay in with the last specialist bat longer than those two. He'd stay in a lot longer than Gilchrist will normally!

Even if after the Ashes we're not quite prepared to allow Dizzy a full-time bowlers' slot, he surely is a better option for allowing the playing of two spinners than Symonds.

The best XI would then go:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Gilchrist
Gillespie
Warne
Lee
McGill
McGrath
12th: Clark (to alternate with McGill depending on conditions).

With Jacques, Hodge and Clarke all in the squad as the next bats in line.

 

[age_master]

Gillespie is about as much an All Rounder as Michael Clarke is after his 6/9

 

[wpdavid]

I hesitate dip my toe into this heated philosophical debate, but this seems to be the right thread to say how nice it is to be able to let Andrew Symonds go back to pyjama cricket and Shane Watson go back to his cotton wool padded room where he can't hurt himself. Dizzy has resolved Australia's long search for an allrounder.


Ok, I'm not quite being serious - however, with three bowlers who can legitimately "bat a bit" in Warne, Lee and Gillespie, we can get away with five specialist bats and Gilchrist. I'd actually bring Gillespie up to 7 because although he doesn't score as fast as Warne or Lee, he's a damned sight harder to get out and could stay in with the last specialist bat longer than those two. He'd stay in a lot longer than Gilchrist will normally!

Even if after the Ashes we're not quite prepared to allow Dizzy a full-time bowlers' slot, he surely is a better option for allowing the playing of two spinners than Symonds.

The best XI would then go:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Gilchrist
Gillespie
Warne
Lee
McGill
McGrath
12th: Clark (to alternate with McGill depending on conditions).

With Jacques, Hodge and Clarke all in the squad as the next bats in line.

Interesting call. I asked the question on the Aus/Bang thread about whether something like the above was very likely, and I took the silence as a resounding"no"". That particular XI would we a brave choice after the form of Hayden, Martyn & Gilchrist in the last Ashes. And I wonder if you need five bowlers to dismiss England - just avoiding noballs and dropped catches would probably be sufficient.

 

[Matt79]

If I was picking the eleven, I'd probably have Hussey at four, then either Jacques or Hodge at five - I know Martyn did well in RSA, and had a real purple patch two years ago, but I don't think he's the way forward for Australia now. (Saying this secure in the knowledge no-one will remember it by December when we next play a test! ).

I think Hayden is clearly a different player now, mentally if nowhere else, to the guy who struggle for a year and a bit until the last test of the Ashes. On Aussie pitches, I expect he will probably make the English do a lot of fetching.

Gilchrist will be interesting. I wonder whether he'll play much beyond the Ashes and the WC - if he doesn't recapture form by the end of the WC I'd expect the choice will be made for him - I'd hate for him to be dropped rather than retire at the time of his choosing.

I also have a dread premonition that neither Langer or McGrath will be anything like the forces they have been by Dec. 06 - they'll both have missed a lot of cricket and be a long way the wrong side of 30 to shrug that off. I hope I'm wrong. Jacques or Hussey are the logical Langer replacements I suppose, with Clark the seeming McGrath replacement.

 

[wpdavid]

If I was picking the eleven, I'd probably have Hussey at four, then either Jacques or Hodge at five - I know Martyn did well in RSA, and had a real purple patch two years ago, but I don't think he's the way forward for Australia now. (Saying this secure in the knowledge no-one will remember it by December when we next play a test! ).

I think Hayden is clearly a different player now, mentally if nowhere else, to the guy who struggle for a year and a bit until the last test of the Ashes. On Aussie pitches, I expect he will probably make the English do a lot of fetching.

Gilchrist will be interesting. I wonder whether he'll play much beyond the Ashes and the WC - if he doesn't recapture form by the end of the WC I'd expect the choice will be made for him - I'd hate for him to be dropped rather than retire at the time of his choosing.

I also have a dread premonition that neither Langer or McGrath will be anything like the forces they have been by Dec. 06 - they'll both have missed a lot of cricket and be a long way the wrong side of 30 to shrug that off. I hope I'm wrong. Jacques or Hussey are the logical Langer replacements I suppose, with Clark the seeming McGrath replacement.

I hope you're right about McGrath, but I think that he'll be so motivated to make up for 2005 that he'll probably be all right. Of course, that's true for the rest of your side as well, which can be both a positive and a negative factor. They will be incredibly fired up, but that can add its own pressures. Dunno about Hayden. Reading the recent interview in TWC, I thought he was still stuck in unreality about the whole of last summer. Sure he's made some runs against pretty weak attacks since then, but England should be a tougher proposition. Mind you, that depends on Fred staying fit, Jones getting fit, and Harmison showing up much more consistently than we've seen.

