Do you think Brad Haddin will be as a good a test batsman as Gilchrist ?

[Salamuddin]

Haddin must be a very good player if he can average 40+ in teh Aussie domestic comp.

I haven't seen him play much ....how do you guys rate him vis a vis Gilchrist ?

 

[Jakester1288]

I think he will stick around a lot more than Gilchrist, and maybe average more by slow accumulation of runs. That said, if you are looking for quick runs, he can provide that, and has been ripping up the Australian bowlers for years in our domestic competition. But he will never have that aura, that 'X' factor Gilchrist seems to have.

 

[sanga1337]

Your asking two different questions. The thread title says do you think Haddin will be as good a test batsman as Gilchrist and then in the poll your asking how do you rate Haddin as a test batsman .

Well for the thread title question i'll say that no, Haddin will be nowhere near as good a test batsman as Gilchrist, but then again only 3 other wicket keeper batsman IMO have matched Gilchrist batting ability and thats Flower, Sangakkara and possibly Ames. However Flower was not as good a keeper as Gilchrist, Sangakkara doesn't keep regularly in tests and Ames averages around 8 runs less than Gilchrist.

As for the poll question I think that Haddin will definitely be a decent number 7 and one of the better wicket keeper batsman out there. I can't really see him averaging over 40 but then again anything above 30 is easily good enough for a wicket keeper batsman IMO.

 

[Polo23]

A handy number 7 who will prove decent (average 30-35 in test cricket for mine) but no way in the same league as Gilchrist. Gilchrist was a freak, I doubt Australia will produce another Gilchrist for a long while.

 

[duffer]

A handy number 7 who will prove decent (average 30-35 in test cricket for mine) but no way in the same league as Gilchrist. Gilchrist was a freak, I doubt Australia will produce another Gilchrist for a long while.

-Australia
+anyone

 

[Polo23]

-Australia
+anyone

Why? Does Australia have a Gilchrist clone in the wings?

 

[tooextracool]

I havent had a chance to watch Haddin bat for an extensive period of time, although from what I have seen he looks to have a fairly impressive technique. I think the FC average is usually a pretty reasonable guage as to the highest level of performance that one can expect from a player and his record suggests that he could very well match Gilchrist.

My opinion of Gilchrist is that he overachieved due to the quality of bowlers that he played and that it was only towards the end of his career when the bowling standards rose that he was actually worked out. I dont doubt that he was a good batsman, however I firmly believe that he was one of those players who was fortunate to have a lot of things in his favor that enabled him to end up with a record that he didnt deserve.

 

[duffer]

Why? Does Australia have a Gilchrist clone in the wings?

Think you missed my point, which was why limit that to just Australia. There won't be another Gilchrist for a long time.

 

[social]

Haddin is a quality batsman and certainly has the ability to average 40+ in tests

 

[social]

I havent had a chance to watch Haddin bat for an extensive period of time, although from what I have seen he looks to have a fairly impressive technique. I think the FC average is usually a pretty reasonable guage as to the highest level of performance that one can expect from a player and his record suggests that he could very well match Gilchrist.

My opinion of Gilchrist is that he overachieved due to the quality of bowlers that he played and that it was only towards the end of his career when the bowling standards rose that he was actually worked out. I dont doubt that he was a good batsman, however I firmly believe that he was one of those players who was fortunate to have a lot of things in his favor that enabled him to end up with a record that he didnt deserve.

That's nonsense

Gilchrist was a genius and, like virtually everyone in the history of the game, his average came down a bit towards the end of his career

If anything, he's become a bit underrated as, in the Warne "Best 100" thread, we've even had people claim that Rodney Marsh was his equal - Rodney Marsh was a simple slogger, good keeping to the quicks and hopeless to spin

 

[Polo23]

Think you missed my point, which was why limit that to just Australia. There won't be another Gilchrist for a long time.

Oh..right.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[tooextracool]

That's nonsense

Gilchrist was a genius and, like virtually everyone in the history of the game, his average came down a bit towards the end of his career

Theres two ways to look at Gilchrist. If you were to look at just the period where he dominated poor bowling attacks across the globe better than a lot of players, you could call him a 'genius'. However, if you consider that he played better quality bowling towards the end of his career than the start you would consider him to not be near as good. I believe in the latter while you believe in the former.

IMHO, his record in India during his prime years, is a far cry from his overall career record. During his time, this was probably the best attack that he played and he was far from successful in both series. And if it werent for this inning in Sl: http://howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1706

his record there would have been even worse.

The real icing on the cake though was the Ashes in 2005, as I think its fairly obvious that he was worked out and just didnt suddenly go downhill when bowlers started to go around the wicket to him.

Theres a reason why Gilly's domestic record is worse than his international record and thats because he achieved more than he should have.

 

[BoyBrumby]

From his stats Haddin would seem to have something about him, but (as with Steyn actually) whenever I've seen him play live (well, live on telly) he looks fairly ordinary. His batting technique looks almost too text book to me, as if he's been coached to within an inch of his life. I think he was playing with a busted finger in the Windies tests for the most part tho, so will reserve judgement. Suspect Ronchi will be the longer term option tho. Obviously cut more from the same attacking cloth as Gilly &, again going by the little I've seen, possibly the better keeper too.

 

[aussie]

Haddin will never have the awe effect of Gilly nor be as destructive him. But based on what i've seen of him i'd say he is good enough to average 40+ in test cricket.

