Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

This thread is one giant affirming the consequent fallacy:

"If an attack is poor, then logically an overrated batsman like Adam Gilchrist will be able to score runs.
Adam Gilchrist scored runs in Match X.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that the bowling attack was poor."

Its either you can go against the known cricket history reality that the great quicks of the 1990s all were in decline by the late 90s into early 2000s & thus with the flat wickets becoming prevalent world-wide in the early/mid 2000s - made that era possess the flattest pitches & worst group of pace attacks since the 1930s or one can't.

Anyone suggesting that Wasim & Waqar were still top notch test bowlers in 1999, simply doesn't not understand how those players careers evolved.

Fact as I also mentioned before Gilchrist wasn't the only one who got his technique exposed in Ashes 05 - Matthew Hayden did also, but he corrected his faults and at the back end of his career unlike Gilchrist.

 

[cnerd123]

Pro Tip 5: When one of your logical fallacies is exposed, cover it with another fallacy.

 

[harsh.ag]

Anyone suggesting that Wasim & Waqar were still top notch test bowlers in 1999, simply doesn't not understand how those players careers evolved

1999 was when Wasim tore up the Asian Test Championship by taking hattricks in consecutive tests.

 

[aussie]

1999 was when Wasim tore up the Asian Test Championship by taking hattricks in consecutive tests.

Yes and as i mentioned before Add Chennai 99, Antigua 2000 & another test vs SRI 2000 - he was sporadic with his test performances after 1997 & not that same lethal Wasim Akram as a test bowler after he his well documented test peak from 1990-1997 -Wasim Akram: stats analysis | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo.

Even Waqar Younis took a 10-wicket match haul in SA 98 & in two famous ODI games in ENG 2001 had consecutive 7 & 6 wicket hauls vs AUS/ENG - that don't mean he was the same as his legendary 89-94 self.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes, but they were still "top notch test bowlers". They just weren't the greatest pace mofos in history anymore.

 

[aussie]

Yes, but they were still "top notch test bowlers". They just weren't the greatest pace mofos in history anymore.

Top notch no. Good is a better term, especially Wasim's case I can accept one saying that about him maybe up to 2000 - but he definitely was a spent by 2001. But certainly not Waqar by 1999, PAK was regularly leaving him out of tests during that period in favour of Shoaib, Mohammad Zahid, Mohammad Akram for eg. He was a spent force as test bowler after 1998.

The same thing happened when PAK toured ENG in 2001 - 1st test @ Lords - Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Mahmood/Razzaq plays - looks ***y on paper, but are way below par - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63932.html

Next test @ OT, Saqlain comes in & his presence lifts attack as PAK won test to level serries

 

[marc71178]

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?

No, it was clearly weak attacks as Gilchrist never scored runs against good bowling.

 

[viriya]

I'm not sure why aussie is getting so much flak for saying Wasim and Waqar were past their primes in Tests after 98/99.. it's pretty obvious.

 

[aussie]

So in summary while majority take issue with how I judge Gilchrist's career, Sangakkara career and glove-work & Stewart's career - let's recap equally controversial or other POV's that I consider ridiculous which were highlighted by other members, that were not taken to task by the CW boys club.

- Harold Larwood is not good enough for an England ATXI

- Barry Richard's not good to open nor is Mike Procter to be an all-rounder in S Africa ATXI

- Craig White is a similar bits and pieces all-rounder to Stuart Binny

- AB De Villiers keeping skills is on the same level as Rahul Dravid, Jimmy Maher or even 1980s AUS keeper Wayne Phillips

- The early to mid 2000s era did actually have good fast bowlers in abundance and pitches were not flat.

- Waqar Younis was still a "top notch" test bowler in 1999

- Players who didn't have to play against their own team mates in test cricket is an issue. Thus Sunil Gavaskar & Greg Chappell should be rated ahead of Viv Richards because Viv didn't have to face the windies 4-prong. Kallis or Dravid over Ponting as a pure because he didn't have to face McGrath/Warne and co...

- VVS laxman was only a good batsman at # 5 or 6

- Gilchrist peaked ended for some reason after the AUS hosted Sri Lanka in 2004

- Denesh Karthik is in consideration as a keeper option for the India ATXI

- Chamdina Vaas batting @ # 7 in a SRI ATXI is logical

 

[aussie]

I'm not sure why aussie is getting so much flak for saying Wasim and Waqar were past their primes in Tests after 98/99.. it's pretty obvious.

boss you only join this site in 2014, you gonna learn that such things ain't obvious in these neck of the woods.

 

[harsh.ag]

Top notch no. Good is a better term, especially Wasim's case I can accept one saying that about him maybe up to 2000 - but he definitely was a spent by 2001. But certainly not Waqar by 1999, PAK was regularly leaving him out of tests during that period in favour of Shoaib, Mohammad Zahid, Mohammad Akram for eg. He was a spent force as test bowler after 1998.

