Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
If McGrath plays theres no need for Clark, whos basically a less talented clone.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Gillespie Versus Clark
- Thread starter four
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 9, 2002
- 16,147
- 126
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide Roosters
it only took one test to drop Dizzy so whats the feckin differenceGunnar Longshanks said:
Yeah, you’d think that Clark is ahead right now but a lot can change in 6 months.Gunnar Longshanks said:
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Southerntakeover said:
Hit the nail there! McGrath was out so they picked Clark. If Pigeon plays there is no point playing Clark, who in case everyone does not know has a ordinary record in Australia!
Richo83 said:
This is Test match cricket young man.
Clark doesnt go missing? How do you know? Hes only played 3 tests against the world team in the world.
I voted Dizzy thanks.
I heard a rumour he can even roll the arm over every now and then
Clark will have to prove himself on flatter wickets but he might get a chance first off ahead of Dizzy. But I think his performances in SA were a bit misleading because of the fizz in the pitches. Hell even Steyn can look like a world-beater on their decks.
- Banned
- #57
Dizzy is popular. Clark is bland.
That's the main reason people have voted for Dizzy ahead of Clark.
There's no doubt that Clark would be a better option during the Ashes than Gillespie.
That's the main reason people have voted for Dizzy ahead of Clark.
There's no doubt that Clark would be a better option during the Ashes than Gillespie.
- Banned
- #58
Jesus Christ.Overwhelming majority thinks Dizzy is the man for the job. And rightly so!
Go Diz.
What's with you people?
People are a) still judging Gillespie on performances from 3 years ago and b) under-rating Stuart Clark because he doesn't have attitude.
Get real.
- Banned
- #59
Look at all the muppets who voted for Gillespie.
Another of Grimreepah's "original ideas".
Those crazy South Australians that flock to Dizzy's defence. Same with all those Lehmann threads. Just let it go fellas!
- Banned
- #61
Owned.
<shrug>
michael clarke is judged by the NSW crew by his first hand ful of tests and not his extended period of crap performances.
Brett Lee is judged by the NSW crew by his first 18 months of smashing weak opponents and not the next 4 uears of returning stuff all.
gillespie was > Lee and gillespie was > clark
the question is whether gillespie can return to form and sustain it.
michael clarke is judged by the NSW crew by his first hand ful of tests and not his extended period of crap performances.
Brett Lee is judged by the NSW crew by his first 18 months of smashing weak opponents and not the next 4 uears of returning stuff all.
gillespie was > Lee and gillespie was > clark
the question is whether gillespie can return to form and sustain it.
If I voted, it was because I would tyake Dizzy over Clark every day of the week. Infact, I would take him twice or three times everyday of the week over Clark. Not because he is more popular, but because Gillespie has 250+ test wickets, (and a test double ton).
If I voted, it was because I would tyake Dizzy over Clark every day of the week. Infact, I would take him twice or three times everyday of the week over Clark. Not because he is more popular, but because Gillespie has 250+ test wickets, (and a test double ton).
yes 250 plus wickets at no mean average either.
also when he gets the ball movign he is almost unplayable.
Why isn’t Alan Davidson in the team that’s what I want to know...
- Banned
- #67
How do people mistake this as a sound, logical argument?If I voted, it was because I would take Dizzy over Clark every day of the week. Infact, I would take him twice or three times everyday of the week over Clark. Not because he is more popular, but because Gillespie has 250+ test wickets, (and a test double ton).
Gillespie's form, and the performances of the guys in line to replace him, simply aren't factors?
Get real.
Sorry Gunnar, I just remembered that you are always right. How silly of me.
You are arguing that Dizzy should be in the current test team instead of Clark and you are accusing someone else of not being able to fess up when they get it wrong.Sorry Gunnar, I just remembered that you are always right. How silly of me.
Holy smokes, that is breathtaking...
- Banned
- #70
This is pretty inadequate.Sorry Gunnar, I just remembered that you are always right. How silly of me.
You're claiming Gillespie should be in the side because he's got 250+ wickets.
That's your only reason.
Don't worry about his recent form. Don't worry about how the other candidates have performed.
Gillespie has 250+ wickets. End of discussion.
That's just dumb.
And judging a guy on 5 tests is better than judging a bloke on 60+ tests? All of a sudden Dizzy has some poor form in England and he is out? No one was in particularly good form around then except Warney, they are still playing, and are all finding their rythym. Gillespie bowled well against England recently if I recall, as did Tait. Tait is unpredictable, which is what we need, not some new old 30+ year old NSW tosser who wont be around for 10 years. Gillespie is exactly the same mould as Clark....except one has a blue cap, and one a red
- Banned
- #72
It's not about 5 Tests vs 60 Tests.
Why do you insist on over-simplifying this to the point where common sense has no place?
Clark has exceded expectations since being given an opportunity. There's nothing wrong with his performances at Test level. They've been excellent. He deserves his spot.
Gillespie was a wonderful bowler, but his Test performances started to slip. The fact that he had taken 250+ wickets didn't guarantee him a spot until he felt like giving it away. But that's what you seem to be suggesting: "can't drop Gillespie - he's got so many wickets!"
He had more than one bad series as well. His form had been waning for a while. The 2005 Ashes was his third ordinary series in a row:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerSeries.asp?PlayerID=2082
Gillespie could no longer command a spot. His Test performances didn't warrant it. So we brought in someone else, and he's doing the job.
I'm amazed that I have to explain this.
To sit here and say "but Gillespie should be there - he has 250+ wickets, and performed for longer than Clark has" is ridiculous. If that was the logic of selectors, declining players would be retained for years before getting the chop, and in-form fringe players would be waiting forever.
Your arguments are ones you'd expect to hear from someone who hasn't actually watched any cricket in the last 18 months, someone who hasn't seen Gillespie's decline or Clark's emergence, someone who is making a decision based solely on the Test records of the two players.
It's just dumb.
This is predictable, obtuse and silly.Gillespie is exactly the same mould as Clark....except one has a blue cap, and one a red
Clark's Test performances have been excellent. What more do you want him to do?
- Banned
- #73
Clark has 2/8 on the first morning of the Second test.Sorry Gunnar, I just remembered that you are always right. How silly of me.
Bring back Gillespie!
Good one.
