Third Name Listed for ATG XI

[benchmark00]

Gilchrist #2, Sobers #3.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Stupid fanatical deluded Gilchrist fanboy

Proud to be one too

 

[steve132]

Honestly, apart from Bradman, I can't think of any cricketer I consider as far ahead of competitors in his discipline as Gilchrist.

He isn't as far ahead of other keeper's as bradman is ahead of other batsmen, but I do think the difference is greater than between say Marshall and the others. That's why I voted for him

Why, precisely, is Gilchrist so far ahead of say, Les Ames? Ames was a brilliant wicketkeeper who scored a hundred centuries in first class cricket despite missing six of his best seasons because of the Second World War. If you value batting ability in a wicketkeeper very highly, Clyde Walcott is the man to be reckoned with. He was a better batsman than Gilchrist, and some West Indians still rank him as one of the best, if not the best keepers, in their history before a back injury forced him to give up his gloves.

There are also many cricketers who would select Knott rather than Gilchrist in their all time World XI's, because he was a better wicket keeper pure and simple and they feel that keepers should be judged exclusively on their ability behind the stumps. Some would select Oldfield or Tallon or Evans for the same reason.

Note that I'm not saying that Gilchrist does not merit selection to an all time World XI. I just don't see the evidence that he was head and shoulders above all other wicketkeeper-batsmen or that he is an automatic selection comparable to Bradman or Sobers.

 

[salman85]

Gilchrist the wicketkeeper was as safe as they came.Capable of the occasional blinder,but other than that a very safe keeper who never made careless errors and generally got the job done consistently.The difference between his ability as a keeper and the ability of someone like Knott for example,was not huge.Whereas Knott was the superior keeper,he was not light years ahead of Gilchrist or even Marsh.Better yes,but not significantly better.

Gilchrist the batsman was right up there amongst the very best,and arguably the best amongst players who also kept wickets.Which is what pushes things in his favour.You have could have an ATG side and place any of Gilchrist,Knott,Marsh etc in there,and all these sides would have a safe pair of hands behind the wickets and it would make for a brilliant team.However,when you add world class batting skill to that keeper,the ability of the ATG team goes a notch above brilliant.

For the record,Wallcott only kept wicket in 15 matches for the WI.Injury or no Injury,it is too small a number to judge his skill behind the stumps.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Gilchrist the wicketkeeper was as safe as they came.Capable of the occasional blinder,but other than that a very safe keeper who never made careless errors and generally got the job done consistently.The difference between his ability as a keeper and the ability of someone like Knott for example,was not huge.Whereas Knott was the superior keeper,he was not light years ahead of Gilchrist or even Marsh.Better yes,but not significantly better.

Gilchrist the batsman was right up there amongst the very best,and arguably the best amongst players who also kept wickets.Which is what pushes things in his favour.You have could have an ATG side and place any of Gilchrist,Knott,Marsh etc in there,and all these sides would have a safe pair of hands behind the wickets and it would make for a brilliant team.However,when you add world class batting skill to that keeper,the ability of the ATG team goes a notch above brilliant.

For the record,Wallcott only kept wicket in 15 matches for the WI.Injury or no Injury,it is too small a number to judge his skill behind the stumps.

Careless mistakes did happen when Gilchrist kept. He was not an acceptable standard for many for an ATG side and that's why its hard to say outright that he deserves the next spot behind Bradman and Sobers.

Ftr back then 15 matches was a decent number of tests, however Walcott struggled against Lindwall, Johnston and Miller (with a back injury of his own) until he gave up keeping.

 

[Red]

Careless mistakes did happen when Gilchrist kept. He was not an acceptable standard for many for an ATG side

That's rubbish. Complete bollocks.

I've said it time and again, Gilchrist had the hardest job of any keeper in the last 75 years of cricket keeping to Warne and MacGill, and he was immaculate up at the stumps.

Anyone can keep to quick bowlers and offies.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

That's rubbish. Complete bollocks.

I've said it time and again, Gilchrist had the hardest job of any keeper in the last 75 years of cricket keeping to Warne and MacGill, and he was immaculate up at the stumps.

Anyone can keep to quick bowlers and offies.

