Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Victor Ian]

No Sanga scored runs in the FTB area vs joke attacks & roads, along with the post current FTB since 2005/06 vs more good pace attacks.

Plus the majority of 2005/06 period - Sanga didn't even begin to peak as a batsman yet.

Ha! I see your nonsense and I raise you an absurd.

"But Gilchrist scored runs in the FTB area vs joke attack & roads and he also scored runs post after following current now FTB since 2005/6 vs more good attacks.

Plus the majority of the 2005/6+ period Gilchrist didn't even continue to peak as a batsman yet."

Can you address how this period can be considered the period of better bowling when the statistics show that batting averages have continue to increase. How is that possible?

 

[Pratters]

Barry Richards still opening in S Africa all-time XI, still illogical for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB7P7rg8u4

 

[aussie]

In that series, yes. His batting was exquisite.

No Rahul Dravid was not as his peak in that 2011 series, he was long past his peak by that series any fair Indian fan would tell post 2007/08 - Dravid was longer the "great wall" anymore - just as many members of India big 4 middle-order were in decline.

He just summed one last moment of his greatness in that 2011 series, similar to Gordon Greenidge scoring 226 in his penultimate test in 1991 or what Akram did at times post 1997.

 

[aussie]

Ha! I see your nonsense and I raise you an absurd.

"But Gilchrist scored runs in the FTB area vs joke attack & roads and he also scored runs post after following current now FTB since 2005/6 vs more good attacks.

Plus the majority of the 2005/6+ period Gilchrist didn't even continue to peak as a batsman yet."

Can you address how this period can be considered the period of better bowling when the statistics show that batting averages have continue to increase. How is that possible?

Are you trying to serious say based on your understanding of cricket during that 2000-2010 period when batting averages increased, that the entire 10 years was filled poor pace attacks?

 

[Victor Ian]

Are you trying to serious say based on your understanding of cricket during that 2000-2010 period when batting averages increased, that the entire 10 years was filled poor pace attacks?

Ha. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! You are not Socrates so perhaps you might try to stop answering questions with questions.

As for your point, you have consistently stated that up until 2005 the bowlers lacked skill and that pitches were roads, and then, since this period, that bowlers became better and pitches got better. So I am asking how do you explain that the average for the period of terrible bowlers has a batting average nearly 1 and a half runs less than the period filled with better bowlers? For the sake of clarity, I removed Australia from the pre-2005 figures so McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee are not the reason.

But don't answer. Let me do that for you. It is possible that Gilchrist had to bat against a much better second tier of bowlers than batsmen in the second half of the decade. In this case, stats are damning. Gilchrist earned his runs fairly. Until age conspired to bring him down, he was a keeper batsman without peer.

 

[aussie]

Ha. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! You are not Socrates so perhaps you might try to stop answering questions with questions.

As for your point, you have consistently stated that up until 2005 the bowlers lacked skill and that pitches were roads, and then, since this period, that bowlers became better and pitches got better. So I am asking how do you explain that the average for the period of terrible bowlers has a batting average nearly 1 and a half runs less than the period filled with better bowlers? For the sake of clarity, I removed Australia from the pre-2005 figures so McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee are not the reason.

But don't answer. Let me do that for you. It is possible that Gilchrist had to bat against a much better second tier of bowlers than batsmen in the second half of the decade. In this case, stats are damning. Gilchrist earned his runs fairly. Until age conspired to bring him down, he was a keeper batsman without peer.

I never said pitches got better, we still have many similar roads in many places worldwide since 2005. Its just more better bowlers/bowling groups such a Steyn, Ntini, Morkel, Anderson, Broad, Johnson, Harris, Starc, Boult, Southee, Zaheer, Philander, Asif, Wahad, Aamir, Roach, Taylor etc emerged or started to peak after 2005/06 & were better at bowling on flat pitches and using pacer friendly conditions better.

Also I have never seen a stat that suggested what you are asking in bold done anywhere. Unless you are saying you did a stats break down of the 2005-2010 period & that's what you found - feel free to show me - only then can I accurately respond.

Because the point you made in final paragraph that " It is possible that Gilchrist had to bat against a much better second tier of bowlers than batsmen in the second half of the decade" certainly isn't in tune with reality of what existed from 2005-2010 vs 2000-2005.

 

[Victor Ian]

Nice list of bowlers. What about Panasar, Gul, Bravo, Gayle, Rafique, Boje, Giles, etc, etc. As you can see, selective lists of names don't really tell you much.

As it turns out, I did do a stats breakdown for the numbers I stated.

Span Ave RPO
2005-2010 34.95 3.33

Span Ave RPO
2000-2005 33.49 3.10

As for those batting averages, extras aside, they are the bowling averages too. The bowlers in the second 5 year bracket as a combined force....well, they're worse. As just demonstrated, my statement about Gilchrist is in tune with the evidence of reality.

