Gilchrist V Ganguly

[C_C]

Gilchrist's technique is just not suited to playing spin

Very poor footwork against spinners, almost incapable of dancing down the wicket properly. But since spin-play is secondary to openers, he gets to hide that aspect better than Ganguly hides his less wonky play against top notch pace.

 

[Salamuddin]

Very poor footwork against spinners, almost incapable of dancing down the wicket properly. But since spin-play is secondary to openers, he gets to hide that aspect better than Ganguly hides his less wonky play against top notch pace.

Gilchrist is a good player but I think many Aussies make him out to be a much better player than he really is.

He has quite a lot of limitations as a batsman really and has been lucky to have played in aperiod where the quality of world bowling (pace especially) has not been very good.

 

[Richard]

Ganguly by a distance IMO.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the difference in their averages was something like 12 runs. Ganguly 45, Gilchrist 33.

No SR increase can make the latter a better player there IMO. Nor the fact that in an era of flatter pitches and more mediocre bowling (post-2000\01) the gap has closed.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist is a good player but I think many Aussies make him out to be a much better player than he really is.

How extraordinarily unusual...

 

[Prince EWS]

Ganguly by a distance IMO.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the difference in their averages was something like 12 runs. Ganguly 45, Gilchrist 33.

No SR increase can make the latter a better player there IMO. Nor the fact that in an era of flatter pitches and more mediocre bowling (post-2000\01) the gap has closed.

I've always found it fascinating that someone who puts such a high important on economy rates doesn't have similar feelings towards batting strike rates.

 

[thierry henry]

I've always found it fascinating that someone who puts such a high important on economy rates doesn't have similar feelings towards batting strike rates.

ditto.... I can sort of see why, but not to the same extent as Richard...

 

[Richard]

Because it doesn't work that way. The two are not exact inverses.

I'd weight ER:SR about 75:25 (even then it's not quite that simple) but a SR is simply an exemplification of average, with obvious caps. Without a good average, SR is meaningless, though obviously once a SR drops too low, average also becomes meaningless.

It's almost a case of once you average below 30, I don't really care much about your SR. Whereas with a bowler, once your ER is good (say below 4.2) you can average 100 and you're still a good bowler.

 

[Salamuddin]

How extraordinarily unusual...

Surely you jest sire ?

 

[Anil]

I have to go GIlchrist here, though no doubt Ganguly is a quality player.

Firstly a strike rate of 96.29 compared to 73.94 counts for a lot. Especially when Gilchrist can combine that strike rate with a good average and the ability to score big hundreds. Gilchrist has the ability to regularly take games away from the oppostion before the shine is even off the ball.

Also, Ganguly has battered the small nations and failed against Australia. He has played 59 ODIs against Zim, Bang, Kenya and the Associates (close to double the number Gilchrist has) and averages over 50 agaisnt them and has 8 tons. This does not compare favourably with his average of 22 in 30 games against Australia.

If I want to win games against good opposition, Id take Gilchrist.

1. zimbabwe was not always a minnow-level team.

2. even if you count out the minnows(and include zimbabwe along with them), ganguly still averages significantly higher than gilchrist against england, new zealand, pakistan, south africa and the west indies and slightly lower against sri lanka, so other than that strike rate(which is not that huge a deal for an opener unless it is abysmally low), what was your point again?

 

[Richard]

Surely you jest sire ?

Well partly, yeah, but I do think Aussie media have a part to play in elevating their heroes slightly above their true position on the World stage (never more apparent than in the Lillee case).

 

[Prince EWS]

Because it doesn't work that way. The two are not exact inverses.

I'd weight ER:SR about 75:25 (even then it's not quite that simple) but a SR is simply an exemplification of average, with obvious caps. Without a good average, SR is meaningless, though obviously once a SR drops too low, average also becomes meaningless.

It's almost a case of once you average below 30, I don't really care much about your SR. Whereas with a bowler, once your ER is good (say below 4.2) you can average 100 and you're still a good bowler.

But surely you can see if that a batsman with a high strike rate and a low average encounters a bowler with a low economy rate and a high average, something has to give.

The fact that batting and bowling stats are reflective of each other is something your ideas often seem to leave out.

