Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[NZTailender]

I'll tell you who is an underrated ODI opener: Simon Katich.

 

[Perm]

I'll tell you who is an underrated ODI opener: Simon Katich.

Totally agree.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

wtf Richard, have a go will ya. Was having a tongue in cheek dig. Jam it.

 

[tooextracool]

The logic behind some of the ideas in this thread is baffling to say the least. To claim that Gilchrist is a better batsman(which is what i am assuming the poll is about) is in itself questionable but to claim that there is no comparison is a joke to say the least. IMO Gilchrist has to be one of the most overrated achievers in both forms of the game(although moreso in ODIs). His achievements are inflated and his impact as a batsmen alone can be termed inconsistent.

Firstly, his average, while at first glance looks good, is made to look better by his exploits against Bangladesh, and the rest of the minnows(including a 172 against a post 2003 zimbabwe side).
As far as his SR is concerned, his SR is quite likely going to be that high given the license with which he is allowed to play. I can guarantee that no other opener would have been given the license to play this disgraceful innings: http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOverview_ODI.asp?PlayerID=2192
much less in a world cup final and been able to get away with it. Gilchrist has always had the benefit of batting with the freedom of knowing that he had 5 other superstar batsmen to follow him and quality openers in Hayden and Waugh to bat with him. Yes, Nick Knight is quite obviously going to have a lower SR given the era in which he played in, which unlike this decade, didnt involve better quality bats and pitches where 300 is the norm. Not to mention the quality fo bowlers that the 2 played against. Nick Knight IMO is clearly the superior batsman with the better average and a greater level of consistency. Had he played as many games as Gilchrist has, his record would probably have only gotten better.

 

[Ikki]

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?

Game, Set and Match.

Yeah, argue that his stats are comparable, but IMO this is one of those arguments where the usual stats aren't telling near the whole story. I say Gilchrist, and by quite more than a bit.

 

[tooextracool]

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

I cant believe anyone would make a thread praising a player after he had 1 good inning. Ridiculous.

 

[tooextracool]

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?

I think a more relevant question would be, would Gilchrist be able to score at the same SR had he been playing in the same team as Knight did?

My answer is that had he done so, purely as a batsman, he would have been criticised for being both reckless and brainless.

 

[Sanz]

Nick Knight IMO is clearly the superior batsman with the better average and a greater level of consistency. Had he played as many games as Gilchrist has, his record would probably have only gotten better.

In his last 25 natches, Nick Knight avged - 34, Last 10 - 25. If that is any indication, he was getting worse. There is no gaurantee that his avg. would have gotten better had he played 250+ games. The chances of failure would have been equally higher.

 

[Sanz]

I think a more relevant question would be, would Gilchrist be able to score at the same SR had he been playing in the same team as Knight did?

Probably not, but then he would have scored many more runs and would have had much better avg.

 

[tooextracool]

In his last 25 natches, Nick Knight avged - 34, Last 10 - 25. If that is any indication, he was getting worse. There is no gaurantee that his avg. would have gotten better had he played 250+ games. The chances of failure would have been equally higher.

I think if you looked at Knight's domestic record since then you could conclude that he was still able to perform at the same standard if not better for at least a few more years.
Also what i was trying to indicate was the fact that England played far less ODIs during that time than most other teams. Infact if you were to do a comparison, Gilchrist had played 162 games by the time Knight had retired(at the end of 2003 world cup), while Knight had played 100, this despite the fact that Knight had made his debut before Gilchrist. I think had Knight had the experience of playing as many games as Gilchrist did during the same period, that would have made him a much more efficient player.

 

[tooextracool]

Probably not, but then he would have scored many more runs and would have had much better avg.

Despite the fact that he would have to curb his natural instincts and try to play a bit more defensively? Somehow i doubt that. IMO he would have turned out to be a bit more like Sehwag.

 

[Sanz]

Despite the fact that he would have to curb his natural instincts and try to play a bit more defensively? Somehow i doubt that. IMO he would have turned out to be a bit more like Sehwag.

And Sehwag plays more defensively ? You cant argue on presumptions and then assume everything will go in favor of your argument like If he wasn't given the free license to hit his Sr would be much lower and If he was going to bat little carefully he would have ended up like Sehwag.

If Gilly had batted more carefully i.e. chosen his shots more carefully, IMO his avg. would have been a lot higher than 36 with SR around mid 80s.