Just to make sure, I took the bowling averages of those bowlers you listed for the period 2005-2015 and compared them to bowlers who were all in decline or yet to hit their straps from 2000 to 2005.

Overall figures
Anderson Broad Harris Johnson Khan Morkel Ntini Philander Steyn
Span Ave RPO
2005-2015 34.94 3.28

Flintoff Singh Hoggard Kumble Muralitharan Ntini Pollock Younis
Span Ave RPO
2000-2004 33.45 3.08

I left out some bowlers such as Walsh who averaged 19 in this period and Aktar who averaged 20. The point is, that naming a handful of bowlers tells you nothing, or if it does, it tells you that your theory needs some work.

Now you can respond.

 

[cnerd123]

Aussie's 'Logic' has been turned against him.

Expect him to attempt to point out all the fallacies being made while convniently ignoring his own.

 

[Victor Ian]

Aussie has made a point that I am interested in. He said that Gilchrist was found out, circa 2005 and was never able to recover. Whether this is true or not, what I take from this is that in picking an all time great team, do I pick a player who has been found out. Of all the great players a number of them would have gone into retirement having not successfully countered a certain tactic that has been found to work against them. Let's just say that Aussie is right (This is hypothetical - Aussie is rarely right). Do I pick Gilly in my team presuming Lillee, Marshall, Barnes and Akram know of his weakness, or do I presume these bowlers do not know of his weakness as they never played against him, nor in his era? When picking Gilchrist, based on his best form, am I able to conveniently pretend that know one yet knows of the right way to play against him? Do I assume that given eternal youth, he would have countered this, just as he countered all the other tactics thrown at him during his heyday? I'm sure all batsmen have a weakness and that many may have never been found out yet, but the weakness would be there just the same. Can I really say Bradman has no weakness? Or is the truth that he has does have one, only that it was never found out? For all his fallacies, this is the question that Aussie has indirectly raised that has given me much to think about.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I've seen that argument made before, but in favour of longevity. A lot of people have a tendency to penalise a player for a slump at the end of their career, which to me (and a lot of members on CW) is quite unfair. By saying a player is poorer overall for having struggled at the end of their career, you are essentially rewarding players who retired at the top of their game. But is it really more valuable to have reached your peak and retire, not being 'found out' or succumbing to age, that it is to play on through such struggles and still perform to a decent standard?

This leads to another question - should poor performances at the start or end of a player's career take away from the brilliance achieved during it? Would Sachin Tendulkar be a lesser batsman had he still been playing on today, averaging in the mid 20s? Should his end of career struggles take away from what he accomplished at his peak?

Similarly, had Gilchrist retired before that post-2005 slump, would Aussie really be saying that he was technically flawed, given that he would have never been 'found out'?

 

[aussie]

Nice list of bowlers. What about Panasar, Gul, Bravo, Gayle, Rafique, Boje, Giles, etc, etc. As you can see, selective lists of names don't really tell you much.

As it turns out, I did do a stats breakdown for the numbers I stated.

Span Ave RPO
2005-2010 34.95 3.33

Span Ave RPO
2000-2005 33.49 3.10

As for those batting averages, extras aside, they are the bowling averages too. The bowlers in the second 5 year bracket as a combined force....well, they're worse. As just demonstrated, my statement about Gilchrist is in tune with the evidence of reality.

Just to make sure, I took the bowling averages of those bowlers you listed for the period 2005-2015 and compared them to bowlers who were all in decline or yet to hit their straps from 2000 to 2005.

Overall figures
Anderson Broad Harris Johnson Khan Morkel Ntini Philander Steyn
Span Ave RPO
2005-2015 34.94 3.28

Flintoff Singh Hoggard Kumble Muralitharan Ntini Pollock Younis
Span Ave RPO
2000-2004 33.45 3.08

I left out some bowlers such as Walsh who averaged 19 in this period and Aktar who averaged 20. The point is, that naming a handful of bowlers tells you nothing, or if it does, it tells you that your theory needs some work.

Now you can respond.

Ok its interesting that the stats show this, based on what you found. No doubting you, will eventually check it out for myself.

I would want to call it a odd statistical anomaly because of my head i can remember worse second tier bowlers from the 2000-2005 period such of Ed Giddins, V Raju, Iqbal Siddiqui, Martin Saggers, Chris Drum, Franklin, Adam Sanford, Bahutule, Marlon Black, D Mohanty, M Sami (PAK), James Ormond, K Lokorachi, Dillon, Cameron Cuffy, P Gunaratne, D Pretorious, M Zondeki, Kirtley, Jon Lewis, all bangladesh bowlers who were just as bad or worse

At the end of the day while better bowlers began to emerge post 2005, there is reason why the entire 2000-2010 is generally refereed to as worse since 1930s and post WW2.

