Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[PhoenixFire]

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

Lol, I'm sure you berated Perm for saying pretty much the exact same thing to someone else, Xuhaib I think.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Gilchrist has been playing for a number of years now...that's a hell of a lot of time to build up to a 'knee-jerk' reaction. As for the less-flairy player being put down in favour of the one who has a lash...it seems to work in reverse too. The reason Nick Knight couldn't bat the way Gilchrist does is simple - he didn't have the ability. I'm not saying averaging 40 is bad by the way, he was obviously very useful during his time in the team.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

It has nothing to do with the collective mentality of both nations either does it? Is Kevin Pietersen given license even now when the English team are somewhat hopeless at OD cricket? He seems to play the same way regardless. In the Ashes he went down swinging...and it didn't always pay off. I think you have to give a player credit for making his own decisions once in a while.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Which would be an assumption. Anything could have happened to Knight past this point.

I think Gilchrist always ends the only way he knows how to...he doesn't always start that way. There have been occasions when he's started slowly and then gone off like a firecracker...you don't make that many runs by going out and slogging from the get-go every match. I think Gilchrist does have the ability to weigh up the situationw when he goes in. Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that maybe he's that good he honestly believes he can take bowlers on from the outset on most occasions and get away with it?

 

[Son Of Coco]

And Gilchrist couldn't do what Knight did, because he doesn't have the talent to score that slowly regularly... square on.

...and the cricketing world weeps

 

[Piper]

Gilchrist for me. Obviously he is an amazing batsman and he is always one of the best wicket-keepers in the game.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Think we didnt get the lucky end of the stick in that world cup either to be honest. Much like in 2003, we got the worse of the conditions against India despite the fact that the bowling attack did well to restrict India to 230 odd, and like most other sides we were comprehensively outplayed by a much better SA side. The zimbabwe-SA result IMO is questionable given the whole Cronje matchfixing scandal not long after and i honestly think SA took their feet off the accelerator in that game. Nonetheless, much like in 2003,the players didnt have the mental ability or confidence to defeat good teams anyways.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Precious few players have averaged over 40 in ODIs as well, and Nick Knight is amongst that bunch.

As far as the Gilchrist approach is concerned, yes it works when he plays for Australia. The fact is that sort of reckless and carefree approach would have cost any other team many many games had he been playing for any other team. Its all fine and great talking about how he can change a game with the blink of an eye, but the fact is also capable of brain explosions such as the 2003 wc final which many people would be cynical about if he were playing as a specialist bat in an England side where he was one of the few dead certainities in the side.

I dont think Knight gets his due, he played against much more respected bowlers all around the world over an 8 year period and did everything he could have possibly have been required to do.Gilchrist as you have already said, doesnt have a problem with the 'when' aspect, however he does not posess a versatility in his game to be able to change his game based on conditions and match situations.

 

[haroon510]

Gilly because of his strike rate..

 

[tooextracool]

It has nothing to do with the collective mentality of both nations either does it? Is Kevin Pietersen given license even now when the English team are somewhat hopeless at OD cricket? He seems to play the same way regardless. In the Ashes he went down swinging...and it didn't always pay off. I think you have to give a player credit for making his own decisions once in a while.

Im not sure if we both watched the same Ashes? Pietersen finished the Ashes series with a SR of 48, almost 20 points off his career SR. Why? Because his game was forced to change due to the approach required given the match situations of having to hang on for draws. By and large i am surprised how no one has noticed how much Pietersen's game has changed since and including the Ashes compared to the brash and often arrogant approach that he had towards building innings in test matches. His game now, involves far less risk, his slog sweeps have vanished completely, so have his 'walking across the stumps flicks' that have been replaced by his genuine off side technical improvement. The fact that he has performed almost a complete U-turn is what IMO makes me rate him as something special now.
Anyways, point being, Pietersen even now does not have the license to play aggressively in OD cricket or to attempt to go down swinging. More often than not he realises how much his team relies on him so he often tries to bat for as long as possible before playing his shots. Gilchrist on the other hand, playing for a team like Australia, has never needed to make such an adjustment to his game.

 

[tooextracool]

Which would be an assumption. Anything could have happened to Knight past this point.

I think Gilchrist always ends the only way he knows how to...he doesn't always start that way. There have been occasions when he's started slowly and then gone off like a firecracker...you don't make that many runs by going out and slogging from the get-go every match. I think Gilchrist does have the ability to weigh up the situationw when he goes in. Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that maybe he's that good he honestly believes he can take bowlers on from the outset on most occasions and get away with it?

