Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[rza]

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?

But stats are not on Gilchrist's side, they are on Kumar, with or without gloves. And what makes other batsmen better than Kumar when he has better stats? What other criterion do you use to say batsman A is a better batsman than Kumar?

 

[weldone]

In all seriousness, in more than 50% of the matches Sangakkara has played he was not the designated wicketkeeper. That alone should be enough reason to keep him out of the elusive wicketkeeper/batsman slot in an all-time XI.

 

[marc71178]

I can see that you are nominating Clyde Walcott here.

Keeper, not man who occasionally put on the gloves.

 

[The Sean]

Why not Andy Flower?

Yeah, fair question. He averages slightly less than Gilly as 'keeper too, but there's not much in it and there are of course factors other than the pure numbers anyway.

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?

If you think Sangakkarra is one of the two or three best Test batsmen in history then go ahead and pick him, I've got no argument with that. I personally don't think he is, so I don't pick him.

I don't pick Sehwag either - and how do you figure he has the best stats of any opener in history??

 

[Howe_zat]

Didn't Walcott give up keeping in Tests quite early in his career?

 

[rza]

Wait what? Most people here wouldn't pick Sehwag in their all-time XIs at all.

Blind adherence to stats = big no no.

So what do we use in the place of stats? Man of the match awards?

 

[Spark]

The problem with Flower - and no fault of his own I might add - is that he simply didn't play enough, especially against the best. 1 Test against us, 5 vs SA.

 

[Migara]

@RZA: Kumar averages only 40 with the gloves on. (which is damn impressive feat). I am a big Kumar fan, but he's not as good s Gilly as a wicket keeper batsman. But as a pure batsman, he's miles ahead of Gilchrist and only has very few rivals when it comes to present generation of batsmen.

Most here pick Gilly as best ever wk batsman, but I don't agree with them, because they convieniently forget Andy Flower, who has a much better average with the bat despite always playing under pressure.

 

[weldone]

Didn't Walcott give up keeping in Tests quite early in his career?

Yeah, he took the good decision earlier in his life than Sangakkara did.

My comment was sarcastic btw...couldn't imagine I'd have to put a sarcasm smiley for you and Marc.

 

[Migara]

The problem with Flower - and no fault of his own I might add - is that he simply didn't play enough, especially against the best. 1 Test against us, 5 vs SA.

And he just walloped SAF, didn't he? Playing Murali on SL turfs is a minor deal you think?

 

[Spark]

So what do we use in the place of stats? Man of the match awards?

A mixture of stats and qualitative judgements and context, based on where and when. Ie. in what circumstances batsmen scored their runs both in a specific match situation, the quality of the bowling they were made to face - did they score lots of runs against Malcolm Marshall or Ben Hilfenhaus, for example - and the historical context in which they scored runs - on the flat decks of today or the 30s/40s (I think) or the more bowler-friendly decks of the 80s or 90s, for example. Within that you have difficulties such as - did they score strongly against the strongest teams of their time, in all conditions (something which definitely counts against Kumar), in the toughest situations?

More than just stats.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah, he took the good decision earlier in his life than Sangakkara did.

My comment was sarcastic btw...couldn't imagine I'd have to put a sarcasm smiley for you and Marc.

You're trying to get the Walcott thing in people's subconscious pre scorecard draft voting thread IMO - everyone knows Alan Knott was the best.

 

[Spark]

And he just walloped SAF, didn't he? Playing Murali on SL turfs is a minor deal you think?

Oh yeah did brilliantly against SAF, but the problem was he just didn't play enough in general. It makes it tougher to make a judgement. No doubt he was amazing vs. spin though.

Wouldn't say no to him, tbf. I do think it's an interesting debate.

 

[Howe_zat]

So what do we use in the place of stats? Man of the match awards?