So maybe its a case that despite better pace bowlers/bowling groups, guys peaking who debuted/started pre-2005, emerging post 2005 - the general amount of bad stuff throughout the decade didn't register much in the stats (pending my checks)

Overall the veracity of this breakdown doesn't really go against my point, that the actual non existence of quality pace attacks from PAK 1999 - to NZ 2005 that Gilly dominated, were incomparable to actual very good Ashes 2005 & S Africa 2005/06 who found his weakness, kept attacking it and he never adjusted until retirement

That had nothing to with his age, people just throwing that out their baseless. In March 2005 at age 34 when Gilchrist had finished killing NZ to a series high average of 171 or something, he was looking as fresh & supremely dominant as ever & the awe factor of him being this unreal cricketer, they way people speaking about De Villiers now was the talk.

Aussie has made a point that I am interested in. He said that Gilchrist was found out, circa 2005 and was never able to recover. Whether this is true or not, what I take from this is that in picking an all time great team, do I pick a player who has been found out. Of all the great players a number of them would have gone into retirement having not successfully countered a certain tactic that has been found to work against them. Let's just say that Aussie is right (This is hypothetical - Aussie is rarely right). Do I pick Gilly in my team presuming Lillee, Marshall, Barnes and Akram know of his weakness, or do I presume these bowlers do not know of his weakness as they never played against him, nor in his era? When picking Gilchrist, based on his best form, am I able to conveniently pretend that know one yet knows of the right way to play against him? Do I assume that given eternal youth, he would have countered this, just as he countered all the other tactics thrown at him during his heyday? I'm sure all batsmen have a weakness and that many may have never been found out yet, but the weakness would be there just the same. Can I really say Bradman has no weakness? Or is the truth that he has does have one, only that it was never found out? For all his fallacies, this is the question that Aussie has indirectly raised that has given me much to think about.

I don't know of a batsman in test history that was found out similar to Gilchrist & got a chance to play until retirement as I type right now & really think. Most such players if it happens at the end or mid career were dropped, instead of getting chance to last until retirement with that know weakness they couldn't overcome.

While they were many players who battled through their careers after the whole world of good bowlers found a weakness & cemented their greatness by still being able to score runs in response to it.

If I'm picking a ATXI to face other teams, for me you picking all players when they were at the peak of their powers. Hell you stretching imagination a bit too and even suggesting you picking them at certain specific ages of their lives - there lovely questions once once asked in Gideon Haigh article years ago: All-time World XI: Gideon Haigh on all-time XIs | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

So in a case like Gilchrist, the way to get him out is already know, so a hypothetical ATG attacks already know what to do. You compare him to somebody like Lara who AUS found a way to get out with the around the wicket tactic in 1995. A ATG pace attack would certainly target it, but as Lara showed in his career he is more likely to survive it and make runs versus such bowling than Gilchrist would.

 

[aussie]

Yea I've seen that argument made before, but in favour of longevity. A lot of people have a tendency to penalise a player for a slump at the end of their career, which to me (and a lot of members on CW) is quite unfair. By saying a player is poorer overall for having struggled at the end of their career, you are essentially rewarding players who retired at the top of their game. But is it really more valuable to have reached your peak and retire, not being 'found out' or succumbing to age, that it is to play on through such struggles and still perform to a decent standard?

This leads to another question - should poor performances at the start or end of a player's career take away from the brilliance achieved during it? Would Sachin Tendulkar be a lesser batsman had he still been playing on today, averaging in the mid 20s? Should his end of career struggles take away from what he accomplished at his peak?

Similarly, had Gilchrist retired before that post-2005 slump, would Aussie really be saying that he was technically flawed, given that he would have never been 'found out'?

Of course it wouldn't be taken away, you judge everyone's career in context & when you are considering them for a ATXI - its from their performances at their peak whether in Tendulkar's case you want him at his youthful gold 19902-2002 peak or old gold 2007-2011 peak. His tennis elbow 2002-2007 & late career post 2011 slump will be ignored.

And regarding Gilchrist that question was asked before & I said if he had actually retired before Ashes 2005 magically - we indeed would have never seen him struggle or exposed the way he was. At best given how other players of the decade such a Graeme Smith, Sehwag, Hayden, Sangakkara, Jaywardene, Samaraweera, Younis Khan, M Yousuf, C'Paul, Gambhir etc etc who plundered runs during the FTB 2000-2005 era either failed or adjusted well to the improved quality pace bowling post 2005 - we would just be left wondering if Gilly would have prospered or struggled.

