Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Victor Ian]

I have not put too much thought into this reasoning, but seeing as Gilchrist's glove work also declined in the last years of his career - IT'S decline was the reason that made him retire - perhaps this is a good indicator to show that his batting decline was a consequence of ageing, diminishing reflexes and diminishing hand eye coordination. His keeping was not affected by a technical flaw that was found out and exploited.

 

[Victor Ian]

my all time logical fallacy world 11

1 Muttiah Muralitharan - He had a terrible batting average because he batted like a number 11. If he opened, he would have batted like an opener. (False Cause Fallacy)
2 Varun Chopra - All things natural are good and Chopra is natural. (Appeal to Nature)
3 Greg Ritchie - No true Australian would ever fail his team and get out cheaply. (No True Scotsman Fallacy)
4 Shane Warne - He has never scored a hundred. He is due. (Gamblers Fallacy)
5 Phil Tufnell - The burden of proof is on you to show that he would not make 410 in his next innings. (Burden of Proof fallacy)
6 Alec Stuart (wk) - Aussie says so (Appeal to Authority Fallacy)
7 Alan Knott - Everyone picks Knott in their all time 11. I will too (Bandwagon Fallacy)
8 Craig White (c) - He was either the best or worst player in history - He was not the worst ever, as I am worse, so he must be the best. (Black or White Fallacy)
9 Omar Qasim - Greg disagrees but he smokes bongs and is a loser. (Ad Hominem Fallacy)
10 Tim Zoehrer - I once saw him take 5 wickets in a first class match. Legendary player (Anecdotal Fallacy)
11 Don Bradman - He was an awesome batsman so naturally he would have been an awesome bowler (Composition/Division Fallacy)

 

[aussie]

your mistake here is looking at Gilchrist's batting and assuming his keeping wasn't up to par

He is and has always been an underrated keeper, and is a genuine specialist wicket-keeper unlike the other guys in your list. His batting is just so "wow" that it overshadows his keeping ability.

I never assumed Gilchrist keeping wasn't up to par - he obviously was very good, but simply wasn't one of greatest pure glovesmen in test history. Even Shane Warne when he is interviewed about things in his career always rates Healy about Gilchrist.

 

[Howe_zat]

****S SAKE DIE THREAD DIE

die

 

[Prince EWS]

****S SAKE DIE THREAD DIE

die

I was thinking this a while ago but I really enjoyed Victor Ian's Fallacy XI. There might be more good posts to come yet, and they're worth it if you can force yourself to ignore the multiquote war.

 

[Pratters]

Fallacy is surely the word of the month.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Is it a problem to pick Barry Richards & Mike Procter in a SA ATXI because they played less than 10 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Somochandra De Silva in a SRI ATXI to be a back-up or 3rd spinner given he just played 12 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Martin Donnelly in NZ ATXI because he just played 7 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Larwood in a ENG ATXI since he just played 21 tests?

No, there is no problem if the players listed get picked fmpov. But there is a significant difference between them and AB's 21 matches with the gloves. You are trying to mix oil and water.

 

[aussie]

No, there is no problem if the players listed get picked fmpov. But there is a significant difference between them and AB's 21 matches with the gloves. You are trying to mix oil and water.

What's the significant difference?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

What's the significant difference?

Think it about yourself. If you can't, pm me. I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is it a problem to pick Barry Richards & Mike Procter in a SA ATXI because they played less than 10 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Somochandra De Silva in a SRI ATXI to be a back-up or 3rd spinner given he just played 12 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Martin Donnelly in NZ ATXI because he just played 7 tests?

Is it a problem to pick Larwood in a ENG ATXI since he just played 21 tests?

I actually think the answer to all these questions is yes. I don't pick any of these guys.

As you've said a few times to other people, I think we've reached an ideologically impasse here, but I'm not being inconsistent about it.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I actually think the answer to all these questions is yes. I don't pick any of these guys.

As you've said a few times to other people, I think we've reached an ideologically impasse here, but I'm not being inconsistent about it.

PEWS what about George Headley (22) and Jack Cowie (9)

Edit: + Graeme Pollock (23)

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS what about George Headley (22) and Jack Cowie (9)

I tend to work in years more than actual matches played. Having a good record over 20 Tests played over ten years is a lot different to having a good record played over 20 Tests across two years, to me.

I do have some reservations about Cowie because he played so few Tests that we could be looking at a bit of a sample size problem, but while those reservations are enough to make me rank players like McGrath ahead of him, the other AT NZ XI options aren't that strong and/or have similar issues regarding the length of their Test careers anyway.

 

[aussie]

I actually think the answer to all these questions is yes. I don't pick any of these guys.

As you've said a few times to other people, I think we've reached an ideologically impasse here, but I'm not being inconsistent about it.

Ideological impasse indeed, how people judge & think about the game and its history in these neck of the woods is certainly being clinically exposed here - the more this discussion has evolved.

 

[aussie]

I tend to work in years more than actual matches played. Having a good record over 20 Tests played over ten years is a lot different to having a good record played over 20 Tests across two years, to me.

Why work like that & how is 20 tests time-line different? Its still a small sample since when comparing to other players in competition for selection who played more tests/bigger sample size.

I do have some reservations about Cowie because he played so few Tests that we could be looking at a bit of a sample size problem, but while those reservations are enough to make me rank players like McGrath ahead of him, the other AT NZ XI options aren't that strong and/or have similar issues regarding the length of their Test careers anyway.

