*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[vcs]

Because England made it to so many world cup and tri series finals while Nick Knight was around?

Knight scored runs against Wasim and Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock in their pomp in ODIs. He struggled a bit against Australia earlier on in his career but he rectified it before the end of his career. I'd say thats a pretty impressive record.

But Knight's record in those kind of tournaments isn't great anyway.

If you're a batsman settling for a 70-odd SR, I'd say you should be averaging a tad more than 40 to justify your place. Don't think Knight quite ticks those boxes.

 

[ankitj]

Well, if there were mitigating factors outside his control that affected his career, that's just his tough luck. We can only judge him on what we actually saw him produce.

There's a reason people have orgies over players like Gilchrist, Jayasuriya etc. and averages will never reflect it.

Gilchrist is a shoo-in for my all-time ODI XI, and I daresay most people would agree.

Don't know about Nick Knight discussion, but I think Gilchrist will struggle to make it to many all-time ODI XIs. He played as an opener in ODIs and I have two really exceptional ODI openers to fill those spots - Tendulkar and Greenidge. So the wicketkeeper has to play in the lower middle order and there Dhoni has a strong claim. Don't think any wicketkeeper, even Gilchrist, has stayed on top of ranking charts for so long. So Gilchrist is shut out of my all time XI much as I like him.

 

[tooextracool]

But Knight's record in those kind of tournaments isn't great anyway.

Well he played a whole one world up so its a bit harsh to judge him on that especially when you consider it was his last series in international cricket. Was unceremoniously dropped for no good reason before the 1999 world cup.

If you're a batsman settling for a 70-odd SR, I'd say you should be averaging a tad more than 40 to justify your place. Don't think Knight quite ticks those boxes.

Out of curiousity, how many batsmen do you know who averaged 40+ with better SR's than Nick Knight from the 90s-early 2000s? Id argue that there couldn't have been more than 10 or so. Even Bevan had only a marginally better SR. Its easy to look at it in hindsight, given that every random Joe these days averages 40+ with an SR of 90+ but it rarely happened back then.

 

[Migara]

Don't know about Nick Knight discussion, but I think Gilchrist will struggle to make it to many all-time ODI XIs. He played as an opener in ODIs and I have two really exceptional ODI openers to fill those spots - Tendulkar and Greenidge. So the wicketkeeper has to play in the lower middle order and there Dhoni has a strong claim. Don't think any wicketkeeper, even Gilchrist, has stayed on top of ranking charts for so long. So Gilchrist is shut out of my all time XI much as I like him.

Jaysuriya easily over Greenidge IMO. Averages 36 when opening with a SR of 89, and could play spin too!

 

[vcs]

Ganguly and Anwar come to mind immediately. Inzi was there or thereabouts. Ikki mentioned Hayden. Lara, Mark Waugh, Damien Martyn, Kallis...

EDIT : Dravid is also close and he's played over 300 ODIs.

 

[ankitj]

Just checked Nick Knight's record broken by opposition. It's quite impressive tbh. I think if he played for a stronger ODI team, he would have been able to contribute to some good victories and would have had a better reputation.

 

[Migara]

Well he played a whole one world up so its a bit harsh to judge him on that especially when you consider it was his last series in international cricket. Was unceremoniously dropped for no good reason before the 1999 world cup.



Out of curiousity, how many batsmen do you know who averaged 40+ with better SR's than Nick Knight from the 90s-early 2000s? Id argue that there couldn't have been more than 10 or so. Even Bevan had only a marginally better SR. Its easy to look at it in hindsight, given that every random Joe these days averages 40+ with an SR of 90+ but it rarely happened back then.

Those days SR of 70 is roughly about 78-80 today. So his SR for the era is good.

 

[vcs]

Don't know about Nick Knight discussion, but I think Gilchrist will struggle to make it to many all-time ODI XIs. He played as an opener in ODIs and I have two really exceptional ODI openers to fill those spots - Tendulkar and Greenidge. So the wicketkeeper has to play in the lower middle order and there Dhoni has a strong claim. Don't think any wicketkeeper, even Gilchrist, has stayed on top of ranking charts for so long. So Gilchrist is shut out of my all time XI much as I like him.