The same thing happened when PAK toured ENG in 2001 - 1st test @ Lords - Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Mahmood/Razzaq plays - looks ***y on paper, but are way below par - 1st Test: England v Pakistan at Lord's, May 17-20, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Next test @ OT, Saqlain comes in & his presence lifts attack as PAK won test to level serries

You are saying the attack wasn't good because it didn't perform well. Do you not see the flaw in this reasoning?

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm not sure why aussie is getting so much flak for saying Wasim and Waqar were past their primes in Tests after 98/99.. it's pretty obvious.

No, he's copping flak for constantly posting like a dickhead.

Case in point

boss you only join this site in 2014, you gonna learn that such things ain't obvious in these neck of the woods.

**** off then.

I've seen a dozen posts exactly like this rammel despite making an ongoing effort not to read your posts. I'm sick of being implicitly insulted in each one. And when it's not sweeping bull**** like the above, it's a complete failure to talk to anyone without a 'ha' or 'lol' or other condesceding bullcrap. You've been incapable of posts where you didn't go out of your way to maximise absolute twattishness towards someone you're supposed to be having a discussion with.

If you're here to pick a fight, you're going the right way about it. If you want to have a discussion, treat people and the site with a modicum of respect. If you have no interest in that, I reiterate, **** off.

 

[harsh.ag]

So in summary while majority take issue with how I judge Gilchrist's career, Sangakkara career and glove-work & Stewart's career - let's recap equally controversial or other POV's that I consider ridiculous which were highlighted by other members, that were not taken to task by the CW boys club.

- Harold Larwood is not good enough for an England ATXI

- Barry Richard's not good to open nor is Mike Procter to be an all-rounder in S Africa ATXI

- Craig White is a similar bits and pieces all-rounder to Stuart Binny

- AB De Villiers keeping skills is on the same level as Rahul Dravid, Jimmy Maher or even 1980s AUS keeper Wayne Phillips

- The early to mid 2000s era did actually have good fast bowlers in abundance and pitches were not flat.

- Waqar Younis was still a "top notch" test bowler in 1999

- Players who didn't have to play against their own team mates in test cricket is an issue. Thus Sunil Gavaskar & Greg Chappell should be rated ahead of Viv Richards because Viv didn't have to face the windies 4-prong. Kallis or Dravid over Ponting as a pure because he didn't have to face McGrath/Warne and co...

- VVS laxman was only a good batsman at # 5 or 6

- Gilchrist peaked ended for some reason after the AUS hosted Sri Lanka in 2004

- Denesh Karthik is in consideration as a keeper option for the India ATXI

- Chamdina Vaas batting @ # 7 in a SRI ATXI is logical

Okay, with this piece of rubbish mocking a lot of nuance that's been said (including by me), you have earned, from me personally, a nice big "**** off". No more replies. Would be glad if you never came back here.

 

[aussie]

No, he's copping flak for constantly posting like a dickhead.

Case in point



**** off then.

I've seen a dozen posts exactly like this rammel despite making an ongoing effort not to read your posts. I'm sick of being implicitly insulted in each one. And when it's not sweeping bull**** like the above, it's a complete failure to talk to anyone without a 'ha' or 'lol' or other condesceding bullcrap. You've been incapable of posts where you didn't go out of your way to maximise absolute twattishness towards someone you're supposed to be having a discussion with.

If you're here to pick a fight, you're going the right way about it. If you want to have a discussion, treat people and the site with a modicum of respect. If you have no interest in that, I reiterate, **** off.

Haha, case in point - when I was called a racist out of nowhere earlier this thread, nobody said anything - the post was liked. Now I threw a little sly remark back you want unleash all the built up anger over someone on the internet you never met - total bias.

 

[aussie]

You are saying the attack wasn't good because it didn't perform well. Do you not see the flaw in this reasoning?

No I'm saying those PAK bowlers were not good long before those tours & their struggles as a pace bowling group in AUS 99 & ENG 2001 simply proves it

 

[aussie]

Okay, with this piece of rubbish mocking a lot of nuance that's been said (including by me), you have earned, from me personally, a nice big "**** off". No more replies. Would be glad if you never came back here.

I'm saying others hearing who behaving like what I said above Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Stewart is the biggest shocking cricket logic they have ever heard - need to be consistent with their criticism of different cricket views that is admittedly outside the norm. Don't jump down on me only because of whatever personal views regarding myself and grudges going back almost 10 years & not attack other posters for making same assessments - simply because you are friendly with them. That is essentially what is going on here.

 

[Burner]

Nice piss-fest you got here, guys...Really enjoying it.

 

[marc71178]

boss you only join this site in 2014, you gonna learn that such things ain't obvious in these neck of the woods.

If this neck of the woods is so bad, you're welcome to leave.

 

[aussie]

If this neck of the woods is so bad, you're welcome to leave.

Says the man who called me a racist in a cricket discussion.

 

[Red]

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.

If you don't want to rate a match winning 149* scored in the fourth innings against Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib and Saqlain....ok....

You can only play against what is put in front of you.