Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[AndyZaltzHair]

Got to respect Aussie's trolling/posting to an extent. I haven't really been following but I assume Aussie is talking **** and ***** just getting pissed off by it but if you were to just judge from the last few pages/posts then Aussie is the one who's posts look mature and have a sensible vibe where as ***** just went full on insults so points to Aussie on this one I'd have to say.

Aussie's insults are inside 1000 words of 3/4 bs paragraphs. It's not as out and out but it's there

 

[harsh.ag]

Lol @ *****. Tries to get aussie banned. Gets banned himself. Well done.

***** is the hero CW deserves, but not the one it needs right now

 

[The Sean]

Gutted about this. ***** is responsible for about 98% of my likes. I feel good about my posting almost exclusively thanks to him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're all just flat track bullies. The next week (is that how long ***** is banned?) will separate the cream of the crop from minnow bashers who pad up their like stats with zoraxii.

 

[harsh.ag]

You're all just flat track bullies. The next week (is that how long ***** is banned?) will separate the cream of the crop from minnow bashers who pad up their like stats with zoraxii.

Please, all I need to do is change tack for a week and garner a zillion likes by aussie

 

[sledger]

This thread is ****ing ****.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So did we ever decide who the greatest keeper batsman was?

Knott?

 

[Victor Ian]

Allow me to weave a bit of bullcrap.

I have never seen Knott play so, stats aside, my knowledge of him is all imagination, where he is an amazing keeper and a solid batsman. Based on prevailing views, it seems clear that Knott was the better keeper and Gilchrist was the better batsman. How much better does Knott have to be to edge out Gilchrist? There would be a balance somewhere, where the chance that Gilchrist fluffs and loses a game equals the chance that he plays one of those innings that wins the game. In my mind, Gilchrist is at about that parity.

In an all time team, full of great bowlers, he can only play against the second all time team, full of less great batsmen. So this attack would be creating more chances than normal. Therefore, I think Gilchrist would fall on the side of his batting winning more games than his missed chances lose them, as the better bowling lessens this effect. In Knott's case, being in the All Time 11 and playing against a second 11, his batting would be solid, but not match winning, while the amount of chances created by bowlers would dilute the reward for his great keeping skills. I think his net effect is less in the all time great team. He is better placed being in the second 11, where his solid batting would be more effective against the all time 11 bowlers, and his better keeping would help make sure his lesser bowlers had their chances of missed wickets minimised.

For this particular moment, I guess I am thinking that with better bowlers than batsmen, take Gilchrist. With a team of better batsmen than bowlers, take Knott. If you can't decide which role is better, then who cares?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Allow me to weave a bit of bullcrap.

I have never seen Knott play so, stats aside, my knowledge of him is all imagination, where he is an amazing keeper and a solid batsman. Based on prevailing views, it seems clear that Knott was the better keeper and Gilchrist was the better batsman. How much better does Knott have to be to edge out Gilchrist? There would be a balance somewhere, where the chance that Gilchrist fluffs and loses a game equals the chance that he plays one of those innings that wins the game. In my mind, Gilchrist is at about that parity.

In an all time team, full of great bowlers, he can only play against the second all time team, full of less great batsmen. So this attack would be creating more chances than normal. Therefore, I think Gilchrist would fall on the side of his batting winning more games than his missed chances lose them, as the better bowling lessens this effect. In Knott's case, being in the All Time 11 and playing against a second 11, his batting would be solid, but not match winning, while the amount of chances created by bowlers would dilute the reward for his great keeping skills. I think his net effect is less in the all time great team. He is better placed being in the second 11, where his solid batting would be more effective against the all time 11 bowlers, and his better keeping would help make sure his lesser bowlers had their chances of missed wickets minimised.

For this particular moment, I guess I am thinking that with better bowlers than batsmen, take Gilchrist. With a team of better batsmen than bowlers, take Knott. If you can't decide which role is better, then who cares?

Yeah I was joking. Knott wouldn't even be close.

Gilchrist relatively comfortable for mine

 

[aussie]

Allow me to weave a bit of bullcrap.

