Superior Bowler: Vaas or Gillespie?

[marc71178]

But the good Vaas is better than McGrath.

Which can be said for just about any person who's ever taken a Test wicket if you're going to be selective with stats.

 

[tooextracool]

cant believe that people are even bothering with this argument. i mean 'vaas at his best is better than mcgrath overall', yes that proves so much.
next argument "ian salisbury at his best(after debut test against pakistan) averages 24, while warne's overall averages is 25". therefore the 'good' salisbury is better than warne.

 

[aussie]

cant believe that people are even bothering with this argument. i mean 'vaas at his best is better than mcgrath overall', yes that proves so much.
next argument "ian salisbury at his best(after debut test against pakistan) averages 24, while warne's overall averages is 25". therefore the 'good' salisbury is better than warne.

prepare for a strong rebuttal from Richard Tec

 

[marc71178]

next argument "ian salisbury at his best(after debut test against pakistan) averages 24, while warne's overall averages is 25". therefore the 'good' salisbury is better than warne.

That makes my Harmison/McGrath comparison look sane.

Classic post TEC

 

[Richard]

Which can be said for just about any person who's ever taken a Test wicket if you're going to be selective with stats.

Except there's "being selective with stats" (which happens with every statistic compiled, ever) and there's making logical compliations, such as the career of Vaas when he bowls well and when he bowls rubbish, which are sorted almost exactly into half and half.

 

[Richard]

cant believe that people are even bothering with this argument. i mean 'vaas at his best is better than mcgrath overall', yes that proves so much.
next argument "ian salisbury at his best(after debut test against pakistan) averages 24, while warne's overall averages is 25". therefore the 'good' salisbury is better than warne.

Because of course Salisbury so often bowled at his best at Test level, didn't he?
Like it or not it makes sense to split Vaas' career in two, it makes sense to split virtually no other bowlers up as such.

 

[tooextracool]

Because of course Salisbury so often bowled at his best at Test level, didn't he?
Like it or not it makes sense to split Vaas' career in two, it makes sense to split virtually no other bowlers up as such.

err no, like it or not if you use statistics you have to use the same stat for both players, not just for the one you like. you can just say, well if we look at vaas at his best and mcgrath at his worst, vaas is obviously better.

 

[Richard]

Nope, you use statistics where they fit.
And it's not possible to split McGrath's career into two where one half is abysmal and the other outstanding.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, you use statistics where they fit.
And it's not possible to split McGrath's career into two where one half is abysmal and the other outstanding.

yes because even when hes not bowling at his best, hes still relatively accurate and therefore not abysmal.
its definetly posible to split mcgraths career into innings when he was brilliant and innings when he was average though

 

[Richard]

And even when he was average he still probably got 2\40 or so.
Which, figuratively, is as good as 4\80.
Whereas for Vaas you can split it to get a far more pronounced picture.

 

[Mister Wright]

And even when he was average he still probably got 2\40 or so.
Which, figuratively, is as good as 4\80.
Whereas for Vaas you can split it to get a far more pronounced picture.

2/40 is 2/40 and 4/80 is 4/80. 2/40 is never 4/80.

 

[marc71178]

So when he's "only average" and taking 2-40 you still think Vaas is better?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Because of course Salisbury so often bowled at his best at Test level, didn't he?
Like it or not it makes sense to split Vaas' career in two, it makes sense to split virtually no other bowlers up as such.

Brett Lee?

 

[SJS]

Difficult to compare for the various diferences between them, least of all the fact that Gilespie has flowered after Vaas has gone past his best and . of course, the big difference in who they play far and , therefore, who they face.

Its my opinion (opinion only please) that Vaas at his best was better. Having said that, Gillespie at his best bowling for Sri Lanka might not look bad , huh .

 

[marc71178]

Brett Lee?

A very valid call, although the split is about 6 matches to 31

 

[Richard]

So when he's "only average" and taking 2-40 you still think Vaas is better?

I haven't even compared those two eventualities, as you should have grasped by now.

 

[Richard]

Brett Lee?

As already mentioned, it makes sense to split that into one tiny period and another extremely long one.
PLEASE - it makes sense to split almost no other bowlers half-and-half.

 

[Richard]

2/40 is 2/40 and 4/80 is 4/80. 2/40 is never 4/80.

If you have an average of 20 the two sets of figures will have exactly the same effect on it (ie no effect at all).

 

[vic_orthdox]

If you have an average of 20 the two sets of figures will have exactly the same effect on it (ie no effect at all).

But not the most important thing of all - the match.

You make it sound as though a bowler's main role is to improve his figures, as opposed to contribute to his side winning the game at hand.

 

[tooextracool]

And even when he was average he still probably got 2\40 or so.
Which, figuratively, is as good as 4\80.
Whereas for Vaas you can split it to get a far more pronounced picture.

err no, there are plenty of occasions where mcgrath didnt get good figures at all. if he always got 2/40 whenever he was average, he would be averaging a lot less than 20