Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[Perm]

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.

You could also say that Gilchrist has a perfectly good average, whereas Knight has a better one (not fantastic IMO).

 

[Perm]

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

No, otherwise there would be an extra 17 votes for Gilchrist on my behalf.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No, otherwise there would be an extra 17 votes for Gilchrist on my behalf.

Well could have happened... maybe most people are too disdainful of this poll to bother voting.

 

[Richard]

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.

Maybe you might do well to understand how averages relate to cricket before shouting your mouth off.

Then you look at Knight's ICC Champions Trophy record, his World Cup record

So how many of those tournaments did he play then?

 

[Richard]

You could also say that Gilchrist has a perfectly good average, whereas Knight has a better one (not fantastic IMO).

Indeed. Which is why it's possible to argue that Gilchrist > Knight. But the point of this thread is to attempt to suggest that it's a foregone conclusion, like, for instance, a comparison of Tendulkar and Rodney Redmond. And it's not.

 

[Richard]

It would've been 12, if not for GIMH's post.

Haha, so it would. Ah well, I always said these things will happen from time to time.

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.

Compared to the Smiths (both of 'em) and Sanzs of this World, you've played this thread very well indeed.

 

[Perm]

Indeed. Which is why it's possible to argue that Gilchrist > Knight. But the point of this thread is to attempt to suggest that it's a foregone conclusion, like, for instance, a comparison of Tendulkar and Rodney Redmond. And it's not.

I don't think that's the point of the thread at all, obviously Fiery's initial post was trying to suggest that Gilchrist is vastly superior, but the discussion that has been generated has been good and quite even, with most people realising how good of a record Knight does indeed posess.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Maybe you might do well to understand how averages relate to cricket before shouting your mouth off.

So economy rates for bowling are virtually meaningless then?

So how many of those tournaments did he play then?

A handful - enough to get a poor average anyway.

 

[Perm]

So how many of those tournaments did he play then?

He played in two Champions Trophys and one World Cup, performing poorly in all of them.

 

[Richard]

I don't think that's the point of the thread at all, obviously Fiery's initial post was trying to suggest that Gilchrist is vastly superior, but the discussion that has been generated has been good and quite even, with most people realising how good of a record Knight does indeed posess.

That was Fiery's intention in starting the thread. Fortunately, things have panned-out otherwise. Most of this thread has indeed been interesting, with the odd silly post from the likes of D Smith.

 

[Richard]

He played in two Champions Trophys and one World Cup, performing poorly in all of them.

Exactly, a sum-total of 6 innings against ODI-standard sides, which is no way to judge a batsman.

 

[Pup Clarke]

with the odd silly post from the likes of D Smith.

Haha, didn't know Dwayne or Devon Smith posted on CW.

 

[Perm]

Exactly, a sum-total of 6 innings against ODI-standard sides, which is no way to judge a batsman.

But he failed against sub-standard sides as well, meaning he must be even worse than you think.

 

[Richard]

So economy rates for bowling are virtually meaningless then?

No, they're not. That is utterly irrelevant to what I just said, however.

A handful - enough to get a poor average anyway.

It takes just 1 innings to get a poor average. 6 innings, which is what Knight played against ODI-standard sides in CT\WCs, is not sufficient to suggest he was a write-off, especially given that 3 of those innings were 30+ scores.

 

[Perm]

Haha, didn't know Dwayne or Devon Smith posted on CW.

Dan TBH.

 

[Richard]

Haha, didn't know Dwayne or Devon Smith posted on CW.

Dan Smith, TBH. Usually known as just "Smith" but there's another Smith who's posted regularly on this thread and didn't want confusion.

EDIT: beaten to it

 

[Pup Clarke]

I know...Richard wasn't very specific in his D.Smith however.

 

[Richard]

But he failed against sub-standard sides as well, meaning he must be even worse than you think.

Well, he played 2 innings against said substandard sides, scoring 51 and 6. Hardly the end of The World, and not remotely important as England were always going to win those games whether he scored or not.

 

[Poker Boy]

Knight is an uner-rated ODI opener but still not as good as Gilchrist. And IMO he isn't as good as Tresco or Gooch either. I think if you reach 50 30 times as an opener in ODIs you should score more than 5 100s and that is a big weakness in English ODI batting -too many 60s and 70s not enough 100s.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No, they're not. That is utterly irrelevant to what I just said, however.

Of course it's relevant, you implied batting average was important (which it is obviously) while strike rate was virtually meaningless. Meanwhile you hypocritically bang on endless about the virtue of economy rate for bowlers while saying bowling average is virtually meaningless. Economy rate is to bowling what strike rate is to batting.

It takes just 1 innings to get a poor average. 6 innings, which is what Knight played against ODI-standard sides in CT\WCs, is not sufficient to suggest he was a write-off, especially given that 3 of those innings were 30+ scores.

Knight's not a write-off in big games, his record just gets completely slaughtered by Gilly's and that's the point allied with Gilly's superior overall batting record that makes it ridiculous to say Knight was a better OD batsman than Gilchrist.