 

[Dan]

Span Ave RPO
2005-2010 34.95 3.33

Span Ave RPO
2000-2005 33.49 3.10

As for those batting averages, extras aside, they are the bowling averages too. The bowlers in the second 5 year bracket as a combined force....well, they're worse. As just demonstrated, my statement about Gilchrist is in tune with the evidence of reality.

tbf, probably worthwhile running those stats again with #1-8 in the order only. Improvements to tail-end batting probably contribute quite significantly to that difference (i.e. I'd expect the statistical output of actual batsmen to have remained relatively static, while the bowlers have improved at playing properly with the bat)

 

[Victor Ian]

tbf, probably worthwhile running those stats again with #1-8 in the order only. Improvements to tail-end batting probably contribute quite significantly to that difference (i.e. I'd expect the statistical output of actual batsmen to have remained relatively static, while the bowlers have improved at playing properly with the bat)

Good point. Sadly, I had already overextended my statsguru usage to generate the last bit. I just tried to limit it to batsmen 1-8 but this option did not seem to work in aggregate/overall options and I am too lazy to output the list of batsmen and then sum and average those results. If anyone else has the capabilities to do this, I'd much appreciate it.

Aussie is all erudite again today. I must admit, I quite like the erudite version.

 

[cnerd123]

I would want to call it a odd statistical anomaly

Of course you would

Its not possible that you could, y'know, be wrong?

 

[cnerd123]

And regarding Gilchrist that question was asked before & I said if he had actually retired before Ashes 2005 magically - we indeed would have never seen him struggle or exposed the way he was. At best given how other players of the decade such a Graeme Smith, Sehwag, Hayden, Sangakkara, Jaywardene, Samaraweera, Younis Khan, M Yousuf, C'Paul, Gambhir etc etc who plundered runs during the FTB 2000-2005 era either failed or adjusted well to the improved quality pace bowling post 2005 - we would just be left wondering if Gilly would have prospered or struggled.

So based off this logic, you are either claiming every batsman who scored bulk of their runs between 2000-2005 is no good -which is ridiculous- or are saying that every succesful batsman ever was just waiting to be found out, and a guy like Bradman was basically lucky that his career ended before his flaws could be exposed...which is equally ridiculous.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea okay read Aussie's essay - the TLDR is that apparently Gilchrist's flaw was that he never developed a technique to counter bowling that (Aussie claims) he never faced, and that his 'finding out' happened during is natural decline as a cricketer anyways, and as such he isn't an ATG cricketer.

Love this new standard being set here - batsmen must develop techniques to score runs aginst bowling attacks they aren't facing, rather than to score runs against the actual bowlers bowling at them.

 

[Victor Ian]

Don't forget that he says Akram's great innings in his decline period are just aberrations, yet Gilchrist's series against New Zealand is not an aberration. I partly accept that Gilchrist had a flaw in his technique exposed. I just don't accept that it was not his age and diminishing skills that made it ongoing. Further, I'd suggest Gilchrist was unlucky to be such a good wicket keeper. If he were not the best choice for keeper he may have had his career ended earlier and not had people question his batting career so much.

I have been looking at Gilchrist's keeping feats - at least what I can garner statistically. Gilchrist has the highest dismissals per innings of all the keepers with more than 100 dismissals. More than Healy. Much more than Knott. Even Sangakkara has more than Knott, though not much. Knott had some decent spinners to keep to yet only managed half as many stumpings as Gilchrist. I'm not trying to say Gilchrist was a better keeper than Knott as I have seen most people who have seen them both say Knott was better without much doubt. So this got me wondering about how do we rate a keeper's ability. I'd hazard a guess that people will say Gilchrist was fortunate to be keeping to McGrath, Warne and Co. Yet none of the West Indian keepers were near him during their dominance. I do not know who Knott kept to, but I believe the English attack was quite good during his era. The attack must have at least been the equal to what Healy kept too and he is also a long way ahead of Knott. Anyone care to steer this debate into an analysis of the keeping aspect, seeing as the batting aspect as been done to death?

How does one rate a keeper considering there seems to be no information regarding extras let through against their names. It seems the only metric is dismissals. Does this leave keeping as the only area of cricket where statistics really tell you nothing?

 

[cnerd123]

Keeping is too subjective I reckon. Stats are an almost meaningless measure. Not all bowlers end up with the same % of dismissals stumped or caught behind the wicket, simply as a result of varying MOs. You cant hold it against a keeper for not taking a lot of catches if his bowlers bowl to hit the pads and stumps.

Drop % and byes conceded might give a better picture, but there will be keepers who drop catches that others wouldnt event attempt, and those who have to keep to very erratic attacks.

I dont think any method of rating keeping/fielding ability accurately has been devised yet.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know of a batsman in test history that was found out similar to Gilchrist & got a chance to play until retirement as I type right now & really think. Most such players if it happens at the end or mid career were dropped, instead of getting chance to last until retirement with that know weakness they couldn't overcome.

how can you possibly actually think this is a thing

There is no hope for you