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.
Well show me the high quality pace bowling he faced in tests during this period IYO then? I think your underlying problem is that maybe your incapable of using cricinfo stats guru. So let me help you:
- First go on cricinfo search menu & type in Adam Gilchrist
- Second, under "Career statistics" menu - look for test statistics
- Third click on batting series averages or batting innings list
- Finally look at all series/matches from Pakistan 1999 to New Zealand 2005 and show me which series he played against high quality pace bowling comparable to Ashes 05 and S Africa 2005/06 (home/away)
OverratedSanity said:
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.
Knott averaged 32 by the way. And if you think averaging 32 in the 70s with very good performances vs good pace attacks is comparable to Gilchrist averaging 30 while failing vs the only good pace attacks he faced in the the ENG 05 to IND 08 period, then you are way off.
The fact remains the reason Gilchrist was picked in the ATG XI as keeper was because of his batting ability of average 55 plus. Thus if it is clear that 55 plus average from PAK 99 - NZ 05 is inflated by the amount of runs he scored on roads/average & poor pace attacks especially - there is no reason to select him.
In fact I just checked back the ESPN ATXI that was picked & i just realized that Ian Chappell who did a series assessing the XI - thought Gilchrist being chosen in the ATXI was the only selection he disagreed with & would have chosen Knott for many reasons I've repeated suggested. So I rest my case, since all the time I thought his choice was unanimous.
Comments : Ian Chappell on ESPNcricinfo's World XI: Wicketkeeper | 'When you're talking World XI, I'm talking serious glovemen' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo
JediBrath said:
not sure if srs. Not only is it not a poor excuse, it is the only legitimate reason.
Also lol at "exposed technically for first time". Do you realise that the "around the wicket/left-armers to Gilchrist" was a very widely known "weakness" and that bowlers had been trying (and sometimes succeeding) at exploiting said weakness since the late 90's, before he even made his test debut? The commentators would literally talk about it every single time Gilchrist went out to bat, it actually got annoying pretty quickly.
But no, according to you, this weakness was only "exposed" once he got too old to successfully counter it more often than not . . .
Na you are mixing it up. Obviously every left-hander would be vulnerable to a left-arm quick (mainly ones that swing the ball) to balls coming into them. Since I can certainly remember Allan Mullany in tri series 98/99 and Wasim Akram in 99 W-Cup game at Old Trafford dismissing him with that angle.
However that was before he played tests & when he played tests it was no seen as no obvious plan to get Gilchrist out in any form of the game.
Gilchrist between PAK 99 to 2005 was basically invisible - no team had any clear idea to get him out. No specific fields was set, no targeted bowling angles or lines were done in a similar way to how for eg:
- Glen McGrath would come around the wicket to Brian Lara and set two gully's and hope to get him out flashing/caught behind
- Or Stephen Fleming setting a deep point to Damien Martyn when Shane Bond bowled in VB series 2001/02
- Or Michael Vaughan setting a short catching cover and mid-wicket to Matthew Hayden in Ashes 05
- Or fast bowlers regularly bowling or getting Sehwag LBW during his career due to his big weakness to inswingers
It was a simple case or attempting to bowl simple accurate line and lengths and hoping Gilchrist makes a mistake and didn't destroy you.
Dan said:
I can't, because Gilchrist was up to the challenge for that entire period, and came out on top more often than not!
I do enjoy how you're using Gilchrist's performances as the benchmark for Gilchrist's performances -- if Gilly made runs, they were **** attacks who couldn't attack his weakness so Gilly was actually useless all along; and if Gilly failed, they were gun attacks who exposed a technical flaw and Gilly was finally proves useless after all.
Circular logic ftw.
Thats the facts of his career & it doesn't mean he was useless - he was just not a 55 average keeper vs quality quick or spin bowling. Because as i mentioned before in that same 99-05 period when he actually faced quality spin on IND tours in 2001, 2004 & SRI 04 - he averaged just 31.
At least you admit you can't. So if you admit that how can you say its circular when Hayden as i said before:
"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."
It like you folks are doubting the well known cricket logic that the early/mid 2000 had the worst group of pace attacks and flattest roads in test history since the 1930s. I see you were on CW since 2007 - thus I'm sure you would have been involved in discussions about players when this topic came up.
If there is one thing CW was known when I first came on for more than any cricketchat forum/cricket people talking about the sport - was hammering home the notion of FTBs of the 2000s.
Pratters said:
That's not relevant to the point I made.
What was the point you were trying to make then, because I don't see how response is not relevant to what I think you were asking.
