Greatest individual performance ever

[Richard]

Yo, a wa do ya mateyyyyy???, rassclathhhh

As we have argued before. Just because your "statistical perfection ideals", that Gilchrist specifically between IND 03/04 to NZ 05 - didn't average 60+ doesn't mean he was in a form slump.

Simply because unlike the 05 Ashes he was worked out technically or looked incapable of scoring runs cosnsistently in test, as was the case from 05 Ashes to IND 07/08. Nobody during 2003/04 to 2004/05 had highlighted or was attacking him with the around the wicket-tactic for example.

Its just that during that period he played in the sub-continent alot & he played the way Gilly plays againts spin, which is hit & miss - just like IND 01. Based on this boring argument now that I think of it, Gilchrist should have been in a form slump for the last two test of the 2001 series??, since if you check his innings list, he had not gone 4 innings without a big score betwwen PAK 99 to Mumbai 01??

Plus vs IND 03/04. He got himself most of the times, only time he got a good delivery was the SCG when Pathan bowled him with a brilliant inswinging yorker & possibly the 2nd morning @ tthe Gabba (the only overcast period of the 5 days) when Khan took advantage i think he got a good delivery, can't remember for sure.

But fact is, there is no way you could have seen Gilchrist bat from IND 03/04 to NZ 05 & come to the conclusion he was in a form slump. Just give this one up will ya dawgy...

Whatever reason you give for Gilchrist's poor performances in the period in question, there is no way whatsoever to change the fact that he was nowhere near as good as he had been up to the tour of the Caribbean in 2003. Nor would he ever be again.

Thus, if a four-year team was picked (that is, you had to pick four consecutive years of a player's career to have them in the team for), I'd have the Gilchrist of '99/00-'03. Not the Gilchrist of '01/02-'04/05.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Richard]

Not sure about the national constitution lark but yes, as I've always said, you should only judge players with hindsight - deciding how good they are or aren't during their career is never a very good idea.

 

[Redbacks]

What about Athertons innings when he scored 185 to save the test match against South Africa

much easier to deny than to create!

 

[aussie]

Whatever reason you give for Gilchrist's poor performances in the period in question, there is no way whatsoever to change the fact that he was nowhere near as good as he had been up to the tour of the Caribbean in 2003. Nor would he ever be again.

Thus, if a four-year team was picked (that is, you had to pick four consecutive years of a player's career to have them in the team for), I'd have the Gilchrist of '99/00-'03. Not the Gilchrist of '01/02-'04/05.

My god, i just gave you FACTUAL reasons (not excuses), of why there is no reason why Gilchrist peak has a batsman has to be limited to PAK 99 to WI 03 & why it entends & ends @ NZ 05. Again you & still holding on to the frivolous notion that his performances where poor WTF...

You are doing are very god job of proving you didn't watch those series. Based on your logic i wonder how you would define Brian Lara's career who could score 5 single digit scores & a double century...

 

[Richard]

I watched plenty of Australia's Tests between 2003/04 and 2004/05 and anyone who seriously believes Gilchrist was as good in them as he was up to the series in the Caribbean in 2003 a) didn't watch them and b) hasn't even noticed what happened.

 

[Manee]

I completely agree.

Saqlain was one of the great off spinners of the game. He was a fabulous bowler as it is but when you remember that it was he who gave cricket the doosra,

And the lesser known 'teesra'.

YouTube - ICL 08: Saqlains Teesra aka Jalebi

 

[nightprowler10]

Mmm...jalebi.

 

[aussie]

I watched plenty of Australia's Tests between 2003/04 and 2004/05 and anyone who seriously believes Gilchrist was as good in them as he was up to the series in the Caribbean in 2003 a) didn't watch them and b) hasn't even noticed what happened.

But you have never given any valid reasons other than a brainless stats argument to randomly detail what INSTANCES PROVED than between IND 03/04 to NZ 05 - Gilchrist was out of form.

Your consistently on this point, makes it another ideology along with your FCA belief & other points...

 

[Anil]

Imran’s 40 wickets at 13.95 against India (6 Tests) in 1982 should rank high.

he obviously bowled very well but shakoor rana and khizar hayat had little too much of a say in that series to rank that particular performance so high...

 

[bagapath]

he obviously bowled very well but shakoor rana and khizar hayat had little too much of a say in that series to rank that particular performance so high...

and may be some bottle tops, too.

but to be honest imran was the only superstar cricketer advocating neutral umpires to remove such unfair home bias which was common all over the world. also, ball tampering was going on everywhere and may be imran didnt need it to make the ball reverse swing.

i am telling myself to not be a sour loser and accept the fact that imran was absolutely unplayable in those years and beat the indian team again and again on his own.