 

[aussie]

I hesitate dip my toe into this heated philosophical debate, but this seems to be the right thread to say how nice it is to be able to let Andrew Symonds go back to pyjama cricket and Shane Watson go back to his cotton wool padded room where he can't hurt himself. Dizzy has resolved Australia's long search for an allrounder.


Ok, I'm not quite being serious - however, with three bowlers who can legitimately "bat a bit" in Warne, Lee and Gillespie, we can get away with five specialist bats and Gilchrist. I'd actually bring Gillespie up to 7 because although he doesn't score as fast as Warne or Lee, he's a damned sight harder to get out and could stay in with the last specialist bat longer than those two. He'd stay in a lot longer than Gilchrist will normally!

Even if after the Ashes we're not quite prepared to allow Dizzy a full-time bowlers' slot, he surely is a better option for allowing the playing of two spinners than Symonds.

The best XI would then go:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Gilchrist
Gillespie
Warne
Lee
McGill
McGrath
12th: Clark (to alternate with McGill depending on conditions).

With Jacques, Hodge and Clarke all in the squad as the next bats in line.

nah man, Dizzy may have scored a double aagaints the poor Bangladesh but there is now way i would have him batting as high as 7 againts England's attack especially with Gilly not as consistently destructive in test at all.

Dizzy has not served the all-rounder problem AT ALL, please dont let us get carried away. The all-rounder scenario should be put on hold until the ashes is regained. With Dizzy bowling well again Australia are likely to field that superb 4-man attack again.

So the formula is simple, 6 bats, Gilly, 4 bowlers. Once they play to potential Ashes will be regained.

 

[SJS]

Gillespie is about as much an All Rounder as Michael Clarke is after his 6/9

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Dizzy #4]

If Dizzy does a Vettori/Pollock/Akrim, what next?

 

[Matt79]

nah man, Dizzy may have scored a double aagaints the poor Bangladesh but there is now way i would have him batting as high as 7 againts England's attack especially with Gilly not as consistently destructive in test at all.

Dizzy has not served the all-rounder problem AT ALL, please dont let us get carried away. The all-rounder scenario should be put on hold until the ashes is regained. With Dizzy bowling well again Australia are likely to field that superb 4-man attack again.

So the formula is simple, 6 bats, Gilly, 4 bowlers. Once they play to potential Ashes will be regained.

I don't really expect it to happen - it would be a "brave" or "original" selection in the "Yes Minister" sense.

I think there might be a case for having him bat ahead of Lee and Warne. His average is lower, but his occupation of the crease must be higher. It would be interesting to see how many runs Australia has scored when Gillespie is at the crease compared to how many runs they've scored when Lee or Warne are at the crease - as in how well does he hold up his end in good partnerships. I suspect once you allow for the differences in innings played between the three, and I guess make some allowance for the fact that at number 9 or 10 you're less likely to be batting with a recognised batsman than a number 7 or 8, he'd stand up fairly well. Essentially his value at 7 or 8 would be that he generally stays in longer than Warne or Lee, or indeed these days Gilchrist.

 

[luckyeddie]

If Dizzy does a Vettori/Pollock/Akrim, what next?

There is a saying 'Every dog has his day'.

Just be thankful that Jason Gillespie has had a couple - but I don't think we are seeing the birth of Australia's first decent all-rounder (and a batting one at that) for half a century.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Gillespie is about as much an All Rounder as Michael Clarke is after his 6/9

Exactly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Exactly.

Gillespie is a better batsman than Clarke is a bowler. Gillespie can be one of the most difficult batsmen to dismiss. Clarke generally never looks a bother.

Is Gillespie a better bowler than Clarke is a batsman?

*stirs*

 

[social]

Gillespie is a better batsman than Clarke is a bowler. Gillespie can be one of the most difficult batsmen to dismiss. Clarke generally never looks a bother.

Is Gillespie a better bowler than Clarke is a batsman?

*stirs*

Whilst Dizzy's 201 was a monumental achievement (the guy had never scored a hundred in any class of cricket), Aus would've been much better served by him getting out early, Clarke scoring 200, and Dizzy picking up 5-for in the Bangas second innings.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Whilst Dizzy's 201 was a monumental achievement (the guy had never scored a hundred in any class of cricket), Aus would've been much better served by him getting out early, Clarke scoring 200, and Dizzy picking up 5-for in the Bangas second innings.

But... Gillespie is still a better batsman than Clarke is a bowler...

 

[Ming]

Daniel Vettori is definitely a bowling allrounder now. Average of 25. Average of 50+ in his past 11 matches or so with the bat.