Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[Dan]

Careful of the sample size...

I think the overall stats is a fair reflection though - roughly half as a keeper and a 30+ run difference.

72.75 is incredible as a specialist bat though, especially over 50 tests.

EDIT: Not that averaging 40 as a keeper is bad or anything, he's just a far superior batsman as compared to a keeper-batsman.

 

[Spark]

Oh the sample size overall is fine, but some of his highlights... a single Test?

 

[DriveClub]

Oh the sample size overall is fine, but some of his highlights... a single Test?

I was just highlighting the statistical anomalies purely at a first glance, but admittedly the point to focus is the overall figures.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Superb average for him as a bat solely. Surprising how he has such a poor record in general against England both at home and away.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

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.

omg, DingDong's a SABRnerd!!!

 

[Jarquis]

Can we infract people for usage of the word "inflate" with regards to the impact of NOs on batting averages?

 

[Migara]

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.

Gilly is ahead of Flower because of keeping?

OK, let's have Brendon Kuruppu then. Averages 50+ with the bat and a sublime keeper as well

 

[Migara]

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.

Minor point. Sanga Averages 70+ when plays as a pure batsman. If he never kept, and played as a pure batsman, would have averaged more than what he averages now. Possibly in 60-65 region, and that will make him statistically the best batsman of the era. People who say that Sanga's batting was not good as a keeper-batsman, conveniently forget that he's miles better statistically than the next best when plays as a pure batsman. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, he wouldn't. As has been pointed out to you every time you bring up this point.

Sanga went through his learning phase as a batsman, when he kept. His peak/prime has just coincided with him having shed the gloves. To extrapolate and say that his average would be 65 is non sense IMO.

 

[Migara]

Nah, he wouldn't. As has been pointed out to you every time you bring up this point.

Sanga went through his learning phase as a batsman, when he kept. His peak/prime has just coincided with him having shed the gloves. To extrapolate and say that his average would be 65 is non sense IMO.

Can argure this way too. He went through his learing phase with wicket keeping and still averaged 40. If he continued would have averaged more than that close to what Gilchrist does, but lesser than his current average. And you tend to keep forgetting the argument too.

 

[smash84]

Can argure this way too. He went through his learing phase with wicket keeping and still averaged 40. If he continued would have averaged more than that close to what Gilchrist does, but lesser than his current average. And you tend to keep forgetting the argument too.

I might not agree with it but not a bad argument

 

[Ikki]

So? It doesn't help him out either way in this discussion. You're either going to use what he has as evidence, or we'll have to wait until he picks the gloves up again as a mature batsman.

I really don't think this is much of an argument really. Sanga is not close to Gilchrist as a glovesman, even if slightly better than Gilchrist as a batsman. Les Ames, from what I know of him, is a much better comparison.

 

[Flem274*]

Gilchrist is ahead of Sangakkara because he kept wicket for his entire career and his batting isn't inferior enough to KS to warrant KS taking his place. Both were fantastic batsmen, but arguing over small things like how so and so's keeping weighs against so and so's batting is like choosing a Ferarri to complete your collection. They're both ****ing awesome and it won't matter which one you pick because the other ten are good enough to make up for it anyway.

You could pick Kamran Akmal and it wouldn't matter because the batsmen ahead of him would pile on 600 regardless and the bowlers will realize he's a twerp and bowl at the stumps.

Srsly, there's like forty players you could run through an all time eleven and there would barely be a difference between the best possible side and the worst possible side. Bradman would be the only significant player to swing it because he's such an outlier, and even then an all time great bowling line up could give him a run of low scores before he inevitably showed his class.

 

[Migara]

So? It doesn't help him out either way in this discussion. You're either going to use what he has as evidence, or we'll have to wait until he picks the gloves up again as a mature batsman.

I really don't think this is much of an argument really. Sanga is not close to Gilchrist as a glovesman, even if slightly better than Gilchrist as a batsman. Les Ames, from what I know of him, is a much better comparison.

Still miles off the point as usual. If you cannot consider Sanga's credentials as a pure batsman when it comes to judging as a keeper-batsman, neither should his stats with the gloves should come in when he is assessed as a pure batsman. On that ground he easily walks in to a all time XI on his average as a batsman.

The arguments that if Sanga has not kept he'd average 75 and if he cotinued to keep he'll average 40 are both flawed. The better trade off is if he continued to keep he would have averaged somewhere in between them, possibly little more than Gilly adn on par with Flower. That is good enough to make him a better keeper-batsman as Gilly, as Sanga is a better gloveman than Flower, but inferior to Gilchrist, but on other hand superior to him as a batsman.

You cannot have the argument only for the advantage of yours.

 

[Migara]

Gilchrist is ahead of Sangakkara because he kept wicket for his entire career and his batting isn't inferior enough to KS to warrant KS taking his place

Sorry, but I cannot help to post a LMAO. Sanga is a class above Gilchrist with the bat, in the mould of Kallises and Dravids (and bats more similar to them)

 

[Ikki]

Still miles off the point as usual. If you cannot consider Sanga's credentials as a pure batsman when it comes to judging as a keeper-batsman, neither should his stats with the gloves should come in when he is assessed as a pure batsman. On that ground he easily walks in to a all time XI on his average as a batsman.

Who said you cannot consider his credentials as a pure batsman? I am saying that using his average as an indicator is misleading. You are essentially calling him the greatest pure batsman of his era. Stats are great, but let's not reduce these facts into absurdity. He would in most likelihood not average in the 70s as a pure batsman, if he was always a pure batsman from the beginning of his career.