That's rubbish. Healy was better to the same bowlers. And if it's spin you prefer then pick Engineer

 

[kyear2]

But the argument and discussion remains and while Gilly is a definite consensus choice he isn't an automatic one. There will always be some, though in the minority who would prefer a better pure keeper.

So again while I reiterate that there are basically 8 almost automatic consensus choices for ATG XI's (Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall and Warne) only Hobbs, Marshall and Warne appear in all or almost all of them along with Bradman and Sobers but Hobbs and Marshall are the ones that would illicit the least argument while Murali would always have a case among his fans for inclusion and a valid one at that.

Hence my original choice for Hobbs and Marshall to be seen as the ones next in the hierarchy for automatic inclusion along with Bradman and Sobers.

 

[Esperance]

pujara

 

[Red]

That's rubbish. Healy was better to the same bowlers. And if it's spin you prefer then pick Engineer

Give me a good reason why Healy (or Engineer) were any better than Gilchrist as keepers.

 

[Red]

And to clarify. I'm more than fine for people to pick Knott or Healy or Engineer or Black Jackham if they want, but I get so sick of the argument that Gilchrist wasn't an excellent keeper. He was.

 

[salman85]

But the argument and discussion remains and while Gilly is a definite consensus choice he isn't an automatic one. There will always be some, though in the minority who would prefer a better pure keeper.

So again while I reiterate that there are basically 8 almost automatic consensus choices for ATG XI's (Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall and Warne) only Hobbs, Marshall and Warne appear in all or almost all of them along with Bradman and Sobers but Hobbs and Marshall are the ones that would illicit the least argument while Murali would always have a case among his fans for inclusion and a valid one at that.

Hence my original choice for Hobbs and Marshall to be seen as the ones next in the hierarchy for automatic inclusion along with Bradman and Sobers.

I don't think Warne will be an automatic choice.Maybe not even Marshall IMO.

Assuming that the ATG would consist of 3 fast bowlers and 1 spinner,there is always going to be every chance of Murali being chosen ahead of Warne,and when it comes to fast bowlers you could pick any from Imran,Marshall,Lillee,McGrath,Ambrose,Wasim etc and any 3 of them would make for an equally intimidating fast bowling attack.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

And to clarify. I'm more than fine for people to pick Knott or Healy or Engineer or Black Jackham if they want, but I get so sick of the argument that Gilchrist wasn't an excellent keeper. He was.

I'm fine with anyone picking Gilly. But when it's said he was an excellent keeper. He wasn't.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

And to clarify. I'm more than fine for people to pick Knott or Healy or Engineer or Black Jackham if they want, but I get so sick of the argument that Gilchrist wasn't an excellent keeper. He was.

If someone wants to pick Gilchrist it's up to them, no problem here. But I don't concede he was an excellent keeper. He wasn't.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If someone wants to pick Gilchrist it's up to them, no problem here. But I don't concede he was an excellent keeper. He wasn't.

He was more than excellent. He was outstanding. Best keeper in the world pretty much throughout this career.

This new myth if Gilchrist not bring much of a keeper is really getting on my nerves now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it feels as though because Gilchrist was so brilliant with the bat, people assume he was sub-par with the gloves. There's a reason he was so highly regarded and makes AT XIs almost automatically. He was brilliant with both for virtually his whole career.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

He was more than excellent. He was outstanding. Best keeper in the world pretty much throughout this career.

This new myth if Gilchrist not bring much of a keeper is really getting on my nerves now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it feels as though because Gilchrist was so brilliant with the bat, people assume he was sub-par with the gloves. There's a reason he was so highly regarded and makes AT XIs almost automatically. He was brilliant with both for virtually his whole career.

That's not at all the reason I don't think he was good with the gloves. Nothing at all to do with his batting. His keeping compared to actually ATG keepers was not up to the same standard. Compared with current keepers post his career he stacks up, generally. In an ATG side he has to be compared to other ATG's. So for that I want the best keeper. That for me is not Gilly.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Gilly was a very very good keeper, maybe even great. But he was not an excellent one

 

[silentstriker]

Glenn McGrath

 

[OverratedSanity]

But I don't concede he was an excellent keeper. He wasn't.

Gilly was a very very good keeper, maybe even great. But he was not an excellent one

Why?

 

[the big bambino]

If I had second pick and you failed to pick Gilly I would just point and laugh and laugh and laugh at you.