The CW50 - No.6

[Ikki]

Unfortunately so.

 

[R_D]

I would a little, tbh. I suspect, rightly or wrongly, people will still be discussing the invisible asterisk beside his records for years & decades to come in much the same way as Bodyline still stirs emotions amongst cricket fans (especially those of an English or Australian persuasion) whose parents and even grandparents weren't born when the series took place.

Think Sachin maybe very slightly overplaced at #6. As magnificent a player as he was, he didn't dominate his own era in quite the same way as (say) Grace, Ranji, Hobbs or Bradman did theirs. Had him at #18 ftr and of the chaps I had ahead of him (in no particular order: Grace, Hammond, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Miller, Hadlee, Lara, Weekes, Barnes, Hobbs, Bradman, Gilchrist, Ambrose, McGrath, Kallis & Sobers) only really Lara gave me pause for thought in placing them above him. Just my HO tho, obv.

Interesting... first i've heard of someone placing Gilchrist above Sachin... others i can see why you'd place ahead of him. Just thought it was intersting.. not having a go at you or anything.. lol
Wonder anyone else rates Gilchrist ahead of Sachin ?

 

[The Sean]

Interesting... first i've heard of someone placing Gilchrist above Sachin... others i can see why you'd place ahead of him. Just thought it was intersting.. not having a go at you or anything.. lol
Wonder anyone else rates Gilchrist ahead of Sachin ?

About seven people in this exercise alone.

 

[zaremba]

I just checked my list and was a little surprised to see that I had put Tendulkar above Gilchrist. There is an absolutely reasonable case to be made that Gilchrist was the greater player, since batting was only one facet of his game. However on balance I'm comfortable with Tendulkar just above him.

Neither made my top 10 though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting... first i've heard of someone placing Gilchrist above Sachin... others i can see why you'd place ahead of him. Just thought it was intersting.. not having a go at you or anything.. lol
Wonder anyone else rates Gilchrist ahead of Sachin ?

Gilchrist was comfortably inside my top 10. Obviously I don't rate him ahead of Sachin as a batsman, but Gilchrist is an auto-selection for an all-time XI IMO and no full time keeper-batsman in the history of the game comes close to him. However highly one rates Sachin, there are a fair number of batsmen who warrant reasonable comparison with him over the history of the game - your Chappell, Richards, Lara types, where opinions may vary and the difference in quality, if there is one, is going to be minimal.

Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers and Gilchrist are the only test players who are peerless, for mine. Include pre-test cricket and you can add Grace to that list. That's the regard I hold him in and that's how I think he'll be remembered in the future, as someone who went beyond the expecations of the role he played and changed the game.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Gilchrist was comfortably inside my top 10. Obviously I don't rate him ahead of Sachin as a batsman, but Gilchrist is an auto-selection for an all-time XI IMO and no full time keeper-batsman in the history of the game comes close to him.

Sir Clyde Walcott | West Indies Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

Andy Flower | Zimbabwe Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

 

[Agent TBY]

Sir Clyde Walcott | West Indies Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

Andy Flower | Zimbabwe Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

AWTA. Walcott kept for almost his entire career and Flower's keeping was excellent.

Oh wait..

 

[Avada Kedavra]

AWTA. Walcott kept for almost his entire career and Flower's keeping was excellent.

Oh wait..

You could argue that Walcott didn't keep for his entire career but Flower did. His keeping wasn't bad by any means and you could even make a reasonable case for him being a better batsman than Gilchrist. I am just saying that it isn't as clear cut as the poster above me made it sound. Purely as a keeper, Alan Knott would walk into most all time X1s.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah, I had Gilchrist ahead of Sachin and Warne.

 

[Prince EWS]

Flower's keeping was poor by international standards. He may or may not have been a better batsman than Gilchrist but Gilchrist was far and away the superior wicket keeper.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Flower's keeping was poor by international standards. He may or may not have been a better batsman than Gilchrist but Gilchrist was far and away the superior wicket keeper.

Not sure about that tbh. I can't recall him having an outrageously bad day. I am not saying Gilchrist wasn't the superior keeper of the two, but one could make a case for Flower in an all time XI. And if keeping is the only criterion, how about someone like Alan Knott ahead of him ?

 

[The Sean]

Not sure about that tbh. I can't recall him having an outrageously bad day. I am not saying Gilchrist wasn't the superior keeper of the two, but one could make a case for Flower in an all time XI. And if keeping is the only criterion, how about someone like Alan Knott ahead of him ?

The point is that while there have been better batsmen and better 'keepers individually, there has been no player who combined the two so well to add so much value to a team.

