Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[viriya]

You're either joking or you don't remember. Or you're a poor judge of keeping ability. Flower was nowehere near Gilchrist as a keeper. He wasn't decent, he was sloppy and very obviously looked makeshift.

Now, he was a better batsman than Gilchrist, that I agree. As a keeper, no. Not even close.

I watched all of the Zim tours to SL back in the day and I never thought he was a bad keeper. Just opinion to go by when it comes to pre-2005 keeping unfortunately.

 

[aussie]

DeVilliers had back issues. He couldn't go on keeping.

He has, but that's not the reason he couldn't go on. De Kock's emergence is now why with SA management just being pragmatic to manage his workload across the three formats. After Boucher's unfortunate retirement before 2012 ENG tour, AB was SA main keeper.

De Villiers recently kept in a test vs West Indies when De Kock got his pre-world cup injury & he was his normal blazing batting self - 3rd Test: South Africa v West Indies at Cape Town, Jan 2-6, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

If Stewart was versatile - De Villiers takes it to another level & if push comes to shove in the coming years - I would more consider him over Knott in the ATXI keeping position. Since unlike Gilchrist his 50+ average while keeping was done vs the very good pace & spin attacks.

 

[aussie]

Shock! Batsman who plays with his eye struggles a bit as he gets older!

Right so he suddenly got older in the few months after smashing New Zealand in early 2005 - to struggling in Ashes 05 & vs S Africa later in 2005?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So the argument is that it's tough to bat at 450/5 because you have to throw your bat at stuff? O_0

Pretty hilarious.

Andy Flower kept for 90%+ of his career and averaged ~54 - clearly better imo.

You're either deliberately trolling or seriously struggling with the English language

 

[cnerd123]

Right and I said also on page 5 regarding this point:

"But even if I want to go by your suggestion Knott still wins, because Gilchrist average 30 at the back end of his career struggling against the two best attacks he faced in Ashes 05 & S Africa home/away 05/06.

While Knott average of 32 in all his positions was done while scoring notable runs against some the best pace/spin attacks in tests history - while he was among the A list elite glovesmen in cricket history - Gilly was not in this category."



He suits the balance better vs certain teams - not all teams. Knott will also play - its not a ENG ATXI where Stewart keeps in every tests! Said it before, but clearly I probably wrote that in Chinese.



Nice stats picking. All of innings @ 5 was before he started to peak as a batsman in any form of the game.

A) So you admit that you had initially used Knott's record as 7 as a means of justifying his selection? Okay good.

The analysis that follows is just lazy. Pick 2 series of Gilly in decline, claim that to be truly representative of his level of ability, rubbish all other runs scored, compare Gilly in decline to Knott overall. Also claim Knott faced better bowling than Gilly over his career. Provide no deeper analysis or evidence to back claims.

B) Irrelevant. You already admitted that you used Knott's record at 7 to equate his batting to Gilchrist's, whilst using Stewarts overall career to deem him a better batsman than Knott. This is logically inconsistent. Own up to it.

You also used Stewart's record at 6 to justify his batting that position which leads to...

C) Irrelevant. You justify Knott > Gilchrist by his record at 7, you justify Stewart>Knott by overall career + record at 6, and then you justify Sanga playing a role he never has by his overall record. Inconsistency everywhere.

 

[aussie]

Await response to this bro.

Apologies brother Pratters from Kolkotta for making you ask this question twice - I assure you I was not ignoring you - just was realizing while I was typing responses to other posts - I didn't see some.

Right so I'm not batting Stewart @ 7 in my version of the ENG ATXI:

Hobbs, Hutton, Barrington, Hammond, Compton, Stewart, Botham, Larwood, Wardle, Trueman, Snow

 

[cnerd123]

Right so he suddenly got older in the few monthsafter smashing New Zealand in early 2005 - to struggling in Ashes 05 & vs S Africa later in 2005?

Yes...why, should he have gotten younger?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes...why, should he have gotten younger?

Knott would have

 

[aussie]

A) So you admit that you had initially used Knott's record as 7 as a means of justifying his selection? Okay good.

I'm not admitting that. Actually not sure what you mean here.

The analysis that follows is just lazy. Pick 2 series of Gilly in decline, claim that to be truly representative of his level of ability, rubbish all other runs scored, compare Gilly in decline to Knott overall. Also claim Knott faced better bowling than Gilly over his career. Provide no deeper analysis or evidence to back claims.

Haha ok my Australia player/team expert. Lets go this one at a time.

- So please show which pace attacks between the 1999 series vs Pakistan to the 2005 series vs New Zealand that were comparable to the ENG 2005 & SA 05/06 that exposed his around the wicket technically flaw.

- Please also highlight when during that aforementioned 99-2005 did any bowler try to attack that flaw that Flintoff discovered?

- Do I really need to show evidence that there were more better pace attacks present in the 70s than what Gilchrist faced in the early/mid 2000s?

My apologies for thinking that everyone knows that the 70s was one the greatest era of quality bowling & that the early/mid 2000s had the most flat pitches and average bowling attacks since the 1930s.

B) Irrelevant. You already admitted that you used Knott's record at 7 to equate his batting to Gilchrist's, whilst using Stewarts overall career to deem him a better batsman than Knott. This is logically inconsistent. Own up to it.

How is it irrelevant? See above regarding Knott vs Gilchrist. Stewart was a better pure batsman than Knott - Knott wasn't a batsman capable of batting higher than 7 even at his best. I don't know what correlation you are trying to draw.

