Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[adharcric]

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.

Decent post.

 

[tooextracool]

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

Isnt that just logic? The more games you play the better you get, especially if they were played within the same time period in which he had been successful in?

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

I was referring to List A records. Nonetheless, the difference between the above mentioned players and Knight was that Knight was actually a proven player at the international level, Irani and co were not. As such if his skills were on the wane, which i think is what you were trying to suggest, you would think that his average in List A cricket would actually go down not up.

 

[adharcric]

Knight averaged 40 from 56. Gilchrist averaged 36 from 37. That's 4 more runs to get in 19 extra deliveries. That said, Gilchrist had a stronger guarantee that his teammates would be around to capitalize on the extra deliveries than Knight did.

 

[Swervy]

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.

yeah of course they are two different players, and I would question whether Gilchrist could really curb his instincts anyway in one dayers.

My suspicion would be that if he played in a weaker batting line up, he would be in lower down the order...but the point is, he has been in a position to back his talent, and he quite clearly has. Its highly debatable whether Nick Knight could perform anywhere near to Gilchrists level even if he was allowed to.

Now I take it this debate has been generated from some sort of All Time ODI XI type of thing. Surely if these players are in the greatest line up of all time, you would suspect they would have license to play how they best play..so surely Gilchrist would have the upper hand on Knight in those stakes

 

[Ikki]

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.

Whether Gilly could or could not is essentially a guess and needs to take into account more variables. What isn't a guess is that even playing in that manner he averaged only 4 runs less than Knight.

I don't care if my team is Ireland, Gilchrist can do that then you let him get as many runs as he can, the best way he can. Sacrificing 4 runs isn't much considering how many more balls he will save.

I think it's thought of wrongly in that playing the way Gilchrist does is risky and only Australia can facilitate it. No, it's actually the smarter option, the amount of balls saved are of more value here than the 4 less runs.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Actually Gilchrist averages around 34, if you look at his record from 96-03, which was the same time frame in which Knight played in.

6 runs is a significant difference, i mean one has to wonder if you would go as far as putting Symonds ahead of Ponting because of the fact that 40 off 43 is better than 43 off 54 or even worse Gilly ahead of M. Waugh(who has an SR of only 76) despite the fact that M. Waugh is arguably one of the best ODI batsmen ever.

Its rarely as simple as that, IMO Knight was simply a more consistent player than Gilchrist and as such he deserves to be rated just as good if not better.

 

[Sanz]

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.

So easy for you to dismiss the 'IF' when your whole argument is based on assumptions, had 'Nick Knight played longer...', 'Had he played more...' and so on.

Watchful doesn't mean scoring 50 runs in 100 balls, If Giily were little more careful with his shot selection his avg. would have been better with slightly lower strike rate (in 80s). Gilly has shown it on more than one occasions that he can be score big at the same time have good shot selection. He is a match winner and big time player, compared to Knight.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I think Gilchrist would have batted the way he did regardless of who he had around him.

And I don't think you can make too many assumptions about what a player would (or wouldn't) have done past the point where their career ended. There are too many possibilities.

I didn't get which disgraceful innings it was either...the link didn't work for me.

 

[Swervy]

Actually Gilchrist averages around 34, if you look at his record from 96-03, which was the same time frame in which Knight played in.

6 runs is a significant difference, i mean one has to wonder if you would go as far as putting Symonds ahead of Ponting because of the fact that 40 off 43 is better than 43 off 54 or even worse Gilly ahead of M. Waugh(who has an SR of only 76) despite the fact that M. Waugh is arguably one of the best ODI batsmen ever.

Its rarely as simple as that, IMO Knight was simply a more consistent player than Gilchrist and as such he deserves to be rated just as good if not better.

thats fine TEC, its all opinion at the end of the day..

You stick Knight in at opener for your all time team, and we will stick Gilchrist in.


(I'd put a fiver on my team winning though )

 

[tooextracool]

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

And i have my own doubts as to whether Gilly could average 40+ by playing consistently well in a side where he was one of the few decent players. They are both different types of skills involved. Building an inning run by run, requires about as much skill as blasting every ball around the park.

 

[Swervy]

He is a match winner and big time player, compared to Knight.

That for me is what it boils down to...its why I would have Jayasuriya in my team instead of Knight despite his average being quite a lot lower

 

[Swervy]

And i have my own doubts as to whether Gilly could average 40+ by playing consistently well in a side where he was one of the few decent players. They are both different types of skills involved. Building an inning run by run, requires about as much skill as blasting every ball around the park.

