Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[Richard]

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

I have less time to ensure politeness on a thread moving as fast as this one is. I can find there are 5 or 6 new replies in the time taken to write a long post, so I have to be more quick-like.

What I said is what it boils down to - just judging things on surface-value and not looking beneath it. Gilchrist can do things (play extraordinary strokes, score exceptionally fast) that are more obvious signs. The stuff Knight can do is less obvious and you need to look a bit deeper, therefore for me to rate Gilchrist better because of this makes doing such a thing simplistic.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Not sure if the super 8's match counts as a final, most people expected England to go through regardless of the result against Australia. The only reason they didn't go through was of course because the Pakistan-Zimbabwe match got rained off.

 

[tooextracool]

Right now, yes we can. What happens next happens next, and we can say more then.

Yes, i for one hope that he plays the way we know he can play, because England need him not just for his captaincy but for his experience.

 

[Fiery]

Not sure if the super 8's match counts as a final, most people expected England to go through regardless of the result against Australia. The only reason they didn't go through was of course because the Pakistan-Zimbabwe match got rained off.

And because they were ****

 

[Swervy]

I have less time to ensure politeness on a thread moving as fast as this one is. I can find there are 5 or 6 new replies in the time taken to write a long post, so I have to be more quick-like.

What I said is what it boils down to - just judging things on surface-value and not looking beneath it. Gilchrist can do things (play extraordinary strokes, score exceptionally fast) that are more obvious signs. The stuff Knight can do is less obvious and you need to look a bit deeper, therefore for me to rate Gilchrist better because of this makes doing such a thing simplistic.

well maybe you are complicating things then!!!!

Its looking at those things that make great players great that go beyond looking at stats etc. Lara looked like a great player even before his 277. KP looks like a great player in the making, its not because of the runs, its because of the intangibles that you cannot put you finger on. You might not have the ability to pick up on the truely skilled, blessed players, obviously a lot of us can. It is so obvious that Gilchrist is a great player, where Knight never would come close.

 

[tooextracool]

I honestly thought that the 2003 side was quite decent, and it certainly was the best we've had this decade.

Give me Tresco, Knight, Flintoff, Caddick, White and Stewart over any of the clowns we have today. Think if we had played in Zimbabwe, we might have gone as far as the semis.

 

[tooextracool]

well maybe you are complicating things then!!!!

Its looking at those things that make great players great that go beyond looking at stats etc. Lara looked like a great player even before his 277. KP looks like a great player in the making, its not because of the runs, its because of the intangibles that you cannot put you finger on. You might not have the ability to pick up on the truely skilled, blessed players, obviously a lot of us can. It is so obvious that Gilchrist is a great player, where Knight never would come close.

I think the majority of the people that watch cricket dont look at the right things that make players great. Its not about the way you bat, its about how much you score and when. Steve Waugh never batted like a great player, but he was and his efforts are somewhat undermined because of the fact that he didnt have the coverdrive of a Brian Lara or the pull shot of Viv Richards.

To me its not obvious at all that Gilchrist is a great player. I look at him a one-trick pony(even if hes not too bad at it), but the bottom line is that he cannot adapt his game to the match situation or play any other way than what he is used to. The true greats like Bevan, Tendulkar and yes even Viv Richards could.

 

[Richard]

I honestly thought that the 2003 side was quite decent, and it certainly was the best we've had this decade.

Give me Tresco, Knight, Flintoff, Caddick, White and Stewart over any of the clowns we have today. Think if we had played in Zimbabwe, we might have gone as far as the semis.

I thought the 1999 side wasn't bad, either: Stewart, Hick, Fairbrother, Thorpe, Ealham, Fraser, Gough, Mullally. Just a shame Knight lost form just at the wrong time, really, but for that it'd have been even better.

 

[social]

I think the majority of the people that watch cricket dont look at the right things that make players great. Its not about the way you bat, its about how much you score and when. Steve Waugh never batted like a great player, but he was and his efforts are somewhat undermined because of the fact that he didnt have the coverdrive of a Brian Lara or the pull shot of Viv Richards.

To me its not obvious at all that Gilchrist is a great player. I look at him a one-trick pony(even if hes not too bad at it), but the bottom line is that he cannot adapt his game to the match situation or play any other way than what he is used to. The true greats like Bevan, Tendulkar and yes even Viv Richards could.

Which is precisely why Gilchrist is a great player - I think you'll find that in virtually any match, in any form of the game, that Gilchrist's team wins when he scores big runs.

