Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[AndyZaltzHair]

Ha it's perfectly ok to cherry pick whatever suits my argument and it's wrong whenever someone does that to counter the cherry pick by picking other cherries

 

[aussie]

If that was all it was, it would be fine. At different points of time in the thread, the keeping skills of Sangakkara, Flower, Stewart and some others have been compared favorably with Gilly's.

As PEWS said that is indeed all it was for me. I never compared Gilly's glove work to Stewart/Flower - it clearly was a level ahead of them - i compared it to Sanga, IMO they were even considering their work vs the two greatest spinners ever.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah i checked this one out years ago when people for eg would suggest Walcott as keeper in a Windies ATXI, he definitely was just a stop gap keeper - probably the equivalent of some of the times Jimmy Maher & Rahul Dravid keeping for AUS/IND in ODIs in the mid 2000s. Walcott just did the job for team balance sake in the 50s because up to that point WI had not produced a good enough keeper, until Gerry Alexander emerged.

Plus after a point back issues meant that experiment had to end since it affected his batting.

This is exactly what people are going to say about de Villiers's keeping.

 

[aussie]

Ha it's perfectly ok to cherry pick whatever suits my argument and it's wrong whenever someone does that to counter the cherry pick by picking other cherries

If you call that cherry picking, I would have to question what you know about Walcott's career.

I know from what I read about him, spoke to people who saw him play i.e family members in UK & Caribbean, old journalist most notably Tony Cozier and that was the overriding view of what Walcott was as a keeper.

 

[aussie]

This is exactly what people are going to say about de Villiers's keeping.

You seriously saying or believe that De Villiers keeping ability was no better than of Rahul Dravid/Jimmy Maher?

 

[cnerd123]

No he is saying Walcott's keeing ability = ABDVs...


Actually nah, he is talking about a bigger point on how ones perception of a player's skill is heavily ifluenced by the situation the player finds himself in, and less so than by his actual skill. IE people are going to perceive ABDV to be a stop gap keeper and not a legit option behind the stumps because, like Walcott, he did it as a fill in and not his primarily role. Its the same way a lot of part-time bowlers get underrated if they dont bowl a lot in their career.


He is basically hinting at another fallacy you are making Aussie - evaluating a players skill by the role he played in the side, and not his actual level of skill.

 

[Prince EWS]

You seriously saying or believe that De Villiers keeping ability was no better than of Rahul Dravid/Jimmy Maher?

I'm suggesting he was a stop gap keeper who did the job for team balance sake because up to that point South Africa had not produced a good enough keeper/batsman, and that his back injuries would've prevented him for keeping much longer after de Kock emerged anyway.

People who didn't see him make a decent first of keeping will probably compare him to whoever the Dravid/Maher types of 2055 are even though he was a bit better than that. I think there are a lot of comparisons to make with Walcott, and I think as time goes on people will see them even more similarly.

 

[aussie]

FFS shut up

Oh nice! Someone actually attempted to answer this question.

Well FFS you already gone wrong since clearly Wasim/Waqar were wayyy past their best as test bowlers in 99. Especially Waqar and in case you didn't know his legendary peak was from India 89 to AUS 94. That PAK attack looked good on paper, but not in reality.

At this rate I guess you will now tell him him spanking ageing Allan Donald in 2002, during that Jo'Burg double hundred was also a good attack.

 

[harsh.ag]

The Pak bowling attack that got them to the 99 WC Final was weak? Yes, Wasim and Waqar were not at their best, but they weren't weak by a long shot. And Akhtar was doing great.

 

[aussie]

I'm suggesting he was a stop gap keeper who did the job for team balance sake because up to that point South Africa had not produced a good enough keeper/batsman, and that his back injuries would've prevented him for keeping much longer after de Kock emerged anyway.

People who didn't see him make a decent first of keeping will probably compare him to whoever the Dravid/Maher types of 2055 are even though he was a bit better than that. I think there are a lot of comparisons to make with Walcott, and I think as time goes on people will see them even more similarly.