Greenidge would have been a good pick in the era he played in. In the modern field-restrictions, small boundaries, bat-fest era, most would prefer Gilchrist. TBF, it's not a fair comparison to either of them because it's almost like they were playing different sports altogether.

I would not have Dhoni over Gilchrist, though I love Dhoni and he has been a very effective ODI finisher for us, he hasn't done that much outside the subcontinent. His unconventional technique will always make people wary of going for him in an all-time XI where you'd be expected to face some high-quality bowling in somewhat testing conditions. You could say the same of Gilchrist to some extent, but atleast he has proved himself in some huge matches.

 

[ankitj]

Wow. Some revelations:

Nick Knight against McGrath Ambrose, Donald, Pollock and Akram

Gilchrist against Ambrose, Donald, Pollock and Akram

 

[tooextracool]

Ganguly and Anwar come to mind immediately. Inzi was there or thereabouts. Ikki mentioned Hayden. Lara, Mark Waugh, Damien Martyn, Kallis...

EDIT : Dravid is also close and he's played over 300 ODIs.

Hayden played the vast majority of his ODIs post 2003 after Knight retired, his record before then was pretty average. I would say that Kallis, Ganguly , Waugh etc have comparable ODI records, maybe marginally better. Point is that the likes of Ganguly, Kallis, Waugh etc all had SR is the low-mid 70s or so and these are greats of the ODI game. That was the norm back then and it was pretty impressive. Im not saying that Knight was as good as some of these guys but its fairly obvious that hes pretty close.

 

[vcs]

Hayden played the vast majority of his ODIs post 2003 after Knight retired, his record before then was pretty average. I would say that Kallis, Ganguly , Waugh etc have comparable ODI records, maybe marginally better. Point is that the likes of Ganguly, Kallis, Waugh etc all had SR is the low-mid 70s or so and these are greats of the ODI game. That was the norm back then and it was pretty impressive. Im not saying that Knight was as good as some of these guys but its fairly obvious that hes pretty close.

Definitely. Maybe he just succeeded a hell of a lot when I wasn't paying attention.

Still think Gilchrist's a bit better than most of those names though.

 

[ankitj]

Jaysuriya easily over Greenidge IMO. Averages 36 when opening with a SR of 89, and could play spin too!

Well the strike rates are not easily comparable. For his time and his role, think he did really well and could really take apart the fast bowlers. And consider the fact that he has the second best frequency of winning MoM in ODIs after Viv Richards (Tendulkar comes 3rd I think). I might reconsider Dhoni's place, but Greenidge is a certainty

 

[Jono]

TEC, I have never criticised you for thinking Knight was a ODI gun. I don't disagree actually.

But calling Gilly a glorified slogger or whatever is another case of you going over the top and trying to detriment the player you're arguing against. You did it to Sachin when discussing Laxman as well. It detracts from your argument if you ask me.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC, I have never criticised you for thinking Knight was a ODI gun. I don't disagree actually.

But calling Gilly a glorified slogger or whatever is another case of you going over the top and trying to detriment the player you're arguing against. You did it to Sachin when discussing Laxman as well. It detracts from your argument if you ask me.

Tbh, I dont rate Gilchrist very highly in the ODI game. I think he had the benefit of playing for a very strong ODI outfit that it was ok for him to go out there and bat like he didn't have a care in the world simply because the next 6 were greats and probably better players than him.

More often than not, he failed against attacks when they bowled really well and he took advantage of some pretty average bowling attacks. People talk about how brilliant his performance in the 2007 world cup final was but with the exception of that knock and a few slogs against the minnows, his record in all 3 world cups is piss poor.

I may have been harsh on Tendulkar in the past and possibly exaggerated his deficiencies but with Gilchrist I don't think I am. The guy benefited a ridiculous amount from playing for the best ODI side in the world and thats not a tack Im likely to change anytime soon.