Why? Because he scores so incredibly quickly that he bats the opposition out of the game and also provides heaps of time for his bowlers to take wickets.

In ODIs, the latter is not an issue but the fact remains that there have been only a few players in the history of ODIs that have maintained anything like his strike rate and average over an extended period of time.

As for when he scores his runs in ODIs - 3 WC Finals, 3 opposition teams all bar dead and buried within the first 10-15 overs of the Australian innings.

 

[Eclipse]

Which is precisely why Gilchrist is a great player - I think you'll find that in virtually any match, in any form of the game, that Gilchrist's team wins when he scores big runs.

Why? Because he scores so incredibly quickly that he bats the opposition out of the game and also provides heaps of time for his bowlers to take wickets.

In ODIs, the latter is not an issue but the fact remains that there have been only a few players in the history of ODIs that have maintained anything like his strike rate and average over an extended period of time.

As for when he scores his runs in ODIs - 3 WC Finals, 3 opposition teams all bar dead and buried within the first 10-15 overs of the Australian innings.

well said.

 

[GIMH]

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.

The point is they can both play, but performs at his best when it really matters most. If we're going to say "Compare their averages, compare their strike rates, compare th esides they play in" why cant we ask what their respective records are like in big games for their sides?

And as for the suggestion that it's Gilly becuse he's an Aussie, I don't think that's a fair criticism. If he played for Mars and did what he did in 3 Interplanetary Cup Finals, the point would be the same. Likewise for the point about Richard. I've been here since late last year but don't know a great deal about a lot of the personality clashes on the site, nor do I really care about them. Some people post more than others, but that doesn't detract from their opinions. IMO Richard comes up with some good stuff. Even if you don't agree with it it's usually thought-provoking. If anyone's taken personal offence at my posts on this issue or in the Harmison thread I apologise. They were not meant as personal insults in any way and I didn't set out to have a personal crack at the people who posted contrary views.

These criticisms weren't aimed at you to be fair. As much as I like fiery, I don't think this thread would have been made had Knight>Gilchrist been stated by somebody else,. and I don't think some people would have reacted in the same way. I don't think your opinion is influenced like that, because you're undoubtedly a great poster, even if you do hate the English


As for the Aussie thing, hmm, maybe I'm irrational. These arguments always seem to be an Aussie V someone, and when that someone is English it seems to be a common argument amongst some posters that there is no right to even be discussing the matter.

If this post doesn't make sense, I'll try and go into more depth later on, got a fair bit of work to do and shouldn't be on here at all. i have found this thread quite absorbing thouugh, distracing and all

 

[short shorts]

Gilchrist was better than Knight in my opinion, but not by such a great margin as some people deluded themselves into believing.

 

[Burgey]

Thanks GIMH. Very kind of you. I don't hate the English, it's just the old rivalry thin which sometimes makes me get ahead of myself.

I'd love to live in England one day - hopefully before I'm too old to play some cricket over there.

 

[Fiery]

These criticisms weren't aimed at you to be fair. As much as I like fiery, I don't think this thread would have been made had Knight>Gilchrist been stated by somebody else,. and I don't think some people would have reacted in the same way.

I probably wouldn't have started a thread but would have still thought it was a pretty loopy suggestion if someone else had come up with it. The main concern I have, looking at the results of the poll, is that 40% of people here actually think Nick Knight is/was a better OD batsman than Adam Gilchrist which is just madness quite frankly and I've lost faith in the collective cricketing IQ of the website as a whole

 

[GIMH]

I probably wouldn't have started a thread but would have still thought it was a pretty loopy suggestion if someone else had come up with it. The main concern I have, looking at the results of the poll, is that 40% of people here actually think Nick Knight is/was a better OD batsman than Adam Gilchrist which is just madness quite frankly and I've lost faith in the collective cricketing IQ of the website as a whole

 

[Fiery]

You laughing at me again GIMH?

 

[The Sean]

I probably wouldn't have started a thread but would have still thought it was a pretty loopy suggestion if someone else had come up with it. The main concern I have, looking at the results of the poll, is that 40% of people here actually think Nick Knight is/was a better OD batsman than Adam Gilchrist which is just madness quite frankly and I've lost faith in the collective cricketing IQ of the website as a whole

Don't sugar coat it Fiery, tell us what you actually think!

 

[Fiery]

Don't sugar coat it Fiery, tell us what you actually think!

Ok, if you think Nick Knight's better than Gilchrist you're a ****

 

[GIMH]

You laughing at me again GIMH?

With you mate

 

[Fiery]

With you mate