 

[Richard]

But you have never given any valid reasons other than a brainless stats argument to randomly detail what INSTANCES PROVED than between IND 03/04 to NZ 05 - Gilchrist was out of form.

I don't need to. Simple truth is he was nowhere near as effective as he was between '99/00 and '03. Whatever excuses you give for this, that he was out-of-form and not on decline, that he was being worked-out by things he'd always been weak against and not on decline, the simple fact is that Gilchrist's best four years were '99/00 to '03. Not any other four years.

 

[aussie]

I don't need to.

.

Of course you need to, the basis of this notion of Gilchrist's form is ludicrous & just stats based.

Simple truth is he was nowhere near as effective as he was between '99/00 and '03. Whatever excuses you give for this, that he was out-of-form and not on decline, that he was being worked-out by things he'd always been weak against and not on decline, the simple fact is that Gilchrist's best four years were '99/00 to '03. Not any other four years.

Ya head hard top shotta...

Statiscally those where is best 4 years. But your argument from way back has always been, his decline in form can be traced back to IND 03-04 to NZ 05 - instead of the 05 Ashes - which is nonsense. So don't bother twist your position now big boy...

.

 

[Fusion]

he obviously bowled very well but shakoor rana and khizar hayat had little too much of a say in that series to rank that particular performance so high...

As Sean pointed out earlier in the thread, Imran had a phenomenal run of brilliant performances during those years (8 consecutive series where he averaged less than 20 with the ball). Not all of those series took place in Pakistan. Was there bias umpiring that may have helped Imran in that India series? I’m sure that could be the case. However given his sustained run of brilliance, I would say that Imran was simply at the peak of his bowling career and produced a performance of a lifetime. I have no problems ranking that performance up there with the best in cricket’s history.

 

[Richard]

Of course you need to, the basis of this notion of Gilchrist's form is ludicrous & just stats based.

Ya head hard top shotta...

Statiscally those where is best 4 years. But your argument from way back has always been, his decline in form can be traced back to IND 03-04 to NZ 05 - instead of the 05 Ashes - which is nonsense. So don't bother twist your position now big boy...

I don't need to twist anything - this particular question raised here is not quite the same as the one that has been in the past. Therefore, the answer is slightly different.

It's not, here, a case of "when did Gilchrist's decline start?", but "which four consecutive years were Gilchrist's best?" The answer to one is debateable; the answer to the other is inequivocal.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't need to twist anything - this particular question raised here is not quite the same as the one that has been in the past. Therefore, the answer is slightly different.

It's not, here, a case of "when did Gilchrist's decline start?", but "which four consecutive years were Gilchrist's best?" The answer to one is debateable; the answer to the other is inequivocal.

 

[Richard]

[/altoz]

 

[subshakerz]

he obviously bowled very well but shakoor rana and khizar hayat had little too much of a say in that series to rank that particular performance so high...

Based on clips from that series, it was more Imran's brilliance than any assistance from home umpires that was prevalent in every country at that time.

YouTube - Imran Khan-Pakistan vs India (1982-3 test series)

 

[chasingthedon]

he obviously bowled very well but shakoor rana and khizar hayat had little too much of a say in that series to rank that particular performance so high...

He took 40 wickets out of 81 (not counting run outs) - if the umpires were home-biased, wouldn't that be shared more equally with the other Pakistani bowlers? Imran was simply brilliant in that series - he also scored 247 @ 61.75, by the way.

 

[aussie]

I don't need to twist anything - this particular question raised here is not quite the same as the one that has been in the past. Therefore, the answer is slightly different.

It's not, here, a case of "when did Gilchrist's decline start?", but "which four consecutive years were Gilchrist's best?" The answer to one is debateable; the answer to the other is inequivocal.

No no. By saying Gilchrist's "best 4 years" where from PAK 99 - ZIM 03 as YOU CLAIM. Is the same thing as saying that his decline started IND 03/04 instead of the 05 Ashes. So its the same ludicrous notion.

So your initial response to this post below again is just a stats argument. 20 years from now if a young man where to bring up this argument about Gilchrist's best years, i'd smack him - since for those who have seen his entire test career its straight pusssss...

And yea, that performance by Botham has to be up there with the best.

Botham, much like Waqar, had a peak that was virtually unmatched by anyone in the history of the game. Sometimes, I perhaps don't give enough credit to Botham due to his lack of longevity, but if we're taking peaks, he'd be the first name down on my all time XI after Bradman.