Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[marc71178]

The most amusing point about all this to me is that aussie asks the question - "Gilchrist or Sangakkara" then answers his own question with Knott.

 

[aussie]

The most amusing point about all this to me is that aussie asks the question - "Gilchrist or Sangakkara" then answers his own question with Knott.

Knott is the keeper in test history with the best "batting ability" in test history. Kindly read the thread question & opening post thoroughly again before posting sir Marc. Regards...

 

[cnerd123]

Good job missing the point.

While you are it, when you have the time my friend please list for me the amount of runs against very good/excellent series performances during his "peak" that he scored vs good/very good/excellent pace or spin attacks.

And let me when you find some, then compare it with the amount of actual good efforts Knott had in his "whole career" vs the known revered pace/spin attacks he faced. Looking forward to your co-operation.

Thanks

omg you're just gonna do the chicken and egg thing aren't you

"Look, these bowlers who bowled to the Aussie lineup averaged so much during the series, clearly they were bowling badly, and that's why the Aussies scored so many runs"
"Look, these bowlers who bowled to the English lineup averaged so little during the series, clearly they were bowling well, and that's why England didn't score so many runs"

 

[Prince EWS]

The most amusing point about all this to me is that aussie asks the question - "Gilchrist or Sangakkara" then answers his own question with Knott.

And then goes into the "ATG XIs" thread and posts an all-time England team without Knott in it.

 

[Dan]

Nice for the rest of us to now know that Gilchrist definitively rests in the "so damn good he devalues his own achievement through his mere existence breaking cricket" category though.

 

[Dan]

And then goes into the "ATG XIs" thread and posts an all-time England team without Knott in it.

Look, we may as well face it. Logical consistency is not a strong suit when it comes to conservative Australian nationalists.

 

[Pratters]

And then goes into the "ATG XIs" thread and posts an all-time England team without Knott in it.

Stewart averages 70 in the 7th batting position.

 

[Prince EWS]

Stewart averages 70 in the 7th batting position.

And he named him at 6 anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

Look, we may as well face it. Logical consistency is not a strong suit when it comes to conservative Australian nationalists.

heh

 

[The Sean]

Stewart averages 70 in the 7th batting position.

So of course aussie bats him at 6...

 

[aussie]

And then goes into the "ATG XIs" thread and posts an all-time England team without Knott in it.

Ha weak attempt at trying to find a hole in my argument.

An ENG ATXI and a AT World XI has different requirements IMO.

If you have in a World XI with Gavaskar/Hutton/Bradman/Tendulkar/Richards/Sobers as your top 6 - you don't need a best "batting keeper" in cricket history at 7. You also just don't need the best "glovesman" who was a rabbit with the bat either.

You need someone who has the best characteristics of both worlds in keeping evolution & that is Knott.

For an ENG ATXI, i believe Stewart's extra batting ability would be more useful in the ENG ATXI top order, especially considering many of ENG greatest bowlers bowlers were not the best batters so the ENG ATXI 7-11 has a potential long tail look.

But ATXIs won't have rigidity since you have the greatest players of all-time to choose from & they are scenario's where I would pick Knott over Stewart. For example if ENG ATXI are playing in asia and readjust their bowling attack to include spinners I would play Knott.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ha weak attempt at trying to find a hole in my argument.

Haaaa weak attempt to bait me into an argument I wasn't even involved in. I just found the whole thing amusing; nothing more.

Not surprising to see you dip into your bottomless bag of cliche cricket fallacies to try and 'defend' your position, though. Assuming your ATWXI is going to be of a better standard than whichever team it plays against renders the whole exercise pointless; it's going to need batting at seven just as much as any other side. Imagine a world where there's never been a Test match and you're picking a current England side based on county exploits. Do you say "well we probably won't need to bat deep because all our batsmen have amazing records in the highest level of cricket available to them so far, so we'll just pick the best gloveman and the best four bowlers regardless", or do you accept that against an opposition roughly the same standard (maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse), the batsmen might not perform as well and the lower order might be important?

... well look at that, your weak attempt to bait me into the argument actually worked. I'm a sucker really.

 

[cnerd123]

Haaaa weak attempt to bait me into an argument I wasn't even involved in. I just found the whole thing amusing; nothing more.

Not surprising to see you dip into your bottomless bag of cliche cricket fallacies to try and 'defend' your position, though. Assuming your ATWXI is going to be of a better standard than whichever team it plays against renders the whole exercise pointless; it's going to need batting at seven just as much as any other side. Imagine a world where there's never been a Test match and you're picking a current England side based on county exploits. Do you say "well we probably won't need to bat deep because all our batsmen have amazing records in the highest level of cricket available to them so far, so we'll just pick the best gloveman and the best four bowlers regardless", or do you accept that against an opposition roughly the same standard (maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse), the batsmen might not perform as well and the lower order might be important?

... well look at that, your weak attempt to bait me into the argument actually worked. I'm a sucker really.

In your humble opinion

 

[Dan]

In your humble opinion

 

[aussie]

Haaaa weak attempt to bait me into an argument I wasn't even involved in. I just found the whole thing amusing; nothing more.

Not surprising to see you dip into your bottomless bag of cliche cricket fallacies to try and 'defend' your position, though. Assuming your ATWXI is going to be of a better standard than whichever team it plays against renders the whole exercise pointless; it's going to need batting at seven just as much as any other side. Imagine a world where there's never been a Test match and you're picking a current England side based on county exploits. Do you say "well we probably won't need to bat deep because all our batsmen have amazing records in the highest level of cricket available to them so far, so we'll just pick the best gloveman and the best four bowlers regardless", or do you accept that against an opposition roughly the same standard (maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse), the batsmen might not perform as well and the lower order might be important?

... well look at that, your weak attempt to bait me into the argument actually worked. I'm a sucker really.

Haha well if my post was to quote you was "bottomless bag of cliche cricket fallacie" - then my goodness I don't think oxford has invented to words to describe the litany of confusion in your response.

What in that post did I say that made you come up with point "it's going to need batting at seven just as much as any other side'? Are you someone implying that Knott @ # 7 in a ATXI is not good batting?

Even if you pick a ATWI 2nd XI where indeed you can put together a team and bowling attack than can test a legendary top 6 of Gavaskar/Hutton/Bradman/Tendulkar/Richards/Sobers for example Imran/Trueman/Mualitharan/Botham/Hadlee - its not as if Knott as # 7 compromises the deep batting - especially when my suggested ATXI main four bowlers of Warne/Marshall/Lillee/Akram - have 3 guys who were very competent late order batters.

I clearly stated Knott is the best both worlds as a batsman & keeper. Picking the best gloves-man without consideration for his batting strenght would have been Godfrey Evans & I clearly stated I wasn't doing that.

Also I wasn't tried to bait you & you shouldn't call yourself bad names like sucker etc, try to always speak confidently about yourself young man.

 

[Migara]

Andy Flower

/thread

 

[Migara]

Absurd, and deliberately lame attempt at being inflammatory.

And keeping to leg spinners is far more difficult that keeping to off spinners.

How about keeping to a wrist spinning off break bowler and a set of mystery bowlers who spin it both ways?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

pretty sure aussie was captaingrumpy. posting pattern similar. no joke

 

[Howe_zat]

we best take him seriously he is a hall of fame member

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

we best take him seriously he is a hall of fame member

yeah but he keeps arguing with everything and everyone. hall of fame member or not, some things are not tolerable m8