A Tribute To Adam Gilchrist

[Richard]

And this is where your wrong his decline began in the 2005 Ashes & not a moment sooner.

Nah, it started in December 2003. It was halted to an extent in November 2004 for 3 or 4 months, but was then started in earnest once more in July 2005, and only briefly abated in The Ashes 2006\07.

There had been no period, 1999\2000-2003, where Gilchrist had such a poor run of scores as he did December03-November-04. Gilchrist was no longer the (Test) player he had been after the Caribbean tour of 2003 was over.

 

[Swervy]

Nah, not really, I couldn't give a flying about that idiot and nor could very many other people, I'm not even going to bother responding to that post in fact.

It would be interesting to see how you would respond to that though, as it was a valid point made

 

[Richard]

Nah, it wasn't. There's no sense in me responding to any of his posts, and by-and-large I'm not going to bother from now on.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It would be interesting to see how you would respond to that though, as it was a valid point made

As you now see he has no answer, which is why we got the "I and all my MSN buddies hate you" to attempt to deflect away from it in the first place.

 

[Richard]

Nah, we got that because it's the way it is. You won't accept me disproving any of your posts, so I'm not going to waste my time on you.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, it wasn't. There's no sense in me responding to any of his posts, and by-and-large I'm not going to bother from now on.

Actually, it was a very very good point. Unfortunately, it's not the first time someone's caught something like that out by you.

 

[Richard]

It wasn't a very good point, if you look at it carefully you'll see it makes precisely no sense whatsoever. I said Lee's figures in 2001\02 make him look better than he was; I've said (for example) Vivian Richards' figures don't make him look worse than he was. Completely separate issues - of course, some would love to try drawing a non-existant line to suit their own purposes.

It's mostly a small group, most of whom have good reasons not to be taken with a great deal of seriousness, who tend to try that sort of thing.

 

[Ikki]

It wasn't a very good point, if you look at it carefully you'll see it makes precisely no sense whatsoever. I said Lee's figures in 2001\02 make him look better than he was; I've said (for example) Vivian Richards' figures don't make him look worse than he was. Completely separate issues - of course, some would love to try drawing a non-existant line to suit their own purposes.

It's mostly a small group, most of whom have good reasons not to be taken with a great deal of seriousness, who tend to try that sort of thing.

LOL, you just got caught, again, in the same hypocrisy.

You're saying Lee's figures are misleading because you watched him play.

Yet by the same standard you are saying Viv's performances were misleading because his figures say so.

It does not get any clearer than that.

 

[Matt79]

Have to say, I agree that you either accept that stats can fail to tell the full story of a player (no matter how "carefully" you interpret them) or you don't. Probably is an oversimplification of your argument, but its one you leave yourself open to when you say on one hand that not having seen Richards doesn't prevent you from judging how good he was, but that others are failing to understand how good (or not) Lee was because they didn't see him play.

Also have to say, I've not seen much derision of Lillian Thompson around the place.

 

[Sanz]

Didn't realize that he was One of my favorite cricketers, until he announced his retirement. I look forward to watch him play in IPL. Hopefully he plays for Kolkata, because that is the team I am going to support.

An alltime great, a superstar and certainly a better human being. Well Played Champ.

 

[aussie]

Nah, it started in December 2003. It was halted to an extent in November 2004 for 3 or 4 months, but was then started in earnest once more in July 2005, and only briefly abated in The Ashes 2006\07.

There had been no period, 1999\2000-2003, where Gilchrist had such a poor run of scores as he did December03-November-04. Gilchrist was no longer the (Test) player he had been after the Caribbean tour of 2003 was over.

Ha, you are going to find trouble for these selective stats dawg. Now listening to this i am convinced you didn't see Gilly bat during this period & you probably just resarched his career & came up with this.

As a person who has seen all of Gilchrist's 96 test live except for his two series in NZ in 99/00 & 2004/05 i'm a tell ya watch really poppin from what i saw not to selective stats..

Firstly just because a player starts having a few poor scores means he is going into decline which is where you are wrong about Gilchrist's decline. A player could be said to be in decline when he looks totally the shadow of the player he was at his peak & can no longer due to too much cricket (which caused a temporary loss of form to Tendulkar which lead to speculation of decline between WI 2002 to SA 2007) or players like Steve Waugh or Richards who declined due to age.

With Gilly now his decline started in England since that was the series where his weakness was found out i.e bowling around the wicket to him other bowlers around the world for the last 2 1/2 years tried, throw in the age factor & he wasn't his consistent best but still produced moments of his brilliance i.e 91 vs World XI, 86 vs SA SCG, 144 vs BAN, 100 vs ENG perth.