 

[vcs]

He was a perfect fit for that side. Put a plodder in that side (and most free-scoring batsmen will look like plodders compared to Gilchrist) and they wouldn't see anywhere near the success they achieved IMO. No coincidence in my mind, that after Gilchrist came onto the scene, Australia went from being fairly comfortable No. 1s, to utter domination - record Test win streaks, ODI WC streaks and pretty much swept the table in both formats. That period coincided almost exactly with his career. Now you could say it was down to other players like Ponting, McGrath, Symonds, Hayden etc. also peaking at the same time.. but Gilchrist was a big part of it.

 

[tooextracool]

He was a perfect fit for that side. Put a plodder in that side (and most free-scoring batsmen will look like plodders compared to Gilchrist) and they wouldn't see anywhere near the success they achieved IMO. No coincidence in my mind, that after Gilchrist came onto the scene, Australia went from being fairly comfortable No. 1s, to utter domination - record Test win streaks, ODI WC streaks and pretty much swept the table in both formats. That period coincided almost exactly with his career. Now you could say it was down to other players like Ponting, McGrath, Symonds, Hayden etc. also peaking at the same time.. but Gilchrist was a big part of it.

Well they needed someone like him. When you have the likes of Hayden/Waugh, Ponting, Symonds, Martyn, Clarke, Hussey/Bevan to come after you, I mean you need someone who could go out there and just thrash the bowling and get off to a great start. Even if Australia were 50/2 in 5 overs they were quite happy with that because it gave the Pontings, Martyns, Waughs and Bevans plenty of time to build their innings and they already had 50 on the board.

Theres no doubt that he played an important role in the side, even his slogfest in the 2003 wc final was vital in getting them off to the flyer that eventually set them up for a huge total. But he was reliant upon the quality that followed him in order to be effective.

 

[Burgey]

How many matches did Australia lose when Gilchrist made a score?

And of course you can't use WC finals to say he's better than Knight when Knight was never capable of lifting his side into a WC final, but you can say that Gilchrist performed in three out of three WC finals in support of a case that he was one who performed well in big games.

Again, I can't believe Australia won anything between 93 and 08. Taylor and Slater were over-rated, Hayden is nothing more than a FTB, Ponting is rubbish, Steve Waugh couldn't hook, Mark Waugh was soft, Martyn didn't move his feet, Healy is a crap commentator which somehow means he couldn't play, Gilchrist was an over-rated slogger, Warne wasn't even in the top two ODI spinners of his time and we all know his test record is **** because, well it just is. Gillespie was injury prone and a hack, Lee, Kaspa, Bichel et al were all utter crap and Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, Caddick,
Gough and Manoj Prabakar were all better than McGrath.

Can't believe we could beat time with a stick tbh.

 

[Jono]

Bichel wag!

 

[robelinda]

Bichel wag!

Been reading Bichel's book last few weeks, typical cricket stuff but always comes across as a genuine guy and very humble. Always been a fan!

 

[tooextracool]

How many matches did Australia lose when Gilchrist made a score?

And of course you can't use WC finals to say he's better than Knight when Knight was never capable of lifting his side into a WC final, but you can say that Gilchrist performed in three out of three WC finals in support of a case that he was one who performed well in big games.

Again, I can't believe Australia won anything between 93 and 08. Taylor and Slater were over-rated, Hayden is nothing more than a FTB, Ponting is rubbish, Steve Waugh couldn't hook, Mark Waugh was soft, Martyn didn't move his feet, Healy is a crap commentator which somehow means he couldn't play, Gilchrist was an over-rated slogger, Warne wasn't even in the top two ODI spinners of his time and we all know his test record is **** because, well it just is. Gillespie was injury prone and a hack, Lee, Kaspa, Bichel et al were all utter crap and Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, Caddick,
Gough and Manoj Prabakar were all better than McGrath.

Can't believe we could beat time with a stick tbh.

I'm not saying that Gilchrist wasn't a good player or that he didn't play a pivotal part in the side. Arguably hes still one of the most valuable ODI keeper batsmen in the history of the game. However, is it really implausible that there might have been one English ODI batsman better than him?

Saying how many matches did Australia lose when Gilchrist made is score is equivalent to saying how many matches did Pakistan lose when Afridi made a score. Bottom line is that the way in which these guys play when they make a score it usually is a match winning contribution. That is the definition of what a slogger is, when it pays off its f'ing brilliant.