I have never seen Knott play so, stats aside, my knowledge of him is all imagination, where he is an amazing keeper and a solid batsman. Based on prevailing views, it seems clear that Knott was the better keeper and Gilchrist was the better batsman. How much better does Knott have to be to edge out Gilchrist? There would be a balance somewhere, where the chance that Gilchrist fluffs and loses a game equals the chance that he plays one of those innings that wins the game. In my mind, Gilchrist is at about that parity.

In an all time team, full of great bowlers, he can only play against the second all time team, full of less great batsmen. So this attack would be creating more chances than normal. Therefore, I think Gilchrist would fall on the side of his batting winning more games than his missed chances lose them, as the better bowling lessens this effect. In Knott's case, being in the All Time 11 and playing against a second 11, his batting would be solid, but not match winning, while the amount of chances created by bowlers would dilute the reward for his great keeping skills. I think his net effect is less in the all time great team. He is better placed being in the second 11, where his solid batting would be more effective against the all time 11 bowlers, and his better keeping would help make sure his lesser bowlers had their chances of missed wickets minimised.

For this particular moment, I guess I am thinking that with better bowlers than batsmen, take Gilchrist. With a team of better batsmen than bowlers, take Knott. If you can't decide which role is better, then who cares?

In the ATXI main XI or second XI, you would put together two very strong teams & just for the sake of point you make I'll pick Gilchrist in 2nd XI (I lean towards Sanga or Godfrey Evans pending team balance):

ATXI: Gavaskar, Hutton, Bradman, Tendy, Viv, Sir Gary, Knott, Wasim, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Second XI (lots of competition): Hobbs/Greenidge, B Richards, Lara, G Chappell, G Pollock, Botham/Miller/Kallis, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Murali, Trueman/Donald/Ambrose/Lindwall/McGrath/Waqar/Steyn

So its a bit unfair & OTT to suggest that second XI would have less than first XI in serious way in any area - that is too very evenly matched teams. A lot of those second XI have cases to be in main XI, its just very marginal career factors tipped the scales in favour of other players in front of them.


The tipping point for Gilchrist over Knott in ATXI 1st team was playing those match winnings innings at a 55 average. Of course this is my POV so don't have to go over it, well since he did not average 55 vs top pace attacks (averaged around 31 vs top spin attacks) - his value goes down.

Thus you are better going for Knott in main XI. You accept he the obvious better keeper & for me he would win/contribute to winning game too with the bat - just in less dynamic way that Gilchrist would. But would be more competent overall vs top pace attacks.

 

[Malleeboy]

I have always had the impression that Aussie's favour lower order batsman who can score quickly, more so then other countries. Top order guys can take some time, but lower order should got on with it or get out.
A 7or8 who scores 60 80 but takes 3 hours and means that the game is drawn.is not necessarily valued as quick 40-50 that leaves you time to win.
Gilchrist strike rate is a huge advantage for a team seeking to win, especially a strong team, out to win if at all possible and eschews dour draws.
Secondly, I also believe that a ATG national team would generally beat of composite international ATG team. Certainly IMHO any of Aus, Eng WI ATG teams would beat intl ATG team.
Therefore the greatest ATG team is a national based not a composite team.
My personal view is that Aus ATG would be number 1 ATG team, given Australia's longevity in world cricket and dominance over teams.
Gilchrist is Aus ATG keeper/batsman and therefore would be best choice for the strongest ATG (Aus).

 

[Furball]

Not just Australians. I'd want my ideal number 7-8 "sort of proper batsman" to be a quick scorer. It's why I'd prefer Kapil Dev the batsman over Imran Khan the batsman. I reckon the ability to score quickfire troll runs is likely to be more useful than the ability to last a lot of deliveries.

 

[Red]

Secondly, I also believe that a ATG national team would generally beat of composite international ATG team. Certainly IMHO any of Aus, Eng WI ATG teams would beat intl ATG team.
.