You also used Stewart's record at 6 to justify his batting that position which leads to...

C) and then you justify Sanga playing a role he never has by his overall record. Inconsistency everywhere.

Not sure what consistency you are looking for in what aspect or instance. At this point what your asking me is very hard to follow.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea not surprised its hard for you to follow. You wouldn't be making all these inconsistencies if you could understand what you were doing. Maybe someone else could explain it in clearer words, I just cbf.

 

[aussie]

Yes...why, should he have gotten younger?

The point is despite me being a massive Gilly fan, its poor excuse to use his age as a excuse for his decline - no was saying that at the end of 2005 NZ tour. He simply got exposed technically for first time in his test career and never adjusted until retirment.

While coincidentally his team mate Hayden who also had some technical flaws exposed during that same Ashes by Hoggard to in-swingers (Akthar did is also in 2004 home tests) found a way to adjust with his career saving Oval 2005 century, vs the the SA 05/06, Super tests & Zaheer Khan who tried to attack that flaw & he made hundreds against them all - thus proving his greatness even further as an opener.

 

[cnerd123]

Ha got to look beyond the stats my friend. Knott averaged 42 batting @ # 7, scored all his test centuries their & 20 of his 30 half centuries in the 70s - the preeminent era for quality bowling in test history Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Aussie using Knott's record at #7 to justify his claims that Knott was as good a batsman as Gilly (or just marginally inferior).

 

[aussie]

Yea not surprised its hard for you to follow. You wouldn't be making all these inconsistencies if you could understand what you were doing. Maybe someone else could explain it in clearer words, I just cbf.

I've not been inconistent with anything. You are just telling me I am.

Waiting for your answers to these by the way:


- So please show which pace attacks between the 1999 series vs Pakistan to the 2005 series vs New Zealand that were comparable to the ENG 2005 & SA 05/06 that exposed his around the wicket technically flaw.

- Please also highlight when during that aforementioned 99-2005 did any bowler try to attack that flaw that Flintoff discovered?

- Do I really need to show evidence that there were more better pace attacks present in the 70s than what Gilchrist faced in the early/mid 2000s?

My apologies for thinking that everyone knows that the 70s was one the greatest era of quality bowling & that the early/mid 2000s had the most flat pitches and average bowling attacks since the 1930s."

 

[cnerd123]

The point is despite me being a massive Gilly fan, its poor excuse to use his age as a excuse for his decline - no was saying that at the end of 2005 NZ tour. He simply got exposed technically for first time in his test career and never adjusted until retirment.

You heard it here first folks. Cricketers never get too old.

Pretty off the mark with the 'exposed technique' thing too. He got roughed up by some absolutely brilliant bowling. Had a bit of a form slump following that series, never really recovered and called time on his career.

Using the end of his career to discredit everything that game before is rather dire tho. As is the claim that those two series were the only times he faced high quality bowling lol.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Actually I think we are missing two other options - AB and Andy Flower.

AB averages 58 (higher than his overall) when keeping. I think I would pick him over Gilchrist in an ATG team.

Andy Flower kept in most of his Tests and imo was a better Test batsman than Gilchrist.

imo: Sanga > AB > Andy Flower > Gilchrist

This is an unfair comparison though since neither Sanga or AB kept all their career. So you could say they are disqualified. So Andy Flower would be my pick over Gilchrist.

It's one weird analysis. Abraham Benjamin De Villiers kept wickets 21 matches which is roughly 1/4 th of the matches he played. Without gloves, his average is less. It's evident that sample size is very small if you want to look at it purely from statistical point of view. From watching him, he is just another wicket keeper who can do the job, nothing exceptional. In ATG XI, if you choose him as keeper, he will have to keep against ATG bowlers and spinners. Not sure on that.

 

[aussie]

Aussie using Knott's record at #7 to justify his claims that Knott was as good a batsman as Gilly (or just marginally inferior).

At this rate I expect you to tell me Gilchrist smashing hundreds against pace attacks led by Ian Obrien/Chris Martin or Ageing Allan Donald/Dewand Pretouis/Ntini was on par with hundreds Knott scored vs Roberts/Holding & Lillee/Thompson...

 

[cnerd123]

Pro Tip 3: To save yourself the burden of justifying your own claims, demand the other posters answer inane questions to disprove your claims. Claim victory when they cbf.

In the case you do get called out on and proven wrong, resort to earlier techniques as to avoid having to own up to it.

 

[Red]

Right so he suddenly got older in the few months after smashing New Zealand in early 2005 - to struggling in Ashes 05 & vs S Africa later in 2005?

Yep. That's all correct.

 

[viriya]

It's one weird analysis. Abraham Benjamin De Villiers kept wickets 21 matches which is roughly 1/4 th of the matches he played. Without gloves, his average is less. It's evident that sample size is very small if you want to look at it purely from statistical point of view. From watching him, he is just another wicket keeper who can do the job, nothing exceptional. In ATG XI, if you choose him as keeper, he will have to keep against ATG bowlers and spinners. Not sure on that.

Keeping well to great bowlers is just about practice imo. AB is a decent keeper and will be ok. I think the importance of keeping skill is overrated - no one picks a player in Tests because of fielding skill, and based on my fielding analysis it is clear that it is not as much of a factor in ODIs compared to T20s, so extrapolating on that I think fielding skill in Tests is not as important. As long as the player is not a poor fielder and a liability of course.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I find it funny how a past his peak Gilchrist averaging 30 against quality attacks is worse than Knott averaging 30 over his whole career.