 

[Richard]

And 90%+ of the time that'll be the batsman that gives.

The bowler has the ball, the bowler controls the game. It's incredibly hard for a batsman to have a good SR if the bowler doesn't let him. And if he tries, there's a good chance he'll pay for it.

Hence, against consistently high-class one-day bowling, an average of 40 at a SR of 70 is pretty good, better than an average of 32 at a SR of 100 against poorer bowling.

 

[C_C]

It's incredibly hard for a batsman to have a good SR if the bowler doesn't let him.

You ever watched Viv or Tendy in full pomp ? It doesnt matter where you bowl to them when they are in the zone - unless you come up with a crazy delivery, they will pierce any field setting and hammer any bowling. I've seen Tendy do it often enough really.

 

[Richard]

We're talking 2 of the most unique batsmen of all-time here - and even that's more often than not with Test-match style fields. It becomes even more difficult with plenty in the deep (on a decent-size ground, obviously).

 

[Prince EWS]

And 90%+ of the time that'll be the batsman that gives.

The bowler has the ball, the bowler controls the game. It's incredibly hard for a batsman to have a good SR if the bowler doesn't let him. And if he tries, there's a good chance he'll pay for it.

Hence, against consistently high-class one-day bowling, an average of 40 at a SR of 70 is pretty good, better than an average of 32 at a SR of 100 against poorer bowling.

I'd say, more often the not, the batsman will return back to the sheds with his high strike rate in relative tact but his average (even if low) reduced. This would, in turn, produce bowlers with higher economy rates and lower averages though - something that your all-or-nothing-economy-rate analysis doesn't really allow for.

Over the course of a bowler's career, this will generally even itself out, so I tend to agree with your career analysis of ODI bowlers more often than not. However, in isolated matches, accurate "economy" bowlers could easily end up with 10-60-4 and still have it considered as a good bowling performance, as batsmen have gone after them, got away with a few lucky shots, then been dismissed going for a ball that wasn't there to hit. This is common practice is games where a team is chasing a large score, for example, and your game-by-game analysis never seems to take in this possibility, which I have a problem with. Good, accurate bowling can still result in high economy rates for one-off games if batsmen go after it - but it will usually result in wickets as well.

So, in short, I think your career analysis of a bowler's economy holds up perfectly fine as a very accurate measure of a bowler's effectiveness, but your one-off-game analysis of a performance often doesn't really carry.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... I see where you're coming from and undoubtedly such a thing does happen.

Thing to remember, obviously, is that not always is someone chasing a big score, and for the Afridis of this World they're quite likely to go into an innings against a good accurate bowling pair and block 2 or 3, try to slog one, maybe get away with 1, even 2, then hit one straight up. This won't do irreparable damage to a bowler's economy-rate and if a batsman comes in later on and plays a bit more sensibly - before realising he's getting nowhere and trying the same trick - a bowler still ends-up with economical figures.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm... I see where you're coming from and undoubtedly such a thing does happen.

Thing to remember, obviously, is that not always is someone chasing a big score, and for the Afridis of this World they're quite likely to go into an innings against a good accurate bowling pair and block 2 or 3, try to slog one, maybe get away with 1, even 2, then hit one straight up. This won't do irreparable damage to a bowler's economy-rate and if a batsman comes in later on and plays a bit more sensibly - before realising he's getting nowhere and trying the same trick - a bowler still ends-up with economical figures.

Big-score-chasing was just one such an example really - Afridism is another cause of it, but as you said, it's often nullified by another batsman playing more cautiously after the Afridi-like player's dismissal. It's also caused by pressure created by earlier slow scoring against other bowlers (or even by other batsmen against other bowlers... aka Katchism.)

 

[viktor]

I voted Ganguly, mainly for his overall average. However, I am not sure if this is a valid comparison, in the sense that both play different roles in the team. This would partly explain the difference in their strike-rates.
Gilchrist was more the dasher when opening either with Waugh or Hayden while Tendulkar or Sehwag performed that role with Ganguly.
Ganguly to M Waugh might be a better comparison. Or Gilchrist to Tendulkar.

 

[Dasa]

Just as an ODI batsman, Ganguly pretty easily for me.

 

[adharcric]

Ganguly.