Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[stephen]

What a beautiful troll.

Step 1) Say you are confused as to why something is happening. Ensure said statement is in some way controversial or goes against conventional wisdom.
Step 2) Begin arguing for your initial statement by subtly changing the context of your statement every few posts.
Step 3) Ignore all the responses that are saying the same (correct and logical) thing.
Step 4) Continue until you receive the banhammer.

 

[NUFAN]

I have no problem with taking Gilchrist's average at face value, but you can't have it both ways, which means that we have to take Kumar's average at face value as well, which place him right in the ATG XI as a batsman. We could even argue that his average would have been higher had he not kept wickets, which makes him even more deserving of a spot as a batsman. If we take Kallis' average at face value, then we have no business not declaring him the best behind Bradman and maybe Sobers as the greatest cricketer of all times.

So it's either you put an average into context or take it at face value. But you can't do both.

You totally misunderstood me. I realize you have no problem with taking Gilly's average at face value, that's what concerns me!

Also, if Kumar makes your all time team for batting, what's it got to do with Gilchrist?

 

[rza]

Then take his average at face value when he kept.

Granted. At face value Gilchrist should be there ahead of him, but Flower should be there ahead of Gilchrist as well. Agreed?

 

[weldone]

Granted. At face value Gilchrist should be there ahead of him, but Flower should be there ahead of Gilchrist as well. Agreed?

No, because Flower was a mediocre keeper by International standards, let alone by all-time standards.

 

[smash84]

Why does this thread even exist? Kamran Akmal is leagues ahead in both departments.

This

Granted. At face value Gilchrist should be there ahead of him, but Flower should be there ahead of Gilchrist as well. Agreed?

A player with an average of 49.01 ALWAYS gets rated ahead of somebody with an average of 49.00. Agreed?

And please define scientific. From what I can see you are the most unscientific person on this forum.

Conversely you are the most scientific troll on this forum

 

[weldone]

Les Ames is sad.

He says that he deserves to be mentioned more in this thread than Sangakkara and Flower (and, errrr Boucher).

 

[tooextracool]

I've always felt that Gilchrist was one of the most overrated batsmen of his era. If there is one man, who benefited most from the strength of his Australian counterparts its AG. As England are showing this series, and as has been shown many many times in history, beating up demoralized sides or sides that are already out of the game is infinitely easier than scoring runs in situations where the game is still in the balance or when the opposition is on top.

Here's a guy who was average against spin and who was worked out against pace by the end of his career. Flower was head and shoulders above him not just because he had a better record batting further up the order, but also because he didnt have the benefit of 6 world class bats coming in ahead of him. Not to mention the fact that he was never worked out.

 

[smash84]

I've always felt that Gilchrist was one of the most overrated batsmen of his era. If there is one man, who benefited most from the strength of his Australian counterparts its AG. As England are showing this series, and as has been shown many many times in history, beating up demoralized sides or sides that are already out of the game is infinitely easier than scoring runs in situations where the game is still in the balance or when the opposition is on top.

Here's a guy who was average against spin and who was worked out against pace by the end of his career. Flower was head and shoulders above him not just because he had a better record batting further up the order, but also because he didnt have the benefit of 6 world class bats coming in ahead of him. Not to mention the fact that he was never worked out.

A very interesting analysis TEC.

But it doesn't count. It is not scientific

 

[Lostman]

I've always felt that Gilchrist was one of the most overrated batsmen of his era. If there is one man, who benefited most from the strength of his Australian counterparts its AG. As England are showing this series, and as has been shown many many times in history, beating up demoralized sides or sides that are already out of the game is infinitely easier than scoring runs in situations where the game is still in the balance or when the opposition is on top.

Here's a guy who was average against spin and who was worked out against pace by the end of his career. Flower was head and shoulders above him not just because he had a better record batting further up the order, but also because he didnt have the benefit of 6 world class bats coming in ahead of him. Not to mention the fact that he was never worked out.

While there may be some truth to this. There were countless times where Gilchrist saved Australia after a top order collapse. And so many times where he drove home home Australia's advantage, he fit perfectly into Australia's batting order and what Australia needed.

On another related note, why is Flower's WK looked down upon so much, I thought he was always a decent keeper?

 

[The Sean]

Granted. At face value Gilchrist should be there ahead of him, but Flower should be there ahead of Gilchrist as well. Agreed?

Nope. Flower's Test average as the designated 'keeper is lower than Gilly's.

 

[tooextracool]

While there may be some truth to this. There were countless times where Gilchrist saved Australia after a top order collapse. And so many times where he drove home home Australia's advantage, he fit perfectly into Australia's batting order and what Australia needed.

He played many fine innings and I wont deny that he was perfect for the role he was required to do. But I don't think his record would be as good if he were to consistently bat at 3 for example where he would be constantly required to play in match situations where the game is still in the balance. Its simply much harder to bat up the order than down the order and its especially easier to bat down the order when you have 6 world class batsmen coming in before you, especially against the quality of attacks going around during Gilchrist's time.

 

[The Sean]

I don't think Murali's record would be as good as it is if he'd had to take the new ball ever match either. Thankfully, that wasn't his job.

 

[Howe_zat]

So, considering 'not outs' as 'outs' is the most scientific of approaches; is it?

Why not consider 'caught behind' and 'boundaries' the same also, then?

Niiice.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think Murali's record would be as good as it is if he'd had to take the new ball ever match either. Thankfully, that wasn't his job.

Game Set Match

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think Murali's record would be as good as it is if he'd had to take the new ball ever match either. Thankfully, that wasn't his job.

Not sure if this pertains to my argument. If there was a spinner who did open the bowling while still bowling throughout the innings and still had a record that was similar to Murali then he would be a better bowler, plain and simple. Really no difference between the argument that opening the batting is a tougher job than batting in the middle, and hence openers are cut a bit of slack for their records.

 

[centurymaker]

Not sure if this pertains to my argument. If there was a spinner who did open the bowling while still bowling throughout the innings and still had a record that was similar to Murali then he would be a better bowler, plain and simple. Really no difference between the argument that opening the batting is a tougher job than batting in the middle, and hence openers are cut a bit of slack for their records.

not everywhere, particularly not in SC. best time to bat there is when the ball is new.

 

[tooextracool]

not everywhere, particularly not in SC. best time to bat there is when the ball is new.

True, though openers have to bat in the middle too. Anyways, there are some jobs that are just tougher than others in cricket.

 

[robelinda]

Well only the true Gilchrist hater would say all his big runs have come with score at 5/400, it simply wasn't the case at all. Gilchrist's best innings were scored in very tough match situations. the 149* vs Pakistan (one of the all time innings), 144 vs SL (at #3), 138 vs SA, 133 vs England, 122 vs India in 2001 ( incredible), 162 vs NZ, there are so many. People seem to only remember the fast 102* vs England, when he cashed in when the score was big, that was an exception for sure.

 

[tooextracool]

No one is denying that he played some great knocks. But is his average inflated by the number of occasions that he came in and was able to cash in on deflated bowling attacks? My personal opinion is that his average would probably have been closer to where his FC average for Western Australia is.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist was an incredible bat; very underrated. His end of career average also hides the fact that he was averaging well above that for such a long time.

Also, just take a look at his averages; opponent to opponent and country by country. Very consistent despite his erratic style. Is, IMO, inarguably the best keeper of those mentioned and as strong a case as any as the best batsman.