At the time of Cowie's selection in cricinfo's ESPN ATXI - you could certainly argue very strongly Richard Collinge or even Cairns would be better picks for team balance/bowling attack variety/more tests reasons.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I tend to work in years more than actual matches played. Having a good record over 20 Tests played over ten years is a lot different to having a good record played over 20 Tests across two years, to me.

I do have some reservations about Cowie because he played so few Tests that we could be looking at a bit of a sample size problem, but while those reservations are enough to make me rank players like McGrath ahead of him, the other AT NZ XI options aren't that strong and/or have similar issues regarding the length of their Test careers anyway.

I was asking it because I thought aussie quoted the list based on number of matches played only. His question sounded like if you can pick these guys based on X number of matches so what's the problem of picking AB based on same X number of matches too

 

[Prince EWS]

Why work like that & how is 20 tests time-line different? Its still a small sample since when comparing to other players in competition for selection who played more tests/bigger sample size.

Because sample size and longevity are two completely different issues.

If someone hasn't played many Tests at all then it's possible their record isn't fully representative of how good they were when they played - that's a sample size problem in determining their quality. But if someone hasn't played for very long then I think that's worth less than someone who played for much longer even if they actually were that good during the period they played. You're the chairman of a national cricket board -- do you take someone who'll average 55 for 20 years or someone who'll average 60 for 5 years? Unless you have another bunch of batsmen averaging >55, the former is going to be more useful to you. This isn't an issue in determining how good someone was, but in determining how much value you get out of different types of goodness.

This seems to be all I ever post about on CW these days though so I'm going to take a break from it after this post. I pretty much hit 'ideological impasse' with everyone on this topic and I don't think you'll be any different.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Why work like that & how is 20 tests time-line different? Its still a small sample since when comparing to other players in competition for selection who played more tests/bigger sample size.

Clearly its Headley's fault then that he had to travel by ships for months to play some matches.

 

[aussie]

I was asking it because I thought aussie quoted the list based on number of matches played only. His question sounded like if you can pick these guys based on X number of matches so what's the problem of picking AB based on same X number of matches too

Exactly, there is no difference, because I question your POV that De Viliers just looked average keeper with the gloves when combing his role in tests. He was a very effective keeper & I don't know how you or others judge De Villiers - but I look at him as a one of the unique freak cricketers in the games history who basically can do anything.

You question whether his glove work could stand up to ATXI bowlers, if chosen in a ATXI - I don't since I would be hesitant to say there is something De Villiers "can't" do on a cricket field effectively with regards to main strengths in batting & keeping.

Clearly its Headley's fault then that he had to travel by ships for months to play some matches.

The war break was bigger detriment to the amount of matches he played & the context of amount matches was played by teams in that time. Windies were still an emerging nation in his time, so ENG/AUS didn't play WI much.

Larwood & O'Reilly only played played 21 & 27 tests respectively also. So if sample size is the problem as your argument is with De Villiers - for ENG ATXI why not pick bowlers like Snow/Sthatham who played more tests or in AUS ATXI if you want to pick just one spinner - pick Warne or in Headley's case pick one of the 3 W's - who were also greats but had longer careers/bigger sample sizes.

 

[aussie]

Because sample size and longevity are two completely different issues.

If someone hasn't played many Tests at all then it's possible their record isn't fully representative of how good they were when they played - that's a sample size problem in determining their quality. But if someone hasn't played for very long then I think that's worth less than someone who played for much longer even if they actually were that good during the period they played. You're the chairman of a national cricket board -- do you take someone who'll average 55 for 20 years or someone who'll average 60 for 5 years? Unless you have another bunch of batsmen averaging >55, the former is going to be more useful to you. This isn't an issue in determining how good someone was, but in determining how much value you get out of different types of goodness.

This seems to be all I ever post about on CW these days though so I'm going to take a break from it after this post. I pretty much hit 'ideological impasse' with everyone on this topic and I don't think you'll be any different.

Disagree to agree - but I can see it will lead to gridlock stalemate - so yea won't take engage you further on it.

 

[Top_Cat]

my all time logical fallacy world 11

1 Muttiah Muralitharan - He had a terrible batting average because he batted like a number 11. If he opened, he would have batted like an opener. (False Cause Fallacy)
2 Varun Chopra - All things natural are good and Chopra is natural. (Appeal to Nature)
3 Greg Ritchie - No true Australian would ever fail his team and get out cheaply. (No True Scotsman Fallacy)
4 Shane Warne - He has never scored a hundred. He is due. (Gamblers Fallacy)
5 Phil Tufnell - The burden of proof is on you to show that he would not make 410 in his next innings. (Burden of Proof fallacy)
6 Alec Stuart (wk) - Aussie says so (Appeal to Authority Fallacy)
7 Alan Knott - Everyone picks Knott in their all time 11. I will too (Bandwagon Fallacy)
8 Craig White (c) - He was either the best or worst player in history - He was not the worst ever, as I am worse, so he must be the best. (Black or White Fallacy)
9 Omar Qasim - Greg disagrees but he smokes bongs and is a loser. (Ad Hominem Fallacy)
10 Tim Zoehrer - I once saw him take 5 wickets in a first class match. Legendary player (Anecdotal Fallacy)
11 Don Bradman - He was an awesome batsman so naturally he would have been an awesome bowler (Composition/Division Fallacy)

Huge fan of this. Genuine lol at Warne and Zoehrer.