very good argument unless somebody comes up with a stat like wOBA there no way to say gilchrist was a better batsman than flower using the current stats unless somebody has watched every single innings both have ever played.
-
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?
- Thread starter rza
- Start date
playing attacking cricket shouldn't be a factor in assessing who is better as you said gilchrist was playing his natural game and he might have struggled to be as successful as flower playing a back to the wall innings. as it stands the only non biased stat for judging a batsmen is batting average so flower>gilchrist imo
Howe_zat
Audio File
Gilchrist pretty much changed everything. Though there have been a few exceptions, before him you just didn't have proper batsmen that low down.
howe_zat there is no way to prove that though something like that is always open to personal bias
a proper stat to evaluvate a player should include how many runs he scored, the bowling attack he faced, the runs other players in the side scored
stuff like 'he changed the game' or 'he's a match winner' is purely subjective and situational becuase a similarly talented player from a poorer team might never get the opportunity to prove himself like that. cricket is after all a team game.
i also don't believe in the rubbishing a knock based on which ground he played it at because the wicket might have played differently during a certain game or a bowler could have bowled brilliantly
cricket needs a fairer stat to judge players because at the moment it is extremely biased towards the bigger cricketing nations' player getting more credit than a similarly talented player from a smaller nation. cw is no different
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Camo999
State 12th Man
For an all time XI, wouldn't you want the guy most likely to hang onto the edges and make stumpings from your all time great bowlers?
Assuming your keeper does get a bat following Bradman and five of the other greatest batsmen of all time, wouldn't you want him to be able to throw the bat if the situation required?
For me, Gilchrist's major competitors are the best pure keepers of all time. Not excellent batsmen like Flower or Sanga who often also took the gloves but are not quite good enough for an all time XI with either bat or gloves.
Assuming your keeper does get a bat following Bradman and five of the other greatest batsmen of all time, wouldn't you want him to be able to throw the bat if the situation required?
For me, Gilchrist's major competitors are the best pure keepers of all time. Not excellent batsmen like Flower or Sanga who often also took the gloves but are not quite good enough for an all time XI with either bat or gloves.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No.
Thing is though, Flower was more of a batsman who kept, Gilly was a proper batsman-keeper. That's the main reason why I rate Gilly ahead of Flower, and most of the keeping guns have averages in the 20's and 30's.
kyear2
International Coach
First of all Sangakkara is a Great batsman and with Kallis, Dravid, Sachin, Ponting one of the few great remaining batsman of the era. He is not ahead of any of those batsmen listed though and so on that basis alone, and without even leaving the era, cannot make it into any all time 1st team as a batsman.
As a keeper, he just didnt play enough of his career behind the stumps and when he did he keeping wasn't quite up to par with Gillys. Also if we ignore that his average falls when he keeps and we use use his overall average, then Kumar is still behind someone like a Clyde Walcott, who from all reports was a better batsman, especially like Sanga, at home.
On a slightly different point, if we do look for a pure keeper, kindly dont refer to Boucher, who was quite ordinary stading back, and even quite worse up to the wicket. If you want truely great pure keepers take a look at Andrew, Knott, Healy, Oldfield, Hendricks, Tallon, Evans, Taylor, Ames ect, and specifically to pace Dujon, Murray and Marsh.
As a keeper, he just didnt play enough of his career behind the stumps and when he did he keeping wasn't quite up to par with Gillys. Also if we ignore that his average falls when he keeps and we use use his overall average, then Kumar is still behind someone like a Clyde Walcott, who from all reports was a better batsman, especially like Sanga, at home.
On a slightly different point, if we do look for a pure keeper, kindly dont refer to Boucher, who was quite ordinary stading back, and even quite worse up to the wicket. If you want truely great pure keepers take a look at Andrew, Knott, Healy, Oldfield, Hendricks, Tallon, Evans, Taylor, Ames ect, and specifically to pace Dujon, Murray and Marsh.
Last edited:
SamSawnoff
U19 Vice-Captain
SamSawnoff
U19 Vice-Captain
I find it weird that I thought of him as our rescuer because he did it so many times, yet people seem to think he came in with massive scores on the board all the time. He was so good because he seemed to shine under the pressure of an ongoing collapse.
Outswinger@Pace
International 12th Man
+1
Top notch comment. I wanted to use that same Walcott example to prove my point. Looks like kyear2 has done a superb job of explaining.
Jacknife
International Captain
Got any proof for this or stats?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Well yeah, but that's the point. TEC can't reply with that because his whole argument is based around the idea that Gilchrist wasn't a great batsman and merely benefited from batting low down behind a stack of guns.
Some truly weird stuff in this thread, particularly at the start.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Geez that's a good attack they're up against. Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar and Saqlain make for a fine attack. Probably one of the best ever assembled. And it was in the 90s as well so Wasim and Waqar weren't past it either.
robelinda
International Vice-Captain
Aint it always???
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
I lost it when Mushy(?) was fielding at mid on, forced Gilly to pull away twice from shoaib and then the next delivery misfielded itAint it always???