But why???? His personal circumstances were different, he obviously felt he could still contribute positivey to the team, he still felt healthy. Why would he want to retire when he felt he could still produce?
The glory of hindsight.
Richard, I think Gilly would have a bit of a better idea about his own capabilities, fitness etc. than you did...
Not this again. Had quite enough of that with the Flintoff case years ago.
What do you mean 'what he's ended up finishing with'?
Educated viewers..I take it you are including yourself (and your ego) in that group?
He'd obviously have a better idea about his fitness, but not neccessarily his capabilities as a batsman. If you have skill as a batsman, you never feel you're losing it - and, indeed, maybe you aren't. Almost all batsmen whose performances drop off late in their careers say they still feel fine, but just keep getting out.
Educated viewers are at least as good as if not better than batsmen themselves at assessing their performance.
He's had a shocking series. There's absolutely no two ways about that. It's a shame to finish this way.
To retire with his comrades. And to retire after a good, not bad, series. I'm well aware he didn't want to - my point is, he should have wanted to, not that he should have retired when he didn't want to.
Are you aware of how ridiculous that sounds? Players shouldn't retire as soon as they are no longer at their best to preserve their legacy, unless of course they want to. People are allowed to want whatever they like, whether you would want it or not.
On reflection, I think this is a bit of an overdramatisation. Is Haddin good enough to demand a spot on his batting alone, as Gilchrist was for much of his career? No. Will he average in the high 40s? No. Is he good enough to be a solid no. 7 and probably average 30-35? Definitely IMO. If he's solid behind the stumps, I don't see what more realistically we could expect of Haddin. We're not going to be able to replace Gilchrist with a player of a similar standard.
I'm not sold on him averaging around 35, though. I certainly think Gilchrist would still be the better option at this stage had he not retired, which was essentially my point. I get the impression that some people believe Haddin now > Gilchrist now, and I couldn't disagree more.
What I clearly meant was "I'd have wanted to had I been him". Players should retire when they want to; I think Gilchrist would have done best to have wanted to retire at the time I said.
Which is fine. To actually suggest he was wrong for wanting something other than what you want is lunacy though.
Err, no, nothing of the sort. I've very clearly never once said "Gilchrist should have retired in June 2003".
Rubbish, it'd have been 11 games at least. Stop bringing-up irrelevant nonsense in attempt to trash-talk.
I didn't actually suggest that. Had it been someone other than Swervy who was involved, I possibly wouldn't even have appeared to suggest it.