Such 2055 people would be wrong, since De Villiers keeping is clearly better than Dravid/Maher geez man haha.

In fact I'm not even sure there is a much bigger difference him & De Kock as keepers, because I recall when De Kock first emerged there were people question whether his keeping was totally polished for test cricket & he played as a batsman initially for a few games. De Villiers is back keeping again in T20s for team balance reasons - the issues with his back are known but its not that bad as i mentioned before.

SA are now just being pragmatic with their best asset & not let him keep in the longer format too much - especially with Vilas also around (presuming he impressed in upcoming IND tests) he is unlikely to keep again in tests

 

[Prince EWS]

Such 2055 people would be wrong, since De Villiers keeping is clearly better than Dravid/Maher geez man haha.

Yeah indeed, but I think it puts what people say about Walcott into context. I think he was more de Villiers level than Dravid/Maher level as a keeper.

 

[Furball]

Oh nice! Someone actually attempted to answer this question.

Well FFS you already gone wrong since clearly Wasim/Waqar were wayyy past their best as test bowlers in 99. Especially Waqar and in case you didn't know his legendary peak was from India 89 to AUS 94. That PAK attack looked good on paper, but not in reality.

At this rate I guess you will now tell him him spanking ageing Allan Donald in 2002, during that Jo'Burg double hundred was also a good attack.

Ah it's the old "they scored mountains of runs because the bowling was crap" argument.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh nice! Someone actually attempted to answer this question.

Well FFS you already gone wrong since clearly Wasim/Waqar were wayyy past their best as test bowlers in 99. Especially Waqar and in case you didn't know his legendary peak was from India 89 to AUS 94. That PAK attack looked good on paper, but not in reality.

At this rate I guess you will now tell him him spanking ageing Allan Donald in 2002, during that Jo'Burg double hundred was also a good attack.

Gilchrist was way past his peak after 2005. In case you didn't know this his legendary peak was from Pak 99 to SL 04. Now you'll tell me Flintoff, etc getting him out cheaply after 05 was good bowling or something.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's just endless speculation though really. I don't think either of us have actually seen Walcott keep.

EDIT: @aussie

 

[aussie]

The Pak bowling attack that got them to the 99 WC Final was weak? Yes, Wasim and Waqar were not at their best, but they weren't weak by a long shot. And Akhtar was doing great.

They were bowling well as a ODI cricket unit, not in tests. Wasim was a below par in tests after 97, he produced sporadic glimpses of his old self i.e Chennai 99 vs IND, Antigua 2000 vs WI & vs SRI 2000.

Even Mahmood was never the same test all-rounder again after his magical start first vs S Africa circa 97/98.

Akhtar was fast, wild and inaccurate in AUS 99, he bowled far better in Sharjah 2002 & return series in AUS 2004. So in reality the only consistent bowler for PAK in that 99/00 series was Saqlain. He was the peak of his game & notably was the man who wrecked AUS (not the quicks) in that first innings at Hobart.

 

[aussie]

Gilchrist was way past his peak after 2005. In case you didn't know this his legendary peak was from Pak 99 to SL 04. Now you'll tell me Flintoff, etc getting him out cheaply after 05 was good bowling or something.

Right so when he was averaging 76 vs PAK 2004/05 & 171.50 in NZ 2005 before 2005 Ashes, that was Gilchrist passed his peak then?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Ha wow, people on CW still attempt to argue this, swore this argument died out since 2005.

I too hate how terrible things come back.

 

[cnerd123]

Hah called it. Find a good innings, and Aussie will just rubbish the bowling/conditions based on nothing at all.

Not just dire posting, but predictably dire at that.

 

[Coronis]

Right so when he was averaging 76 vs PAK 2004/05 & 171.50 in NZ 2005 before 2005 Ashes, that was Gilchrist passed his peak then?

Averaging 100+ against New Zealand in 2005 wasn't an achievement

 

[aussie]

Averaging 100+ against New Zealand in 2005 wasn't an achievement

Isn't that was I was saying all along?