Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[zaremba]

Because as a number 7 you will have more 'not outs' than a number 3 would have, that is scientific and can be verified. So we know that 'not outs' can inflate a person's average tremendously.

No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

 

[weeman27bob]

No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

 

[Howe_zat]

No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

 

[weeman27bob]

Epic NOOOOOO! Montage - YouTube

 

[robelinda]

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.

Please list such occasions.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I don't really get this argument. Gilchrist was a player who almost always went out there to play his natural game and to "just hit the ball" as he would say. If there is any type of player whose record would be least likely to differ had he played for a different team, it would be someone like Gilchrist imo. Many times Gilchrist got out early in pressure situations, and many times he had match winning knocks (as robelinda pointed out). His batting mentality was more removed from the context of the game than most, and because of that I really doubt his record would change much if he was in a less successful team - i.e. he would still play his natural game.

 

[Uppercut]

Please list such occasions.

List occasions when Gilchrist faced an older ball and a more tired attack than he would have had he been batting at 3?

I'm inclined to take The Sean's line here rather than TEC's but that's just being obtuse.

 

[Turbinator]

Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

Same reason why Sachin is ahead of Bradman.

 

[morgieb]

wrt Flower, he was a pretty poor keeper iirc, so Gilly > him due to that.

Having said that, my respect for Flower is huge.

 

[smash84]

when was Flower deflowered ?

 

[GotSpin]

Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

Same reason why Sachin is ahead of Bradman.

Go play in the traffic

 

[Migara]

OK, do you expect Gilly to average 50 if he played for Zimbabwe?

 

[ankitj]

Yeah I don't really get this argument. Gilchrist was a player who almost always went out there to play his natural game and to "just hit the ball" as he would say. If there is any type of player whose record would be least likely to differ had he played for a different team, it would be someone like Gilchrist imo. Many times Gilchrist got out early in pressure situations, and many times he had match winning knocks (as robelinda pointed out). His batting mentality was more removed from the context of the game than most, and because of that I really doubt his record would change much if he was in a less successful team - i.e. he would still play his natural game.

That bolded part is true so long as you are speaking of his own approach to batting, but not so much when you consider the fact that playing for another team, he wouldn't so often play deflated and demoralized attacks. When you fully follow a test match, it becomes blatantly obvious that lower order finds it very easy when they enter after the top order has plundered the bowling for heaps of runs.

This is not to take credit away from Gilchrist for his real fighting knocks. I think Gilchrist demonstrated the merit of not letting the match situation affect your approach better than possibly any other batsmen in the years that I followed cricket. He makes it to my all time XI ahead of Sangakkara and Flower because, the latter two aren't better wicket-keepers. More importantly perhaps, it's easy to have Gilchrist at 6/7 without replacing/displacing much better specialist batsman. With Sanga or Flower, you'd have to play them in the upper half of batting and that will mean some of the finest middle order batsmen would have to play at positions different from where they achieved their greatness.

 

[Ruckus]

That bolded part is true so long as you are speaking of his own approach to batting, but not so much when you consider the fact that playing for another team, he wouldn't so often play deflated and demoralized attacks. When you fully follow a test match, it becomes blatantly obvious that lower order finds it very easy when they enter after the top order has plundered the bowling for heaps of runs.

Yeah I basically was talking about his own approach to batting, because the idea of him somehow leaching off worn-out attacks just doesn't have enough validity to it imo. Remember, he also had a very successful and dominant ODI career as an opener as well - hardly facing deflated and demoralised attacks if your opening.

 

[Top_Cat]

That bolded part is true so long as you are speaking of his own approach to batting, but not so much when you consider the fact that playing for another team, he wouldn't so often play deflated and demoralized attacks. When you fully follow a test match, it becomes blatantly obvious that lower order finds it very easy when they enter after the top order has plundered the bowling for heaps of runs.

This is not to take credit away from Gilchrist for his real fighting knocks. I think Gilchrist demonstrated the merit of not letting the match situation affect your approach better than possibly any other batsmen in the years that I followed cricket. He makes it to my all time XI ahead of Sangakkara and Flower because, the latter two aren't better wicket-keepers. More importantly perhaps, it's easy to have Gilchrist at 6/7 without replacing/displacing much better specialist batsman. With Sanga or Flower, you'd have to play them in the upper half of batting and that will mean some of the finest middle order batsmen would have to play at positions different from where they achieved their greatness.

See the problem is that it shouldn't but, for many, it does. Their argument is along the lines of '60% of Gilchrist's tons were in easier situations, 40% weren't therefore he beat up on easy bowling in low-pressure situations' which is a laughably unsophisticated way of looking at it (I dunno what the actual proportions are, they're just examples). It ignores that, being in a monster team, he was less likely to face that situation anyway and against him, one could mount the argument that no matter how bad the situation, the quality of the bowlers in his team meant he could play his natural game so what looked like low-pressure situations weren't. Point is, cricket's a nuanced game. What a shock.

As to the question at hand, it's easy for me; in Tests, Gilchrist kept, Sangakkara doesn't, Gilchrist is ahead of Sangakkara for the 'keeper's spot (more so since, in my opinion, Gilchrist was a better 'keeper anyway). What you gain in Sangakkara batting isn't enough to compensate for what you lose with the gloves, especially since in an AT XI you'd have heaps of batting, for mine.

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah I basically was talking about his own approach to batting, because the idea of him somehow leaching off worn-out attacks just doesn't have enough validity to it imo. Remember, he also had a very successful and dominant ODI career as an opener as well - hardly facing deflated and demoralised attacks if your opening.

yea proved in ODIs that he was a versatile player. (that he could bat up the order and still get big scores).

 

[Jayzamann]

Batting average is affected by 'not outs'

The only things that affect batting average are scoring runs (which increases it) and getting out (which lowers it).

Being not out does nothing to a batting average.

 

[Uppercut]

The obvious retort to TEC's criticism is that if it's in any way easy to average 47 as a keeper batting at 7, why did no one even come close to doing so before Gilchrist?

 

[Ikki]

Maybe, probably, because teams rarely have batting depth that one of their great batsmen had to bat that low.

 

[DingDong]

rza mate i totally agree with you. you should look at the nominations for the battle of centuries. it was basically 90% made up of aussies, english and indians does this mean the centuries kiwis,, lankans or whoever have hit are less valuable or great? no the fact is unless a player from minor countries doesn't average at least 10 more than somebody from the big countries he wont be considered better in here.