It makes no sense to think that limiting the pool of players you can select from to each country will make a stronger team than being able to select anyone in a composite team

 

[Prince EWS]

Not just Australians. I'd want my ideal number 7-8 "sort of proper batsman" to be a quick scorer. It's why I'd prefer Kapil Dev the batsman over Imran Khan the batsman. I reckon the ability to score quickfire troll runs is likely to be more useful than the ability to last a lot of deliveries.

I think this about #7 batsmen but not #8 batsmen. I want my #8 batsman to support whichever of the top seven are still in and ensure they don't get stranded.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have always had the impression that Aussie's favour lower order batsman who can score quickly, more so then other countries. Top order guys can take some time, but lower order should got on with it or get out.
A 7or8 who scores 60 80 but takes 3 hours and means that the game is drawn.is not necessarily valued as quick 40-50 that leaves you time to win.
Gilchrist strike rate is a huge advantage for a team seeking to win, especially a strong team, out to win if at all possible and eschews dour draws.
Secondly, I also believe that a ATG national team would generally beat of composite international ATG team. Certainly IMHO any of Aus, Eng WI ATG teams would beat intl ATG team.
Therefore the greatest ATG team is a national based not a composite team.
My personal view is that Aus ATG would be number 1 ATG team, given Australia's longevity in world cricket and dominance over teams.
Gilchrist is Aus ATG keeper/batsman and therefore would be best choice for the strongest ATG (Aus).

That's a really good point

Don't really agree with the "all from one country" theory, but I can see why someone might go that way (ie. they would play better as a team?)

 

[G.I.Joe]

"all from one country" doesn't really matter in the context of societies changing character over time.

 

[aussie]

I have always had the impression that Aussie's favour lower order batsman who can score quickly, more so then other countries. Top order guys can take some time, but lower order should got on with it or get out.
A 7or8 who scores 60 80 but takes 3 hours and means that the game is drawn.is not necessarily valued as quick 40-50 that leaves you time to win.
Gilchrist strike rate is a huge advantage for a team seeking to win, especially a strong team, out to win if at all possible and eschews dour draws.
Secondly, I also believe that a ATG national team would generally beat of composite international ATG team. Certainly IMHO any of Aus, Eng WI ATG teams would beat intl ATG team.
Therefore the greatest ATG team is a national based not a composite team.
My personal view is that Aus ATG would be number 1 ATG team, given Australia's longevity in world cricket and dominance over teams.
Gilchrist is Aus ATG keeper/batsman and therefore would be best choice for the strongest ATG (Aus).

Well if you adding up all of the great AUS test of test history in 95-2006, Chappell's 72-76 team, Bradman's 48 invincible's then they are have clearly had the most periods of any team in history as the dominant team.

But i tend towards giving West Indies a slightest of edges because when you put together their ATXI based on players from the invincible 76-91 period & 63-68 - plus throw in George Headley - that team looks unbelievable especially considering the 4 fast bowlers presence.

 

[Furball]

I think this about #7 batsmen but not #8 batsmen. I want my #8 batsman to support whichever of the top seven are still in and ensure they don't get stranded.

I definitely want a blocker somewhere as well but I think a dasher at 8 is more likely to be useful.

 

[Malleeboy]

It makes no sense to think that limiting the pool of players you can select from to each country will make a stronger team than being able to select anyone in a composite team

Look at the Aus v Rest of World, RoW were woeful, their individual brillance on a paper ability didn't match Aus team in either 1 day or test.
As the saying goes, "A champion team will be beat a team of champions"
Any composite group wihtout some sort of cohesive glue will fall apart quickly IMHO.

 

[Dan]

Well if you adding up all of the great AUS test of test history in 95-2006, Chappell's 72-76 team, Bradman's 48 invincible's then they are have clearly had the most periods of any team in history as the dominant team.

But i tend towards giving West Indies a slightest of edges because when you put together their ATXI based on players from the invincible 76-91 period & 63-68 - plus throw in George Headley - that team looks unbelievable especially considering the 4 fast bowlers presence.

If Bradman didn't exist, the playing field levels a lot. But Bradman did exist, which gives Australia a ridiculous advantage.