I know that, but I cannot beleive anyone in their right mind would select Nick Knight as opener over Gilchrist, given what Gilchrist can do. An average of 40 compared to 36 doesnt compensate in my eyes for Gilchrists match winning ability

 

[silentstriker]

That for me is what it boils down to...its why I would have Jayasuriya in my team instead of Knight despite his average being quite a lot lower

Well Jayasurya brings some decent ODI bowling, and GIlly brings wicketkeeping, so I would as well....but on just batting?

 

[tooextracool]

thats fine TEC, its all opinion at the end of the day..

You stick Knight in at opener for your all time team, and we will stick Gilchrist in.


(I'd put a fiver on my team winning though )

I think Gilchrist's wicket keeping abilities would have some say as to who would make the side.
Even then you would have to look at the scenario. IMO Gilchrist playing in an England side from the 90s would have struggled in much the same manner that Knight might have if he was playing for a Australian side in the 2000s. Gilchrist would probably be a better bet amongst a side of superstars (because of his big hitting abilities) than Knight would but Knight would be a better player to pick if your side lacks any sort of consistency.

I see your side as to why you rate Gilchrist is better, but i cannot understand why some people in this thread think that the comparison is so OTT, that name Knight shouldnt even have showed up in the debate

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

Maybe if he'd have scored a bit quicker he would have

 

[Swervy]

I think Gilchrist's wicket keeping abilities would have some say as to who would make the side.
Even then you would have to look at the scenario. IMO Gilchrist playing in an England side from the 90s would have struggled in much the same manner that Knight might have if he was playing for a Australian side in the 2000s. Gilchrist would probably be a better bet amongst a side of superstars (because of his big hitting abilities) than Knight would but Knight would be a better player to pick if your side lacks any sort of consistency.

I see your side as to why you rate Gilchrist is better, but i cannot understand why some people in this thread think that the comparison is so OTT, that name Knight shouldnt even have showed up in the debate

Its to do with impact though isnt it. Knight was a genuinely fine ODI batsman, but he was never, and never could have been the kind of player that has such a massive impact on a game or tournament as Gilchrist.

What Knight never did was show what he could do in big games, Gilchrist has done it in bundles, and obviously that has to be weighed into the equation.

This is where the stats and figures break down, for me Gilchrist is one of the few players that dont need statistical analysis, you instinctivley know that Gilchrsit is special on seeing him play...Nick Knight kind of blended into the crowd of decent batsman..but thats the difference between the great players and the merely very good...and Gilly is a great player

 

[Swervy]

Well Jayasurya brings some decent ODI bowling, and GIlly brings wicketkeeping, so I would as well....but on just batting?

I didnt even think of Jayas bowling. I would have him close to an all time team simply beacuse I love the way he plays, and he is a real match winner, and knows the one day game like the back of his hand

 

[Swervy]

Maybe if he'd have scored a bit quicker he would have

its quite a valid point

 

[tooextracool]

So easy for you to dismiss the 'IF' when your whole argument is based on assumptions, had 'Nick Knight played longer...', 'Had he played more...' and so on.

i dont think its assumption. No player gets worse with experience in the same time frame, playing 60 more games in the same time frame is more likely to make you a better player than playing 60 less.

Watchful doesn't mean scoring 50 runs in 100 balls, If Giily were little more careful with his shot selection his avg. would have been better with slightly lower strike rate (in 80s). Gilly has shown it on more than one occasions that he can be score big at the same time have good shot selection. He is a match winner and big time player, compared to Knight.

I honestly dont know how Gilly has ever shown 'good shot selection'. Almost every ODI innings that ive seen him play has been reckless and involved plenty of risk. yes so the 'fortune follows the brave' is valid, but the point is IMO i cant see Gilly ever playing an innings like the one below where he would have to hold the entire innings together on his own, because he would probably just throw normally he would just throw his wicket away attempting to improve the scoring rate.
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard_ODI.asp?MatchCode=1180

 

[tooextracool]

I think Gilchrist would have batted the way he did regardless of who he had around him.

And I don't think you can make too many assumptions about what a player would (or wouldn't) have done past the point where their career ended. There are too many possibilities.

I didn't get which disgraceful innings it was either...the link didn't work for me.

world cup final 2003, I'm not going to get into too much detail, but he attempted to slog sweep every single Harbhajan singh delivery into the crowd, only to mi**** them and for them to land in free space. Surprisingly enough he got himself out in exactly the same way.

Also i wasnt making assumptions about Knight's career past retirement. I said that had he played as many games as Gilchrist did from 96-03 span of his career, he would probably have been a more efficient player, cant see whats wrong in doing that.

And as far as Gilchrist is concerned, the problem is that if Gilchrist always plays the only way he knows how to, could you not see how that would be a problem if he was playing for a side like England in the 90s?
I mean 40/3, and Gilchrist attempting to hit Curtly Ambrose out of the ground. Big difference from 40/0 and Gilchrist attempting to hit Darren Powell out of the ground IMO.