 

[Sanz]

I think if you looked at Knight's domestic record since then you could conclude that he was still able to perform at the same standard if not better for at least a few more years.
Also what i was trying to indicate was the fact that England played far less ODIs during that time than most other teams. Infact if you were to do a comparison, Gilchrist had played 162 games by the time Knight had retired(at the end of 2003 world cup), while Knight had played 100, this despite the fact that Knight had made his debut before Gilchrist. I think had Knight had the experience of playing as many games as Gilchrist did during the same period, that would have made him a much more efficient player.

What do you mean much more efficient player ? Are you suggesting that Knight would have avged more had he played more matches ?

And domestic records dont mean much to me, According to that Roni IRani, Hock, Mongia, Ramprakash were all miles better than Knight.

 

[Manee]

On the stats side of things it would come down to would you rather:

40 off 56
OR
36 off 37

Forget the facing a hundred balls tripe, this is the main stats comparison IMO.

 

[adharcric]

I think what Richard is trying to say is that strike rate is largely irrelevant as long as it is healthy, 70+, which isn't too slow to hinder the team.

Quite simply, that makes no sense. You can be satisfied with a player having a 70+ SR but SR will always be relevant. Dhoni averaging 40+ at a SR of 100 is much, much better than his averaging the same at a SR of 70.

 

[Tom Halsey]

On the stats side of things it would come down to would you rather:

40 off 56
OR
36 off 37

Forget the facing a hundred balls tripe, this is the main stats comparison IMO.

Isn't that simple though - as has been pointed out, Gilchrist was given license when Knight wasn't.

 

[Swervy]

I dont think this is a ridiculous as the Hussain vs Hayden 'debate' (which really just went off the scale). Nick Knight was obviously a fine one day player, just a different type of player to Gilchrist.

What it boils down to for me is that Gilchrist has been allowed really to play the way he does, because of the sheer strength of batting below him, whereas Knight didnt really have that luxury....but Gilchrist has the talent to pull it off, I dont think Knight could have even dreamt of playing like Gilchrist over a long period of time
Averaging 36 at SR of 97 is pretty incredible over 270 matches. That is a hell of a long time to have that kind of record for whilst scoring at such a speed. No-one in history of ODIs can match the record over a long period of time (Afridi obviously had an incredible strike rate but the average is way down, Jayasuriya is down on both average and SR). Gilchrists average is perfectly acceptable and isnt really blown out of the water by Nick Knights.

Knight managed an average 4 points higher over 100 games which is nowhere near the number Gilchrist has played in. I doubt that it would stand any statistical significance testing whether Knights average over so few games when compared to Gilly actually proves anything.

For me Gilchrist is a true match winner, and has done it on the biggest stages. Nick Knight did what he did well, which was build an innings, for reward not that much more than Gilchrist.

Gilchrist will be right seen as an all time ODI great...I doubt if we will really be talking about Nick Knight in 20 years time

 

[Swervy]

Isn't that simple though - as has been pointed out, Gilchrist was given license when Knight wasn't.

But Gilchrist proved he could do it, over and over and over again.

I have severe doubts in my mind whether Nick Knight could score at 97 averaging 36 over 270 games if he was given license, simply because he didnt have the talent Gilchrist has..and thats not knocking Knight, who I think was a very fine batsman

 

[tooextracool]

And Sehwag plays more defensively ? You cant argue on presumptions and then assume everything will go in favor of your argument like If he wasn't given the free license to hit his Sr would be much lower and If he was going to bat little carefully he would have ended up like Sehwag. .

I meant that Sehwag is often in 2 minds, not sure whether to defend or play aggressively many times, which is what would happen to Gilchrist if he was not sure whether to play aggressively or defensively.

If Gilly had batted more carefully i.e. chosen his shots more carefully, IMO his avg. would have been a lot higher than 36 with SR around mid 80s.

The key to your sentence is the 'IF'.
Fact is that if Ian Blackwell chose his shots more carefully he would almost certainly be an extremely good ODI player says it all IMO. Its not easy to just choose your shots easily, Gilly has almost never managed to play a 'watchful' inning in his career, tie him down and hes always thrown away his wicket. Gilly has always been much of a hit or miss player, which is why i rate Nick Knight as a better player because he was more consistent, and the averages back that up.

 

[Tom Halsey]

But Gilchrist proved he could do it, over and over and over again.

I have severe doubts in my mind whether Nick Knight could score at 97 averaging 36 over 270 games if he was given license, simply because he didnt have the talent Gilchrist has..and thats not knocking Knight, who I think was a very fine batsman

But if Gilchrist had to curb his instincts, would he have managed to average 40 off 56? No, IMO.

Basically, my point is that they're totally different.