Superior Bowler: Vaas or Gillespie?

[marc71178]

Try 16 wickets at 3.69-an-over with an average of 14.62.
That's his record in the one-day game.
And I'd call that bowling really well.

And there was me thinking overseas players were brought in to perform in all Cricket.

 

[Majin]

I'd pick Chaminda, i've liked him and his bowling ever since I first saw him play.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Naturally Gillespie has a better record in seam-friendly conditions than Vaas, but to say Gillespie is better with both in good form is folly.

On the contrary, I would say Vaas is better only in seaming conditions, while Gillespie sometimes wastes them, Vaas requires them. Gillespie is a top class bowler on flat wickets like McGrath and Warne... which is why Australia manage to bowl good batting lineups out for moderate totals on dead flat wickets over and over and over again.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's a tough call to make because they're both v different types of bowler (aside from the obvious). Vaas is almost what I'd term an "English" type of seamer; no real pace but is able to move the ball both ways & can be devastating when conditions favour him. Dizzy is still appreciably quicker and in his younger pre-injury years he was genuinely rapid. He gets more bounce because of his extra inches and almost as much movement as Vaas, but when he strays off line nowadays can suffer on unresponsive pitches.

I still think Dizzy is the superior test bowler on any surface but an absolute green-top, but Vaas has the clear edge in ODIs due to his generally tighter line. It's interesting to compare their respective positions in the pantheon too: Vaas is unquestionably his country's best ever seamer, but Dizzy will always be the fella who wasn't quite Glenn McGrath.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I still think Dizzy is the superior test bowler on any surface but an absolute green-top, but Vaas has the clear edge in ODIs due to his generally tighter line. It's interesting to compare their respective positions in the pantheon too: Vaas is unquestionably his country's best ever seamer, but Dizzy will always be the fella who wasn't quite Glenn McGrath.

You know, it's funny what you say about ODIs, because most people seem to feel the same way, yet both bowlers have about the same economy rate (around the 4.1 to 4.2 range - very good by modern standards indeed), with Gillespie having an appreciably better average and taking more wickets.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You know, it's funny what you say about ODIs, because most people seem to feel the same way, yet both bowlers have about the same economy rate (around the 4.1 to 4.2 range - very good by modern standards indeed), with Gillespie having an appreciably better average and taking more wickets.

I'm sure what you say is true, but I would guess that it may be partly due to the types of pitches they've bowled on. Dizzy was superb in India, so it may've made no difference if he'd been born on the sub-continent but Vaas has certainly bowled more on unfavourable (to his type of bowling) wickets. I think if Vaas had been English or an NZer his stike rate & average in both forms would be lower.

By the by, another player I always thought would've done better if he'd been English was Paul Reiffel.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd love your opinions on these two players who have both taken 200+ Test wickets, been frequently overshadowed by all-time greats, have mastery of swing, and have made inroads into the mystery of batting.

Your thoughts?

vaas, a master of swing? hes certainly been incapable of using it everytime hes played in england or SA.
i'd think gillespie is easily the better the bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Vaas has certainly bowled more on unfavourable (to his type of bowling) wickets.

im not sure about that. i'd think that his ability to bowl cutters would make him more efficient on subcontinental wickets. i think generally he just doesnt swing the ball late enough and therefore has problems away from home.

 

[tooextracool]

On the contrary, I would say Vaas is better only in seaming conditions, while Gillespie sometimes wastes them, Vaas requires them.

really? bit strange then that he averages 26 at home, on some of the slowest wickets in the world.

 

[sledger]

probably take vaas, but either one would get in most sides all over the world so

 

[aussie]

Naturally Gillespie has a better record in seam-friendly conditions than Vaas, but to say Gillespie is better with both in good form is folly.

well if its that folly to you show me some facts that goes againts my statement.

 

[Pratters]

Gillespie is the much better bowler in tests. In lois it is very close with both being misers where giving away runs is concerned. Gillespie can take the wickets at a lower average and thus I would go with him despite the fact that Vaas can bat a bit. (Ofcourse Dizzy has developed his batting now too )

 

[Richard]

And there was me thinking overseas players were brought in to perform in all Cricket.

And with the squillions of overseas players these days, many playing just a handful of matches, every one must be expected to do well in all 3 competitions.
If he'd played a whole season then he could be criticised for not doing well in all 3 competitions.

 

[Richard]

On the contrary, I would say Vaas is better only in seaming conditions, while Gillespie sometimes wastes them, Vaas requires them. Gillespie is a top class bowler on flat wickets like McGrath and Warne... which is why Australia manage to bowl good batting lineups out for moderate totals on dead flat wickets over and over and over again.

Gillespie is decent on flat wickets in good form, he's poor on anything in poor form.
And Vaas has mostly wasted the few seam-friendly wickets he's had the chance to bowl on in his Test-career by not making batsmen play enough, and has generally been better at exploiting the non-seaming pitches.

 

[Richard]

It's a tough call to make because they're both v different types of bowler (aside from the obvious). Vaas is almost what I'd term an "English" type of seamer; no real pace but is able to move the ball both ways & can be devastating when conditions favour him.

But the conditions which favour Vaas are not green seamers, but dry, turning, slow pitches.

Dizzy is still appreciably quicker and in his younger pre-injury years he was genuinely rapid. He gets more bounce because of his extra inches and almost as much movement as Vaas, but when he strays off line nowadays can suffer on unresponsive pitches.

Gillespie has generally been more economical of late than earlier in his career.

I still think Dizzy is the superior test bowler on any surface but an absolute green-top, but Vaas has the clear edge in ODIs due to his generally tighter line.

Gillespie is easily the best bet on an absolute green-top.

 

[Richard]

You know, it's funny what you say about ODIs, because most people seem to feel the same way, yet both bowlers have about the same economy rate (around the 4.1 to 4.2 range - very good by modern standards indeed), with Gillespie having an appreciably better average and taking more wickets.

Before the most recent England series, Gillespie's economy-rate since 1999 was below 4-an-over.
He does have the slight advantage of a better attack to bowl with, of course, but generally since 1999 they're equal.

 

[Richard]

vaas, a master of swing? hes certainly been incapable of using it everytime hes played in england or SA.

Not at all, he's just been incapable of getting his line right.

 

[Richard]

well if its that folly to you show me some facts that goes againts my statement.

Vaas in top form can bowl everything, on good lines, to an exceptional level.
Gillespie can merely bowl most things, on good lines, to a pretty good level.

 

[Monty]

gillespie is far superior

 

[Hazza]

I think that Gillespie and Vass are pretty much equal. A few years back I may have leaned with Dizzy, but now Vass is looking really good and Gillespie has lost some of his wicket taking ability.