Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[Perm]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24229 there ya go.

Must say I'd forgotten about that thread, cheers.

 

[TT Boy]

A lack of runs and the quota system that South Africa apply conspired against Dippenaar, nothing to do with his scoring rate though.

It had everything to do with the scoring rate, highly evident in the arguments put by both coach and national selector for why Boeta was dropped.

Perm, I think we have gone through this many a time for why Boeta was axed and the argument regarding the quota is system is bollocks for Bosman wasn't a quota selection for South Africa didn't need a quota whilst he was in the side. Bosman played ODI cricket for he could domestically kill attacks and his qualities of hitting were very appealing to a side who wanted to play really positive cricket, even if that was to be their eventual downfall.

Using the quota excuse for everything regarding South African cricket really does 'grate' after a time, especially in regard to Kolpak signings and new Poms like Jonathan Trott, where 'no one' seems to consider that the strength of the £ played a far bigger part in the process than the quota system.

 

[Perm]

It had everything to do with the scoring rate, highly evident in the arguments put by both coach and national selector for why Boeta was dropped.

Perm, I think we have gone through this many a time for why Boeta was axed and the argument regarding the quota is system is bollocks for Bosman wasn't a quota selection for South Africa didn't need a quota whilst he was in the side. Bosman played ODI cricket for he could domestically kill attacks and his qualities of hitting were very appealing to a side who wanted to play really positive cricket, even if that was to be their eventual downfall. Using the quota excuse for everything regarding South African cricket really does 'grate' after a time, especially in regard to Kolpak signings and new Poms like Jonathan Trott, were no one seems to consider that the strength of the £ played a far bigger part in the process than the quota system.

It only had something to do with the scoring rate when Dippenaar stopped scoring as many runs though, if he continued to average over 40 then I don't think that his slow scoring would have been that important, particularly in a team where the rest of the batsman can all play flashy and attacking innings. You can't honestly tell me that Loots Bosman was selected purely on cricket talent? If that is the case then the South African selectors are even more stupid than I thought, regardless of the brand of cricket they wanted to play.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, not sure how that slipped through, TBH, but when relating to the 70s and 80s they had plenty in common.

Nonetheless, Gilchrist's career went on 4 years longer than Knight's.

 

[Richard]

Even if Knight had a great batting lineup coming in after him, IMO he still wouldn't be as fast a scorer as Gilchrist was. Gilly can hit sixes almost at will when he's in form. I remember Knight as a great timer of the ball and a gap finder. He dealt in fours. Gilchrist dealt in powerful strikes for four and six. Which is more psychologically draining for the fielding side?

And yet in the end the difference is just 2 runs... highly unlikely to matter much.

 

[Richard]

But surely if you are going to face 100 deliviries it would be better for your team if you scored 97 runs as opposed to 72?

Of course it is. But then some people regularly face less than 100 deliveries.

 

[Richard]

Mate it's only 50 overs. If we are talking about teams like Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, England then yeah sure batting average is important, but for the dominant sides having a good average isn't enough to hold your place. Example - Simon Katich.

Richard what would you rather? 4/262 off 50 overs or 9/263?

I would take 263 for sure..

Obviously (though the 1 run isn't likely to matter more than once in a blue moon).

Having a good average and a decent SR is better than having a decent average and a good SR.

 

[Richard]

This has less to do with who's the better batsman and more to do with Richard hating popular modern players.

That is all.

Rubbish, I don't hate Gilchrist or even remotely come close to it. He's barely any more modern than Knight either, their debuts were within a year of each other.

Think before posting or don't post.

 

[Richard]

Knight wasn't a bad player, but in the fair dinkum department, this is like comparing a 1963 VW Beetle with a 2007 Bentley Continental GT, and Nick Knight aint the Bentley.

Both those vehicles can get you around town from A to B, but when you want big-time performance, they don't compare.

1999 WC final - a previously somnambulent Gilchrist makes a quick fire 54 to snuff out any faint hopes of a Pakistan victory.

2003 WC final - Gilchrist plunders 57 from 48 balls to set up an impregnable Aussie total.

2007 WC final - Gilchrist smashes one of the great ODI innings on the biggest stage of all, against the team who many rated as having the best bowling attack at the WC. In doing so, he frankly rendered obsolete the concept of the final as a contest within 14 overs.

So statistically, they may not be far apart and Knight wasn't a bad player at all with a better average. But if you have to choose between them on the basis of scoring them when it counts most, on the biggest stage against the best opponents, it's frankly no contest.

How is that fair when Knight's never even playing in a WC final?

 

[Richard]

Why? They played the same role in their respective batting line ups, namely opening.

Nah, that comment was in referral to Hadlee and Pollock.

 

[Richard]

So first Hayden <<<<<<<<<<<<, Hussain
Now Gilchrist <<<Knight.

What Next Mcgrath <<<<Gough and Waugh <<< Vaughan ?

Totally different cases as ss has already mentioned, but yes, indeed.

And no, I've never so much as once argued McGrath > Gough or Stephen Waugh > Vaughan. Open your eyes.

 

[Richard]

I thought what Richard said about strike rates was crap so I said it was crap...live with it. Why should I have to go into detail about something so obvious. I thought my reply was the most appropriate so I'll stick with it thanks

It's not obvious, otherwise it wouldn't be being debated.

 

[GIMH]

Don't quite get this argument that because Gilly scored big in WC finals, he's a better player than Knight.

Is it Knight's fault that he wasn't playing with players of mass ability? Very much not. That whole argument is completely flawed. You could say that we never got to see Knight at the very highest level and don't know how he would have performed but to say that that makes Gilly is better is incorrect.

People are arguing that Richard is only saying this because he's English, yet at the same time missing some other points:

1-People are only being dismissive because it was Richard who said it. Clearly a lot of people agree with this one. Are we going to have a thread for all of Richard's opinions? Seems to be happening a lot lately.
2-Certain Aussies in this thread always state that the Australian is better. No names being named. I have no problem with such leanings as it is natural in a lot of people (like myself) but it doesn't make your argument automatically correct if you think like this.

 

[Richard]

SR is still very important in ODI cricket. Are you seriously arguing, "as long as his SR is 70+, it doesn't matter what it is"? ****.

Of course not, but the difference between 71 and 95 is not as massive as some are suggesting. One is a perfectly good SR, one is fantastic. The way some would have it it's like the Pacific to the Atlantic.

 

[Richard]

Good question. There are 11 others just as deluded obviously.

I thought you were better than that, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but the object of the ODI opener's role since 1996 WC has been to score as quickly as possible early doors.

I'd argue since quite a while before that, actually, at least since WC92.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I thought you were better than that

he could be...with a bit more practise.

 

[Perm]

It would've been 12, if not for GIMH's post. FTR I am not arguing for/against Richard's opinion because it is Richard, I think Gilchrist is better and nothing will change my mind on that. However I am finding it a very interesting discussion.

 

[GIMH]

Aye, I'm not saying everyone who says Gilly is better only says so because Richard believes the opposite. More a case of some people arguing that, and many other things perhaps.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So one on average makes 36 off 37 balls the other makes 40 off 56 balls... so 4 extra runs off 19 extra deliveries - give me 36 off 37 balls anyday. Then you look at Knight's ICC Champions Trophy record, his World Cup record, his record in grand finals - averages 30 or worse in all of these. Gilchrist averages better than 30 in all of those, with some truly important and memorable innings there.

Do staff members who post repeatedly consecutively get 18 votes in polls these days?