Stats are a good measurement to a certain extent, but when you use them you have to take them into context of era, place, role within a side, and various other things. Sanga's an excellent bat, but there are several reasons why his average is higher than, say, Viv Richards or Allan Border while still not being rated as good a batsmen. These are, in brief:

- Sanga has scored the majority of his runs at home, where a very specific role is generally played on pitches that favour spin late on and not much else for the majority. This doesn't mean runs there are worthless, but it does mean generally less batsmanship is required than succeeding all around the world in a variety of conditions.

- He has played in an era that is generally higher scoring, and so sheer volume of runs has become expected rather than exceptional. This is true in most places, most notably in India and Australia.

I hope that explains where people are coming from. Of course, you can't blame Sanga for these things and it's not much of a criticism. It is, after all, his job to score double-tons on a familar Colombo surface and he does it brilliantly. If you want to think Sanga's awesome, go ahead.

 

[Migara]

where a very specific role is generally played on pitches that favour spin late on and not much else for the majority.

Should I remind you that SL is the worst place for batsman after NZ?

 

[rza]

Yeah, fair question. He averages slightly less than Gilly as 'keeper too, but there's not much in it and there are of course factors other than the pure numbers anyway.

If you think Sangakkarra is one of the two or three best Test batsmen in history then go ahead and pick him, I've got no argument with that. I personally don't think he is, so I don't pick him.

I don't pick Sehwag either - and how do you figure he has the best stats of any opener in history??

We know that Flower didn't play against the best, and that's not his fault, so his stats can be argued against. But can we argue against Kumar's stats when they are better than Gilchrist's with the gloves, when he was his best against Australia in Australia?

I'm not questioning people's choice of other batsmen, I just want to understand the reasons (hopefully scientific and not emotional) which makes them choose those batsmen ahead of Kumar. For instance, many people choose Lara ahead of Tendulkar, and they ignore stats because Lara played for a very weak team. That's a good reason which can be scientifically analysed. But I can't yet see any reason why Gilchrist is ahead of Kumar in tests.

 

[weldone]

You're trying to get the Walcott thing in people's subconscious pre scorecard draft voting thread IMO - everyone knows Alan Knott was the best.

Nah, if I didn't win your ODI auction draft with this team: (Kirsten, Jayasuriya, Inzamam, Jayawardena, S. Waugh, Bevan, Boucher, Pollock, Vaas, Bond, Kumble); then I don't expect to win this one too. I lost the interest half the way and made some minor mistakes here in the scorecard draft. Though I ended up with one among the better and more balanced teams without any glaring weakness except Walcott's wicketkeeping.

 

[The Sean]

But can we argue against Kumar's stats when they are better than Gilchrist's with the gloves, when he was his best against Australia in Australia?

They're not though - as many of us have said, as a wicketkeeper Gilchrist averages considerably more than Sangakkara.

 

[The Sean]

Most here pick Gilly as best ever wk batsman, but I don't agree with them, because they convieniently forget Andy Flower, who has a much better average with the bat despite always playing under pressure.

I don't think anyone conveniently forgets him - most of us rate him very highly indeed. And his average with the bat isn't higher when he was the designated 'keeper, nor do I consider him as good a wicketkeeper as Gilchrist personally. I'll happily admit I saw far less of him with the gloves than Gilchrist though.

 

[rza]

@RZA: Kumar averages only 40 with the gloves on. (which is damn impressive feat). I am a big Kumar fan, but he's not as good s Gilly as a wicket keeper batsman. But as a pure batsman, he's miles ahead of Gilchrist and only has very few rivals when it comes to present generation of batsmen.

Most here pick Gilly as best ever wk batsman, but I don't agree with them, because they convieniently forget Andy Flower, who has a much better average with the bat despite always playing under pressure.

When you take out 'not outs' for both guys then Kumar has the edge. So once again we'll be left with no scientific explanation why we still choose Gilchrist. As for Flower, his stats can be argued against because he didn't play a lot against big teams. But once again, we can ask why not Flower.