Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[tooextracool]

umm mis-hit is censored?

 

[Fiery]

umm mis-hit is censored?

Yep...and nigh****chman

 

[tooextracool]

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

To be precise, its 40 v 34.
Nonetheless it boils down to the rest of the side. If you are opening with Jayasuriya you might the stability that Knight offers and if you were opening with M.Waugh you might want it the other way around.

 

[Fiery]

To be precise, its 40 v 34.
Nonetheless it boils down to the rest of the side. If you are opening with Jayasuriya you might the stability that Knight offers and if you were opening with M.Waugh you might want it the other way around.

Why's it 34 again? What's the point in disregarding part of his career?

 

[Sanz]

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.

Actually they do, Virender Sehwag is a prime example, so are Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly.

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

Ever Watch Gilchrist play in Tests ? In ODIs Gilly doesn't need to play the anchor, that's not his role, there are 5 other players that are there in the Aussie team to do that.

 

[tooextracool]

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

i think you are using the word 'great' very loosely when referring to Gilchrist. Gilchrist is good, but theres no way i would consider him great in the same way in Nick Knight. A great player goes out there and performs consistently well, he is one who can play any sort of inning be it build a platform, drop anchor, chase down targets and score aggressively. A great player is not someone who goes about blowing hot or cold without the slightest care for the team or match situation.

Gilchrist is rated higher than Knight for the same reason as Tendulkar is often put ahead of Bevan because most people would rather watch the former 2 bat than the latter 2. Ive always maintained that Cricket is not about who you like to watch play its about who scores more runs, consistently in all match situations and conditions.
Frankly, i love watching Lasith Malinga bowl, he will in all likelyhood have a greater impact on the game in a shorter period of time in a game than the more reliable bowlers like Matthew Hoggard. Do i think he will amount to anything in test match cricket? Absolutely not.

 

[Fiery]

Gilchrist is good, but theres no way i would consider him great in the same way in Nick Knight. .

*cough, splutter*

 

[tooextracool]

Why's it 34 again? What's the point in disregarding part of his career?

Because it is the same time frame in which both players played in? Therefore it involves playing the same bowlers on similar wickets around the world. Its easier to compare people in the same era than from different eras.

Nonetheless if you remove Gilchrist's record against bangaldesh and the rest of the minnows he still averages 34, so i dont think it matters whatever way you look at it.

 

[tooextracool]

*cough, splutter*

Sorry that might not have come out right. I meant that i wouldnt consider Gilchrist a great for the same reason that i wouldnt consider Knight to be great. Because neither were complete players like Bevan, Richards or Tendulkar were/are.

 

[Fiery]

Sorry that might not have come out right. I meant that i wouldnt consider Gilchrist a great for the same reason that i wouldnt consider Knight to be great. Because neither were complete players like Bevan, Richards or Tendulkar were/are.

that makes more sense

 

[Fiery]

Because it is the same time frame in which both players played in? Therefore it involves playing the same bowlers on similar wickets around the world. Its easier to compare people in the same era than from different eras.

Nonetheless if you remove Gilchrist's record against bangaldesh and the rest of the minnows he still averages 34, so i dont think it matters whatever way you look at it.

Not a fan of omitting certain stats to prove points tbh. We're comparing the both players as a whole, I thought

 

[tooextracool]

Actually they do, Virender Sehwag is a prime example, so are Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly.

They got worse once they went past their prime, I am referring to the same timeframe in which Nick Knight averaged 40 in. Sehwag has never really been a good ODI player so i dont think his case his valid.

Ever Watch Gilchrist play in Tests ? In ODIs Gilly doesn't need to play the anchor, that's not his role, there are 5 other players that are there in the Aussie team to do that.

And hes played anchor in tests so often then? The number of times hes got himself out while attempting to do so far far outweigh the number of defensive or close to defensive innings hes played in tests.