 

[silentstriker]

I actually have little problem with anyone rating Sachin anywhere from the bottom end of the top five, to twenty five or higher. It depends what you value personally in a player. I can see the reasons for a rating anywhere there. I'd have him in my all time XI, along with Gilchrist, and frankly, I've no problem with Gilchrist as the better player. Not the better batsman, by far, but he's head and shoulders above most other names I'd consider for my all time XI and dropping him would weaken my side, while Sachin can be replaced in my all time XI by someone else and I'd have a smaller drop off in quality.

Just my two cents.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The point is that while there have been better batsmen and better 'keepers individually, there has been no player who combined the two so well to add so much value to a team.

Hard to disagree with that. But did the all conquering Australian side need Gilchrist more than Zimbabwe did Flower or England did Knott for that matter ? Debatable.

 

[silentstriker]

today being ponting's birthday cricinfo has a small write up on him and it starts with describing him as "one of the most talented batsmen in the world". I think that is a very unfair assessment of a man with 38 test hundreds.

sachin on the other hand is always referred to as "the greatest" with whatever qualifier one wants to add. I think this trend will continue forever. Players like ricky, rahul and jacques are very likely to be remembered as "talented batsmen" from the tendulkar-lara-warne-murali era.

Yes, I have been one of the 'detractors' of Ponting, and I rate him below Waugh, Chappell, Border, etc and thus I don't think he'd make my all time Aussie side.

However, the way to describe him that way is certainly underrating someone who has been the best batsman of the decade, and more conclusively better than the best batsman of the 90s, or 80s was from his next highest competitor. So yea, I can't believe I feel for that bastard. As you say, the same thing happens to Dravid when Indian fans talk about him.

 

[Uppercut]

I actually have little problem with anyone rating Sachin anywhere from the bottom end of the top five, to twenty five or higher. It depends what you value personally in a player. I can see the reasons for a rating anywhere there. I'd have him in my all time XI, along with Gilchrist, and frankly, I've no problem with Gilchrist as the better player. Not the better batsman, by far, but he's head and shoulders above most other names I'd consider for my all time XI and dropping him would weaken my side, while Sachin can be replaced in my all time XI by someone else and I'd have a smaller drop off in quality.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, he's nowhere near the best six cricketers to play the game for mine. I had him about 18th or 19th. It all depends how you interpret greatness, in particular longevity and style. Personally I find his stylishness quite frustrating. He only averages 54 when he looks like he should average 100.

No objection to anyone placing him higher than that though. It's been said a lot, but at this stage, there's so little to choose between the players...

 

[The Sean]

Hard to disagree with that. But did the all conquering Australian side need Gilchrist more than Zimbabwe did Flower or England did Knott for that matter ? Debatable.

Hmmm, interesting question - you could say though that even despite their quality that Australian side would have lost more games than than they did had not Gilchrist been there to swing so many matches their way. I suppose Zimbabwe may have been slightly less successful without Flower though it's hard to tell given that even at their best they weren't winning regularly.

Alan Knott is a strange one - personally I have Gilly in my all time First XI, and Knott in my Second XI. But there are plenty of people who'll argue Knotty wasn't even the best pure gloveman in England for a lot of his career and that accolade belonged to Bob Taylor.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Hmmm, interesting question - you could say though that even despite their quality that Australian side would have lost more games than than they did had not Gilchrist been there to swing so many matches their way. I suppose Zimbabwe may have been slightly less successful without Flower though it's hard to tell given that even at their best they weren't winning regularly.

Alan Knott is a strange one - personally I have Gilly in my all time First XI, and Knott in my Second XI. But there are plenty of people who'll argue Knotty wasn't even the best pure gloveman in England for a lot of his career and that accolade belonged to Bob Taylor.

That's a pretty reasonable argument, but one could also argue that because of the Australian team's quality, Gilchrist may not have been missed as much by Australia as say Zimbabwe would Flower. A weak team would need it's best player more than a team full of greats needing one of its great players, no ? And how would Gilchrist have done in a weak team like Zimbabwe ? Would it have motivated him to perform better ? Or would he have withered off ? Would Flower have been more successful in a world beating side ? All very difficult questions to answer and very subjective to say the least.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

And in a world XI that has say Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Chappell and Botham, would it need a batsmen-keeper or a keeper-batsman ? I would back the seven batsmen to score 400+ against any attack anywhere in the world. I would therefore go with a better keeper like Knott.

 

[Uppercut]

You can say that about Australia when Gilchrist was around, and they seriously ****ing needed him sometimes. No matter how good your batsmen are, there will always always always be times when you need your wicket keeper to bail you out.