***Official*** Australia in South Africa + South Africa in Australia 2016/17

[AndyZaltzHair]

Greatest ever vs talented novice

Like comparing McGrath with Rabada

Let me remind everyone that before the last test, SA were regarded as complete rubbish

McGrath never bowled Rabada's pace tbf. Anyways there are obvious similarities to de kock and gilchrist. I think nobody is saying that de kock reached Gilchrist level and hes an ATG but signs are there. Whats wrong in that? Dont see why people get so defensive when a player is being compared to other ATGs. Its not like comparing de kock all of a sudden. It's because it looks like he has all the ingredients in him. It's through his performance. And this does not demean Gilchrist a bit.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah on technical grounds, the comparison isn't too bad I reckon. QdK is smashing it right now too, seems like a ton is nailed on every time he comes out to bat.

But Gilchrist's Test average basically didn't dip below 50 until very late in his career. Bloke was a beast and one of the better bats in the world for a while, let alone 'keeper bats. It'll be ****ing great for South Africa if he gets anywhere near that long-term performance and, frankly, I hope he does because he's great to watch.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

dekock is currently averaging 51.42. I think we need more genuine threads like de kock average watch thread than the random Voges average rubbish thread

 

[CapeTown Guy]

I get the comparison but it just feels odd to compare a guy who completely revolutionised the way the game was played (I know others contributed before anyone points it out) and one who has 2 Test centuries, albeit is an aggressive, free-scoring LH WK.

If that was the only reason then perhaps yes. QdK was already been spoken of as the 'next Gilchrist' before he made his Test debut, so you have to take his ODI performances into account.

Gilchrist finished with 16 ODI tons (yes I know he scored one in the WC final, among others), but QdK already has 11! in 69 matches. Frankly that is an obscene conversion rate.

 

[Top_Cat]

devkock is currently averaging 51.42. I think we need more genuine threads like de kock aberage watch thread than the random Voges average rubbish thread

Actually that's a great idea. Should have the capability to replace threads of guys who are shitting it.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Talking about Gilchrist and the other day Black_Warrior mentioning, I watched this innings, What a knock.

[video=youtube_share;5m_GikAlP9o]5m_GikAlP9o[/video]

 

[Heboric]

The problem with de Kock is that he is not from the Big 3.

Players are put on pedestals quicker from that group. There is almost some mysterious factor nobody can quantify..

 

[Slifer]

If that was the only reason then perhaps yes. QdK was already been spoken of as the 'next Gilchrist' before he made his Test debut, so you have to take his ODI performances into account.

Gilchrist finished with 16 ODI tons (yes I know he scored one in the WC final, among others), but QdK already has 11! in 69 matches. Frankly that is an obscene conversion rate.

Really?? 11 tons in 69 odi matches, that is outstanding. Forget Gilly, that's already more than arguably the goat odi player, Sir Viv.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The problem with de Kock is that he is not from the Big 3.

Players are put on pedestals quicker from that group. There is almost some mysterious factor nobody can quantify..

To be fair Rabada has been pumped up more than any other young bowler in the last few years too so it a bit unfair to say the big 3 get all the attention.

My view on QDK was that he must have had a flaw to not pick him for tests as he was doing so well in ODI's but not certain of his place in the test side, soon put that one to bed this year and makes you wonder why they waited to pick him.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

South Africa are generally very conservative in terms of selections, so perhaps CSA didnt think he was quite ready for the longer format earlier. He did suffer a bit of a loss of form last year, which is why Vilas was taken to India instead. Vilas is a nonsense though, who knows what they were thinking with that one!

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Reall good day for Aus. We wouldnt want to chase 200 on the last day.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Then again that rank amateur wicketkeeper batsman scored a 100.

 

[smash84]

Lol everything about Aussie anglo sport culture is going down the toilet- suck at Olympics (compared to previously), no talented tennis players, and now their cricketers have taken the Indian $ and suck at tests.
Piss weak.

is this what got vic leggie banned?

 

[SteveNZ]

If that was the only reason then perhaps yes. QdK was already been spoken of as the 'next Gilchrist' before he made his Test debut, so you have to take his ODI performances into account.

Gilchrist finished with 16 ODI tons (yes I know he scored one in the WC final, among others), but QdK already has 11! in 69 matches. Frankly that is an obscene conversion rate.