The arguments that if Sanga has not kept he'd average 75 and if he cotinued to keep he'll average 40 are both flawed. The better trade off is if he continued to keep he would have averaged somewhere in between them, possibly little more than Gilly adn on par with Flower. That is good enough to make him a better keeper-batsman as Gilly, as Sanga is a better gloveman than Flower, but inferior to Gilchrist, but on other hand superior to him as a batsman.

You cannot have the argument only for the advantage of yours.

One can say Sanga might average higher than his wk average but it starts to become a guessing game. It starts to show holes in his claim. Who knows how he would average as a keeper; would he be fatigued? Does it affect him more than others? Flower, for example, actually averages higher as wicketkeeper than without. Yet, even if he averaged the same as Gilchrist (a 7 point increase) and was always a wk, I'd still not pick him over Gilchrist due to the gap between their skills as glovesmen.

Sorry, but I cannot help to post a LMAO. Sanga is a class above Gilchrist with the bat, in the mould of Kallises and Dravids (and bats more similar to them)

Nah, he isn't. But he is a class below him with the gloves.

 

[Migara]

Who said you cannot consider his credentials as a pure batsman? I am saying that using his average as an indicator is misleading. You are essentially calling him the greatest pure batsman of his era. Stats are great, but let's not reduce these facts into absurdity. He would in most likelihood not average in the 70s as a pure batsman, if he was always a pure batsman from the beginning of his career.

No one suggests that he will average 70+ if he was a pure batsman. But it's you imagining things and arguing against imaginary points you have made. I have specifically said he is statistically the best batsman. I never called him the best of the era, if you care to note. And as you said earlier let's work with the facts we have. Sanga as a pure batsman averages 75, and it is a fact as Gilly averages 50 as a keeper batsman. Either you should use raw stats, or should make similar assumptions for both sides of the argument.

For your information this is what I've said.

he arguments that if Sanga has not kept he'd average 75 and if he cotinued to keep he'll average 40 are both flawed

Stop making out things out of nothing. The most probable is he'll average about 3-5 runs more if here never kept, which will be in lower 60s. No one other than you claims that he'll average 75.

One can say Sanga might average higher than his wk average but it starts to become a guessing game.

And it's very strange you not to see the guessing game in the claim that Sanga only averaged 40 as a wicket keeper batsman. He averaged 40 only when he kept. If he kept playing on as a keeper, would have averaged more according to what we have seen.

It starts to show holes in his claim. Who knows how he would average as a keeper; would he be fatigued?

Same claim would be made what would happen if he has not kept. What ever you bring for the support of your claim can be used to support mine to like fatigue. (Ex. If he was not fatigued in early career, would have averaged more than 40 as a pure batsman)

Does it affect him more than others? Flower, for example, actually averages higher as wicketkeeper than without. Yet, even if he averaged the same as Gilchrist (a 7 point increase) and was always a wk, I'd still not pick him over Gilchrist due to the gap between their skills as glovesmen.

I'd still pick Flower over him because he's afr superior bat than Gilchrist. Would have been one of the greatest ever batsmen of the cricketing world if hr played for a proper side. But this is out of the argument.

 

[Migara]

One can say Sanga might average higher than his wk average

Ha hA! so it's not a guessing game to assume that Sanga would have averaged less than what he does if he kept on keeping wickets?

 

[Ikki]

No one suggests that he will average 70+ if he was a pure batsman. But it's you imagining things and arguing against imaginary points you have made. I have specifically said he is statistically the best batsman. I never called him the best of the era, if you care to note. And as you said earlier let's work with the facts we have. Sanga as a pure batsman averages 75, and it is a fact as Gilly averages 50 as a keeper batsman. Either you should use raw stats, or should make similar assumptions for both sides of the argument.

For your information this is what I've said.

Stop making out things out of nothing. The most probable is he'll average about 3-5 runs more if here never kept, which will be in lower 60s. No one other than you claims that he'll average 75.

But you reduce the argument to ridiculousness. Saying Sanga doesn't average enough as a keeper may be flawed when using his wk stats, but retorting with the stat that he averages in the 70s without it is another thing altogether. One may not show exactly how good his average could have been with the gloves; but the other is suggesting he'd essentially be the greatest player after Bradman. You can make an argument both are flawed but not near to the same degree.

And it's very strange you not to see the guessing game in the claim that Sanga only averaged 40 as a wicket keeper batsman. He averaged 40 only when he kept. If he kept playing on as a keeper, would have averaged more according to what we have seen.

It's not a guessing game. He averaged 40 as a wk, that's just what he did. It is a guessing game to say he would continue to average that however. But you are essentially making up figures by saying he'd be better than Gilchrist with the bat. Average 50+ as a keeper too? How do you know?

FTR if he did average 50 and stayed as a wk I still wouldn't pick him over Gilchrist. They are in different classes as glovesman whilst the most you'd give up is a few runs; and yet then again Gilchrist would score much faster.

Same claim would be made what would happen if he has not kept. What ever you bring for the support of your claim can be used to support mine to like fatigue. (Ex. If he was not fatigued in early career, would have averaged more than 40 as a pure batsman)

He may have, but would he average in the 60s after 97 tests? Would he average in the 70s? This is when you start taking stats into some absurd areas just to make a case for your countryman.

The reality is that his non-wk period is the period where he was mature and had a big purple patch. If Sanga plays another 50 tests and keeps that 70+ average as a non-wk, I'd start being inclined to believe he was that good as pure batsman.

 

[Jono]

Because Gilly was ****ing awesome.