PDA

View Full Version : Gillespie versus Lee (batting)


blackcat
1 Mar 2005, 05:05
silky-smooth said
Total Average
Inns Runs Balls Runs Balls
Gillespie 63 891 2835 16.20 51.55
Lee 36 583 1047 19.76 34.90
Hardly suprising at all.
Well not sure who you learnt that off. Never EVER determine how good a player is solely on numbers and figures.
Then again, Dizzy faces an average of 52 balls every time he gets out, while Lee faces 35. Those stats don't lie.


brilliant pies said

never said i did. They do however play a big part on determining how good the player is
So are you saying that lee's average of 19.76 lies but the balls that gillespie faces doesnt


Ok Silky, Gillespie faces 17 extra balls but scores 4 runs less.
Let me evaluate this.

Gillespie allows batsmen to score by staying longer at the crease. Correct.
However Gillespies 17 extra balls might give the batsmen 2 extra overs of batting time (in which the batsmen could be dismissed).

I came up with 2 overs because Gillespie would play out more maidens (relatively) and although he scores in singles, his ration of turning-over-the-strike with a single would not be as great as the batsmen. The batsmen do not protect anyone but Mcgrath. Eg, Gillespie might have four dot balls and then a single. Or five and a single which is worse that a maiden (assuming he starts the over).

Now I am only taking into account Gillespies extra 17 deliveries. Not comparing Gillespie versus Lee in turning over the strike.

My point is, those extra balls Gillespie faces buys the batsmen 2 overs at best. The batsmen can hit out, however with an average of 50, you have to assume a batsmen faces 90 balls per dismissal, and if hitting out, he has greater chance to be dismissed also. Those 2 overs do not buy an automatic 10 runs. The buy a few I agree.

Now Lee has four (rounding up) runs on Gillespie. And he has the advantage of being a great striker when we require quick runs without caring about the cost (dismissals - all out).

Gillespie is improving his scoring repertoire and striking. The is not a huge diference now.

There is a big difference in their ability to defend. Gillespie has the potential to occupy the crease for great than 17 balls more than Lee (that is just the average).

Lee is better when quicks runs are needed, and Gillespie is better when the game might need saving. Few and far between are the times when that is required.

Really, why bother comparing, both have advatages, and it is a moot argument, and the pertinent point is the batting line-up works well when they are at 9 and 10 respectively (assuming Kaspa is not playing).

Bombers_Forever
1 Mar 2005, 05:24
It does not matter. Bowling statistics are the ones that are important........and Kaspa is way ahead of the pretty boy.

blackcat
1 Mar 2005, 05:46
agreed Bombers

Stafford678
1 Mar 2005, 12:54
but he's still going to take kaspers spot :D

Cassius_Clay
1 Mar 2005, 12:55
but he's still going to take kaspers spot :D
correct....this really is a pointless thread. We know we would want lee if we needed 50 of 20 balls and we all would want gillespie to block out 10 overs to try and save a game.

starz
1 Mar 2005, 18:42
Lee is a better batsmen than Gillespie but Gillespie has been getting better all the time. Lee is aggressive and Gillespie is defensive it depends on the game situation too. But overall Lee is a bit better.

crazy_big_al
2 Mar 2005, 11:49
2 different type of batsman both good in different situations

gerta
3 Mar 2005, 16:37
2 different type of batsman both good in different situations

Definitely agree.. if you need quick runs lee, althought gillespie can hit well... To hold up an end gillespie... Warney needs to start watching out ;) Or very soon he might have to rock off to stay away from the number 11 spot...

Bentleigh
3 Mar 2005, 16:57
2 different type of batsman both good in different situations

Agreed.

You'd prefer Gil'Pie over all, for tests batting wise.

Puts his body behind it.