If you're talking cross formats, then yeah that's getting more understandable. De Kock's ODI figures are immense, even more so when he's not dined out on minnows at all and has a ridiculous record v India and England. The reason I don't at all agree with the person who said he's already past Gilchrist is he had an absolutely ********* World Cup. No doubt his stats will far surpass Gilly's but he'd need some major statement innings such as Gilchrist's in the WC final to remove all doubt he is better.

Interesting looking at Gilchrist's ODI stats, certainly not reflective of how you remember him at 35 odd avg, only averaging 40 in two calendar years. Spose that reflects you could get him early, but if you didn't you were in serious **** (16 tons and 50-odd half tons).

 

[Bijed]

If you're talking cross formats, then yeah that's getting more understandable. De Kock's ODI figures are immense, even more so when he's not dined out on minnows at all and has a ridiculous record v India and England. The reason I don't at all agree with the person who said he's already past Gilchrist is he had an absolutely ********* World Cup. No doubt his stats will far surpass Gilly's but he'd need some major statement innings such as Gilchrist's in the WC final to remove all doubt he is better.

Interesting looking at Gilchrist's ODI stats, certainly not reflective of how you remember him at 35 odd avg, only averaging 40 in two calendar years. Spose that reflects you could get him early, but if you didn't you were in serious **** (16 tons and 50-odd half tons).

I don't remember much at all of Gilchrist in ODIs, but was surprised to see how (relatively) low his average was given his reputation. Not that's bad, by any means, but I guess it's a case of his style and how good he was in tests leading people to assume he'd be one of the best ever ODI bats?

 

[CapeTown Guy]

I think batsman or bowlers' average has to be taken in the context of what the average scores were when he played. Safe to say, 10-15 years ago 250 was generally par and you seldom saw anything north of 280 being chased down. If you work out the couple of percentage points the average scores have gone up by since then, then perhaps Gilchrist's ODI record looks more impressive statistically.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't remember much at all of Gilchrist in ODIs, but was surprised to see how (relatively) low his average was given his reputation. Not that's bad, by any means, but I guess it's a case of his style and how good he was in tests leading people to assume he'd be one of the best ever ODI bats?

Yeah, me too. He leaves a legacy along with Jayasuriya etc as guys who changed the way ODIs were played, but obviously that approach meant he made low scores a lot more than someone who averages 40+. I guess risk taking wasn't the science it is today with guys being used to finding higher percentage options through T20 etc. The only real stat that lends weight to him as an ODI ATG WK is averaging 40 with an SR of 100 in chases.

 

[Top_Cat]

What probably made Gilly so highly rated by others was that he did what the team needed him to do. Was always a quick scorer but the blitzkrieg thing was a relatively late development. What got him in the team, really, were some Dhoni-esque rearguards for WA but what kept him in the team was the Jayasuriya-like knocks because, well, they already had themselves a Dhoni-esque Bevan. So he sacrificed his numbers in order to fist whoever was facing him at the time because Waugh asked him to.

The point is he has a big rep because he could play gritty or annihilate the oppo depending on need. He was just that absurdly talented so I doubt he loses much sleep over not averaging 40+ or not scoring enough tons. I'm not commenting on who's better because who of Dhoni, Gilchrist, Sangakkara I'd have in my team depends on who else is in it but there are good reasons why so many rate him so highly and it's not because he's Aussie. Bloke could do anything.

 

[Bijed]

I think batsman or bowlers' average has to be taken in the context of what the average scores were when he played. Safe to say, 10-15 years ago 250 was generally par and you seldom saw anything north of 280 being chased down. If you work out the couple of percentage points the average scores have gone up by since then, then perhaps Gilchrist's ODI record looks more impressive statistically.

Oh, absolutely. To use a very flawed method to account for this (I'll leave a proper statistical method to someone better at those kind of things), if we say 300 is generally par now, this represents an increase of 20%. Increase Gilchrist's average by the same amount and it ends up at a shade over 43 which is very good especially when coupled with his SR, but subject to the following caveats:

• Firstly, I think the general increase in team scores is in part because specialist batsmen have improved but in larger part because the lower order are now much better at smacking a few runs, so in the above example it would probably be more accurate to increase Gilly's average by 10-15%, but I'd just be guessing so I won't go there
• Secondly, and most importantly, I've pulled the figures and method out of my arse

 

[CapeTown Guy]

Agreed, The actual numbers you use there might not be accurate but that is the general gist of it.