ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I was trying find a way to say this. You said it well.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Vote for Five Cricketers of the 2000s + 2010s
- Thread starter harsh.ag
- Start date
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
i suspect that was partly why harsh made the thread...
ImpatientLime
International Regular
m8 you come across like you stand 5'4.
the reality is that he is competing in much shallower talent pool when we compare him to his contemporaries. now he obviously can't control that because wicketkeepers are not in the same demand as batsman and bowlers due to the make up of a cricket team but it equally cannot be used to prop him up because the idea that he is a greater cricketer than say shane warne because the gap between murali and warne is smaller than the gap between gilchrist and alan knott is total nonsense.
gilchrist's greatest argument outside of numbers etc. is that he totally revolutionized a position by himself.
It is not only Knott. There have been a ton of guys averaging either side of 40 this century, some of whom are excellent keepers.
Sure, Gilly is ahead of them. But the difference between between them is much closer than the difference between Kallis and *insert batting AR averaging in the 30s*. Or between Murali and *insert bowler with 100s fewer wickets*.
This said, it is understandable that he gets rated so highly. There isnt really anyone else that is a clear best at what he does to this extent.
Sure, Gilly is ahead of them. But the difference between between them is much closer than the difference between Kallis and *insert batting AR averaging in the 30s*. Or between Murali and *insert bowler with 100s fewer wickets*.
This said, it is understandable that he gets rated so highly. There isnt really anyone else that is a clear best at what he does to this extent.
Last edited:
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
True. And also it's not insanity to not rate him higher than bunch of them who would be more valuable than him in any XI.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not true
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
sounds like something I'd say
Sure, as I said, that point is debatable. Rest of your post (which you've wisely ignored) was utter garbage though
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
McGrath was better than Steyn. But we're talking about two of the top ten pace bowlers of all time. But McGrath was more consistent at dismissing the best batsmen and that's a good enough argument to say he was better. It's not a slight on Steyn at all who is the clear number 2 for the period in question.
Similarly, in the 00s Murali was better than Warne. Half of Warne's career, and the part where he was the most gifted physically was in the 90s. Murali played a lot in the 90s but peaked in the 00s.
You have to go back to the 50s to find someone comparable to Kallis.
You have to go back to the 40s to find someone comparable to Smith.
Nobody is comparable to Gilchrist. De Villiers didn't keep enough for a fair comparison, and only did so during his batting prime. Other batsmen like Sangakkara and Walcott were far lesser batsmen when they took the gloves. Flower was nowhere near as good with the gloves, the comparable keepers were nowhere near as good with the bat. He's unique and is indisputably deserving of his place on this list.
I mean such a list basically picks itself.
Similarly, in the 00s Murali was better than Warne. Half of Warne's career, and the part where he was the most gifted physically was in the 90s. Murali played a lot in the 90s but peaked in the 00s.
You have to go back to the 50s to find someone comparable to Kallis.
You have to go back to the 40s to find someone comparable to Smith.
Nobody is comparable to Gilchrist. De Villiers didn't keep enough for a fair comparison, and only did so during his batting prime. Other batsmen like Sangakkara and Walcott were far lesser batsmen when they took the gloves. Flower was nowhere near as good with the gloves, the comparable keepers were nowhere near as good with the bat. He's unique and is indisputably deserving of his place on this list.
I mean such a list basically picks itself.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
James
Cricket Web Owner
I've just increased the maximum allowed from 10 to 50.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Great! Harsh, in that case, add a vote here and it will help you on getting a lot of accumulation and analysis work reduced.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
given he combined keeping, an essential skill but one peculiarly ignored for this thread, with averaging high 40s and striking in the 80s, yes. Easily. He’s every bit the Allrounder Kallis was, only his second discipline isn’t bowling.
You have picked up on the point I made that AB kept in his batting prime while ignoring the fact that the purpose of the post was to highlight the fact that judging Sanga outside his peak is applying double standards. And you have used my critique of AB to... apply double standards.
This level of confirmation bias is impressive.