• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Why does everybody always vote for Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra as their preferred test wicketkeeper/batsman of all times? It doesn't make sense to me. For instance, Kumar batted at number 3 for most of his career, while Gilchrist batted at 7. Kumar has way better batting stats than Gilchrist, and 99% of all batsmen in the history of the game. If it's about wicketkeeping skills, then there's no suggestion that Gilchrist was better than Kumar. If it's about wicketkeeping alone, then why is Mark Boucher not even considered? It's about winning games with the bat, then it's clear that Kumar won more test matches with the bat than Gilchrist did. If it's about the fastest test hundreds or overall strike rates, then it doesn't make sense to compare a person who batted at 3 with the one who batted at 7.

I can understand why people would choose Gilchrist ahead of Kumar in ODIs, especially when taking strike rates into account, and the hundred that Gilchrist scored in a WC final. But in tests? Please!
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I'd say it's to do with Kumar's average when keeping being a lot lower than his average, plus you'd either bat Kumar out of position in a World side or be keeping out a better batsman if you put him in the middle order.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
rza said:
Why does everybody always vote for Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra as their preferred test wicketkeeper/batsman of all times? It doesn't make sense to me. For instance, Kumar batted at number 3 for most of his career, while Gilchrist batted at 7. Kumar has way better batting stats than Gilchrist, and 99% of all batsmen in the history of the game. If it's about wicketkeeping skills, then there's no suggestion that Gilchrist was better than Kumar. If it's about wicketkeeping alone, then why is Mark Boucher not even considered? It's about winning games with the bat, then it's clear that Kumar won more test matches with the bat than Gilchrist did. If it's about the fastest test hundreds or overall strike rates, then it doesn't make sense to compare a person who batted at 3 with the one who batted at 7.

I can understand why people would choose Gilchrist ahead of Kumar in ODIs, especially when taking strike rates into account, and the hundred that Gilchrist scored in a WC final. But in tests? Please!
Click to expand...
1) Gilchrist is a better 'keeper than Kumar
2) Kumar's Test average when keeping is less than Gilchrist's
3) You must feel very, very passionately about this if it's the very first post you wanted to make on the forum
4) Welcome to the forum
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because Sangakkara was at his best with the bat when not keeping. His average is like 15 runs less when not keeping.
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
This is what I also don't understand. If Kumar had a better average, before England series, than almost 99.9% of all batsmen in history, then why can't he get into the team as a batsman? Who's better than Kumar if the stats are on Kumar's side? Or do we consider stats irrelevant now?

And what's Kumar's average with the gloves compared with Gilchrist, taking out 'not outs' which Gilchrist should have plenty of?
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
rza said:
This is what I also don't understand. If Kumar had a better average, before England series, than almost 99.9% of all batsmen in history, then why can't he get into the team as a batsman? Who's better than Kumar if the stats are on Kumar's side? Or do we consider stats irrelevant now?

And what's Kumar's average with the gloves compared with Gilchrist, taking out 'not outs' which Gilchrist should have plenty of?
Click to expand...
Because someone has to keep. In the end, it's much much easier to find someone who is better than batting alone than either Kumar or Gilchrist than it is to find someone who is better at both batting and keeping than Gilchrist. The vast majority would argue it's impossible.
 
Last edited:
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
rza said:
This is what I also don't understand. If Kumar had a better average, before England series, than almost 99.9% of all batsmen in history, then why can't he get into the team as a batsman? Who's better than Kumar if the stats are on Kumar's side? Or do we consider stats irrelevant now?
Click to expand...
So now the problem isn't that Gilchrist gets picked ahead of him, it's that Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Hammond and Sobers do?
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
What are the batting averages between the two when keeping, taking out 'not outs'?
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
rza said:
If you need a keeper then why don't you choose a keeper who's also a better batsman than Gilchrist is?
Click to expand...
Because as a keeper/batsman Gilchrist is a better package than Kumar. When Kumar keeps his batting goes down and becomes worse than Gilchrist's. When Kumar is taken only as a specialist batsman then there are others who have been better at batting then Kumar. So why would you want to choose Kumar?
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
The Sean said:
So now the problem isn't that Gilchrist gets picked ahead of him, it's that Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Hammond and Sobers do?
Click to expand...
Kumar is a wicketkeepin all-rounder, so if he can't get into the team as a wicketkeeper then whay can't he get into the team as a batsman? If he has stats on his side, and he does have very good stats against Aus, then why shouldn't he cede his place to any other bastman? Or what criterion is used to choose the best batsmen?

For instance, it's senseless not to include Sehwag in your team when he has the best stats of any opener in history, alhtough he's not so good away. So if we don't deny Sehwag, then why are we denying Kumar ahead of Gilchrist?
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
rza said:
Kumar is a wicketkeepin all-rounder, so if he can't get into the team as a wicketkeeper then whay can't he get into the team as a batsman? If he has stats on his side, and he does have very good stats against Aus, then why shouldn't he cede his place to any other bastman? Or what criterion is used to choose the best batsmen?

For instance, it's senseless not to include Sehwag in your team when he has the best stats of any opener in history, alhtough he's not so good away. So if we don't deny Sehwag, then why are we denying Kumar ahead of Gilchrist?
Click to expand...
Wait what? Most people here wouldn't pick Sehwag in their all-time XIs at all.

Blind adherence to stats = big no no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top