 

[tooextracool]

Not a fan of omitting certain stats to prove points tbh. We're comparing the both players as a whole, I thought

Im sorry what? I am comparing players within the same time period, how is that not a more fair comparison?

Nick Knight never played a single ODI against a substandard ODI side, Gilchrist has played dozens. Again, i dont think it is a far comparison to let Gilchrist's average benefit from those games.

 

[Fiery]

Im sorry what? I am comparing players within the same time period, how is that not a more fair comparison?

Nick Knight never played a single ODI against a substandard ODI side, Gilchrist has played dozens. Again, i dont think it is a far comparison to let Gilchrist's average benefit from those games.

Is that you Richard? What have you done with tec?

 

[Perm]

Nick Knight never played a single ODI against a substandard ODI side, Gilchrist has played dozens.

Excuse me? Two games against Namibia and the Netherlands begs to differ, also when do you consider Zimbabwe changed into a substandard ODI side?

 

[Sanz]

Nick Knight never played a single ODI against a substandard ODI side, Gilchrist has played dozens. Again, i dont think it is a far comparison to let Gilchrist's average benefit from those games.

So Namibia, Netherlands and Zimbabwe are high Caliber ODI sides ? As far as I know, you have never rated any of those teams.

Go ahead take those teams out of Gilly's performance and I can assure you it's not going to make much of a differenc.

 

[short shorts]

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.
.

Very good point there.

 

[Sanz]

They got worse once they went past their prime, I am referring to the same timeframe in which Nick Knight averaged 40 in. Sehwag has never really been a good ODI player so i dont think his case his valid.

And Nick Knight wasn't past his prime in his last 25 games or so ? Whether or not Sehwag was ever a Good ODI player, he should have improved after playing 150 ODIs, no ?

And hes played anchor in tests so often then? The number of times hes got himself out while attempting to do so far far outweigh the number of defensive or close to defensive innings hes played in tests.

You seem to define playing the anchor role with blocking Zillions of balls unnecessarily.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/PAK_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/PAK_AUS_T2_18-22NOV1999.html

Came @ 126/5 and won the match

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2000-01/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T1_27FEB-03MAR2001.html

Came @ 99/5 - Out @ 326

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/NZ_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/NZ_AUS_T1_08-12NOV2001.html

Came At 260/5, added 250 runs with the tail.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/AUS_IN_RSA/SCORECARDS/AUS_RSA_T2_08-12MAR2002.html

185/6 - added 200 runs with the tail.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/AUS_IN_BDESH/SCORECARDS/AUS_BDESH_T1_09-13APR2006.html

from 61/4 to 269.

 

[Burgey]

i think you are using the word 'great' very loosely when referring to Gilchrist. Gilchrist is good, but theres no way i would consider him great in the same way in Nick Knight. A great player goes out there and performs consistently well, he is one who can play any sort of inning be it build a platform, drop anchor, chase down targets and score aggressively. A great player is not someone who goes about blowing hot or cold without the slightest care for the team or match situation.

Hang on a minute.

Doesn't a great player perform when it counts most? I mean, go along scoring consistently well for 3.5 years, then splutter at a WC, and see what your one-day legacy is like. Gilchrist has played important innings in three consecutive WC finals, scoring at least 50 in each on the biggest stage of all, presumably against the best opposition around.

And to suggest, as your post does, that Gilchrist doesn't care about the team or match situation is complete and utter nonsense. Rarely has there been a less selfish cricketer who cares less about his average. In both tests and ODIs the Australian mindset since Steve Waugh was captain has been to play your natural game and above all else be aggressive. He embodies that. He is also well known as a player who will try to accelerate the scoring in the team's interests with no regard whatsoever for his own average.

I'll have someone who blows hot and cold like that in my side any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

[Richard]

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.

Rubbish on both counts. A good economy-rate is the opposite of a good batting-strike-rate.

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.

Knight's record in big games is near enough irrelevant because he played so few.