It is that sort of approach that made him look like a complete dimwit in the Ashes of 2005 when he came up against a quality bowling attack that he could not dominate. IMO hes never shown me that he can weigh up situations and bat accordingly, he has only one approach to batting which is to be dominate bowlers from the go, no matter whether his personal form is useless or if the bowlers are actually doing a good job out there.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Im not sure if we both watched the same Ashes? Pietersen finished the Ashes series with a SR of 48, almost 20 points off his career SR. Why? Because his game was forced to change due to the approach required given the match situations of having to hang on for draws. By and large i am surprised how no one has noticed how much Pietersen's game has changed since and including the Ashes compared to the brash and often arrogant approach that he had towards building innings in test matches. His game now, involves far less risk, his slog sweeps have vanished completely, so have his 'walking across the stumps flicks' that have been replaced by his genuine off side technical improvement. The fact that he has performed almost a complete U-turn is what IMO makes me rate him as something special now.
Anyways, point being, Pietersen even now does not have the license to play aggressively in OD cricket or to attempt to go down swinging. More often than not he realises how much his team relies on him so he often tries to bat for as long as possible before playing his shots. Gilchrist on the other hand, playing for a team like Australia, has never needed to make such an adjustment to his game.

Fair enough, and I do remember Pietersen taking ages to get off the mark, or to get going, in some of the tests. His game also changed due to the approach Australia took to tying him down, but it's to his credit that he dealt with it. However, with a couple of exceptions (one of them being the ball that Clarke bowled him with) he does tend to get out backing himself in any situation...which in my opinion is a good thing.

I'm not sure why Gilchrist is chided for not having to adjust his game though...he opens so Australia can attempt to take full advantage of his approach. I don't think he's needed to make an adjustment his whole career...it's the way he's always played from year dot, before he got in the Australian team. It certainly helps to have some decent batsmen behind you, but I don't agree that he'd have to change his approach should he be playing for someone else. And speculation as to whether he could or couldn't is largely meaningless.

Edit: Any suggests KP is 'doing it for the team' though are somewhat tempered by his refusal to bat higher in the order until it was done and dusted.

 

[Perm]

Lol, I'm sure you berated Perm for saying pretty much the exact same thing to someone else, Xuhaib I think.

He sure did, but I'll let it slide

 

[Son Of Coco]

It is that sort of approach that made him look like a complete dimwit in the Ashes of 2005 when he came up against a quality bowling attack that he could not dominate. IMO hes never shown me that he can weigh up situations and bat accordingly, he has only one approach to batting which is to be dominate bowlers from the go, no matter whether his personal form is useless or if the bowlers are actually doing a good job out there.

That's fair enough, each to their own. I'll pick my favourite highlights reel and you can pick yours.

 

[tooextracool]

Fair enough, and I do remember Pietersen taking ages to get off the mark, or to get going, in some of the tests. His game also changed due to the approach Australia took to tying him down, but it's to his credit that he dealt with it. However, with a couple of exceptions (one of them being the ball that Clarke bowled him with) he does tend to get out backing himself in any situation...which in my opinion is a good thing.

I'm not sure why Gilchrist is chided for not having to adjust his game though...he opens so Australia can attempt to take full advantage of his approach. I don't think he's needed to make an adjustment his whole career...it's the way he's always played from year dot, before he got in the Australian team. It certainly helps to have some decent batsmen behind you, but I don't agree that he'd have to change his approach should he be playing for someone else. And speculation as to whether he could or couldn't is largely meaningless.

i dont think that he should be chided for his approach, just that it should be looked at in context. But there is bound to be such a large divide in their SR's(knights and gilchrists) because of the teams for which they played for.
But if Knight couldnt play like Gilchrist, which is what most people on here seem to be suggesting, then Gilchrist could not build an innings in the manner in which Knight had to do day in and day out. IMO Gilchrist's all out approach would never work against pace bowlers of the utmost quality like Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock(in his prime) and if you look at Gilchrist's record, it never did because they never gave him an easy run. Nick Knight on the other hand went to WI and SA and scored bucketloads against those sides.

 

[tooextracool]

That's fair enough, each to their own. I'll pick my favourite highlights reel and you can pick yours.

Indeed. cricket isnt about highlight reels though, not if you want your side to be successful at least.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Indeed. cricket isnt about highlight reels though, not if you want your side to be successful at least.

That doesn't seem to be true of the past few years, but anyway.