 

[aussie]

Theres two ways to look at Gilchrist. If you were to look at just the period where he dominated poor bowling attacks across the globe better than a lot of players, you could call him a 'genius'. However, if you consider that he played better quality bowling towards the end of his career than the start you would consider him to not be near as good. I believe in the latter while you believe in the former.

IMHO, his record in India during his prime years, is a far cry from his overall career record. During his time, this was probably the best attack that he played and he was far from successful in both series. And if it werent for this inning in Sl: http://howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1706

his record there would have been even worse.

The real icing on the cake though was the Ashes in 2005, as I think its fairly obvious that he was worked out and just didnt suddenly go downhill when bowlers started to go around the wicket to him.

Theres a reason why Gilly's domestic record is worse than his international record and thats because he achieved more than he should have.

Lol, there is a lot wrong with this teco, but before i get stuck into a argument with you on this, i'll let one of the Australians have a bite first.

 

[social]

consider him to not be near as good. I believe in the latter while you believe in the former.

IMHO, his record in India during his prime years, is a far cry from his overall career record. During his time, this was probably the best attack that he played and he was far from successful in both series. And if it werent for this inning in Sl: http://howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1706

Theres a reason why Gilly's domestic record is worse than his international record and thats because he achieved more than he should have.

I'm sorry but ,the Indian bowling attack was not the best Gilly faced - it was actually a pretty ordinary attack propped up by Harby and Kumble

As for SL, one could just as easily argue that very few people in history could've played that innings - that's what makes him special

Finally, I'm sick of hearing how poor the attacks were in the early part of this century.

Name one of today's attacks (aside from the extremely rare occasion when Eng players are fit) that are better than their predecessors

Answer - none

 

[chaminda_00]

Haddin a flat pitch bully that just scored all his run on dead pitches. The sooner he gets back to NSW and Luke 'I can hit a big six' Ronchi plays for Australia the better.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sorry but ,the Indian bowling attack was not the best Gilly faced - it was actually a pretty ordinary attack propped up by Harby and Kumble

Harbhajan and Kumble at home are arguably the greatest spin duo for last 20-30 years. In India, the 2 of them are more than enough to win games on their own, and thats why India have been so difficult to beat in their own backyard.

IMO, if scoring runs against Australia is the barometer for any batsman playing cricket to separate him from good to great then for the Aussies who do not get to play themselves, scoring runs in India against Kumble and Harbhajan should be the standard for any Australian player. The Aussies themselves have recognized this by terming the tour to India as 'the Final Frontier' and many have said that they consider winning in India to be more important than winning the Ashes. By this standard, Gilchrist has failed.

As for SL, one could just as easily argue that very few people in history could've played that innings - that's what makes him special

Few players can play that innings, and that innings was special. However special innings dont equal a special player. There are plenty of very average/good players around the world who have put in special performances over the years. Vaughan is one. Laxman is another. Astle is one more.Depending on how you rate Hick's 178, he could be another. It doesnt mean that any of them are great players.

Finally, I'm sick of hearing how poor the attacks were in the early part of this century.

Name one of today's attacks (aside from the extremely rare occasion when Eng players are fit) that are better than their predecessors

Answer - none

SA now are easily better than they were at the start of this decade when Pollock and Donald were going downhill and Ntini was leading the pack on his own.
SL with Murali and Mendis are easily better than they have been since gaining test status.
India with Zaheer, Ishant, Kumble, Harbhajan along with Munaf, RP Singh and Praveen Kumar are probably better than they have been in the last 2 decades.

However, all of this is irrelevant to the Gilchrist discussion as we are essentially talking about the attack that Gilchrist played between 2005-2007 as opposed to the attacks he played before.

It should be fairly obvious that the Ashes attack is irrefutably the best attack he played against in his career. The 2 SA attacks that he played thereafter including Pollock/Ntini/Nel/Kallis were also very good(in the context of that series). The Indian attack that toured Australia was Australia better than many attacks that have reached those shores in the early part of this decade.

 

[Richard]

From his stats Haddin would seem to have something about him, but (as with Steyn actually) whenever I've seen him play live (well, live on telly) he looks fairly ordinary. His batting technique looks almost too text book to me, as if he's been coached to within an inch of his life. I think he was playing with a busted finger in the Windies tests for the most part tho, so will reserve judgement. Suspect Ronchi will be the longer term option tho. Obviously cut more from the same attacking cloth as Gilly &, again going by the little I've seen, possibly the better keeper too.

Just about every Australian I've seen comment on the matter has said how poor Ronchi's keeping is compared to, well, everyone really.

I can't conceive he's a better batsman than Haddin either.

As to the question of Haddin, well, of course he won't be as good as Gilchrist, barring miracles. It's already been said that Australia anyone won't produce another Gilchrist for a long time - I'd not be surprised if there was never another Gilchrist. He's almost certainly the best wicketkeeper-batsman there's ever been. Though I do and long have subscribed to the theory that he wasn't quite as good as an average of 59 (which he achieved in his first 43 Tests), in part due to dropped catches, in part due to lacking-quality bowling. I thought the second phase of his career (where he averaged 27 in 38 out of 46 Tests and 107 in the other 8) summed him up a little fairer. It's not like he just had a little bit of comedown towards the end - it was one half of superlativeness, one half of relative paucity.

Will Haddin be be a Test-class wicketkeeper-batsman though? I'll be extremely surprised if he's not.

 

[Richard]

Finally, I'm sick of hearing how poor the attacks were in the early part of this century.

Well it ain't going to be stopping any time soon, because that's the way it was, and to a fair extent still is.