Hmm, i forgot to take into account his last series. Anyways, considering he played 2 games against substandard sides, scoring 51 and 6, i dont think it has any effect on his average.Perm said:
I did and by my calculations it came out to be 34.4(after excluding all non test-nations, b'desh, zimbabwe post 2003 and the asian+world Xi games).
Why not? That was a very fine innings, and so far his Test comeback has been very good. And that's all I praised him for.
OK, fair noof, sorry if so.
It's fair when you talk about their ability to perform on big occasions, which is something really good to great players do. Because of their mediocrity, the last group phase match or super 8s match might be England's ODI equivalent ot Australia's WC final. My point is that when the big games are on, Gilchrist's record is superb.
I doubt it too, but that's due to the common misunderstandings of the cricket fan, not paucity on Knight's part.
I don't dispute that for a second, Gilchrist is a fine batsman. But the fact he performed in big games has no relevance to a comparison to Knight, because Knight never played any of that magnitude, due to his team-mates' ineptitude.
Smith clearly meant "damn it".So will you "Jam it" then?
And Gilchrist couldn't do what Knight did, because he doesn't have the talent to score that slowly regularly... square on.
no, its because most people with an understanding of the game recognise greatness. Gilchrist is touched by it, Nick Knight wasnt.
mmm...of course
Quite right to point those things out. My point re the WC finals is that one player has a record of standing up for his side in the big games for that side. For Gilly, those games are the WC finals. For Knight, they were whatever games England had to win to progress/ win a tourny, whatever.
I dont think there is any way that you can judge improvement when someone has never been good enough ITFP.
An anchor role is when you bat with minimum of risk and decide to bat as long as possible. Considering that almost every one of those innings were scored at almost or more than a run a ball in test matches i dont see how those are sheet anchor innings, especially when almost all of them came in partnership with someone else(most of whom were ironically playing the sheet anchor role at the other end). Did he curb his natural aggressive instincts in those innings? I think not
FFS, that's the SECOND time you've said that! I suggest you trawl through some of the archives and find the 50 or 80 threads the two of us have had constant disagreements on an absurdly large number of matters.
It's because people are too impulsive and not considered enough in "recognising" greatness IMO. The knee-jerk reaction would be to think what one or two in this thread have and suggested they are on different scales. The considered reaction would be to consider that they were actually both fine players, who could do things the other couldn't.
I've certainly not taken anything you've said that way. I imagine Martyn (GIMH) wasn't referring to you in that "crowd" (and the main person responsible has said he was joking on that count now, so fair noof) and I certainly wasn't.
Indeed, he did play all of 1 good innings since his return. I guess we can confirm that his last 4 years of mediocrity are behind him and we can all stand behind him as being worthy of his place in the side.
Its pretty patronising of you to basically say that people who consider Gilchrist to be a great ODI player to be reacting in a knee jerk way..but I guess we should have gotten used to that
touchy
Right now, yes we can. What happens next happens next, and we can say more then.