Your idea that it began way back vs IND in 2003/04 is foolish because if you watched that series yea he didn't get big scores but that was due more to him getting himself you by playing too aggressively & a him getting a few good fantastic deliveries i.e Pathan @ Sydney rather than him going into decline. I would consider his series vs IND in 2003/04 a bit unlucky.

As 2004 began he had two tours to SRI & IND countries that would expose his weakness againts spin that was always prevalent even during the 1999-2003 period that you mentioned it just wasn't tested then & given his weakness his batting in those two series especially in IND where he was skipper was as good as it could have possibly done.

In between that their was also the home series in AUS in darwin & cairns where in the first test he scored brilliant 90 odd on a very difficult Darwin wicket, then post IND he had field days vs NZ home & away & PAK before he went to ENG for the workout.

So again Gilly declined as a batsman began in the Ashes & not a series sooner.

This should cover you for now at least..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Also have to say, I've not seen much derision of Lillian Thompson around the place.

Of course not as there isn't any. Assuming it happens at all it's just Richard and a couple of cronies who talk about the forum on MSN.......hey doesn't that sound like fun.

People thank me for the laughs they get at Richard's expense, for example this little gem yesterday. "People also realise there's some point in starting threads trying to reason with me". This from a man who has had several muliti-page arguments when presented with the simple request not to use real names on the forum.
Not forgetting this little classic "You won't accept me disproving any of your posts". Now let's see, someone who won't accept the disproving of their posts, think hard here people, who does that describe?

 

[Richard]

Of course not as there isn't any. Assuming it happens at all it's just Richard and a couple of cronies who talk about the forum on MSN.......hey doesn't that sound like fun.

Yeah, it does really, doesn't it.

It's more than a couple of "cronies", rest assured. Or unassured.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, it does really, doesn't it.

It's more than a couple of "cronies", rest assured. Or unassured.

That would explain all the people who come rushing to support you when you're being constantly ridiculed then.

 

[Prince EWS]

That would explain all the people who come rushing to support you when you're being constantly ridiculed then.

I'd take a guess to suugest that those who take the time to discuss the forums on MSN wouldn't think that your petty arguments with him are either good for the forums or worth replying to, though, so that'd explain that..

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of this post.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'd take a guess to suugest that those who take the time to discuss the forums on MSN wouldn't think that your petty arguments with him with either good for the forums or worth replying to, though, so that'd explain that..

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of this post.

So you mean Richard's the only one stupid enough to bother arguing........good point. Would be an even better point though if it was only me, the numbers involved suggest otherwise.

 

[Richard]

That would explain all the people who come rushing to support you when you're being constantly ridiculed then.

Nah, it wouldn't. There aren't a hell of a lot of people who post in support of me on such matters, actually, because most people I get on with share my complete disdain for the small handful of people who try to constantly ridicule me.

 

[Swervy]

Nah, it wouldn't. There aren't a hell of a lot of people who post in support of me on such matters, actually, because most people I get on with share my complete disdain for the small handful of people who try to constantly ridicule me.

I don't think people are trying to ridicule you Richard...its just that sometimes you set yourself up for it.

For me, I think you would have come out of this with more credit if you had have replied to LTs comment:

' Funny how the thousands of people who saw Viv Richards bat were deluded into thinking he was greater than he was because your abacus doesn't agree. Yet here the same abacus gives Lee good figures but they don't count because you saw him'

It really does look like because you can't actually give an adequate answer to it, you simply refuse to answer it based on some sort of personality clash you have with LT. I always thought it was play the post on its merit, not the poster

 

[Richard]

Mostly I do. There are four or five posters who are simply not worth bothering about, however: LT has long since proven himself to be one of them. Whatever I say, you can put a fair amount on that he'll find some way or other to try and ridicule it.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time. You're actually a good comparison here because, however much ing there's been between us (and there's been more than between me and anyone else), my disdain has never reached levels where I simply don't care about a single thing you say.

Hardly anyone thinks lesser of me for not arguing with LT; a fair few people would actually think lesser of me if I were to do so.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Mostly I do. There are four or five posters who are simply not worth bothering about, however: LT has long since proven himself to be one of them. Whatever I say, you can put a fair amount on that he'll find some way or other to try and ridicule it.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time. You're actually a good comparison here because, however much ing there's been between us (and there's been more than between me and anyone else), my disdain has never reached levels where I simply don't care about a single thing you say.

Hardly anyone thinks lesser of me for not arguing with LT; a fair few people would actually think lesser of me if I were to do so.

I don't anyone could think less of you. But leaving the obvious aside, everyone who has mentioned my comment has deemed it worthy. Surely there must at least one of them who doesn't think you're a prat and is worthy of an explanation.