Vote for Five Cricketers of the 2000s + 2010s

[stephen]

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.

No but you're close. Sanga gave up the keeping to focus on his batting so that he could have the prime he did. De Villiers was in his prime while he kept having already got his batting to the level it was before he stated keeping. In both cases they were given extended periods of time to concentrate on their batting to get them to their world beating level. Gilchrist focused on both disciplines for his whole career, never getting to specialise for an extended period like those two.

Neither would likely have hit the batting heights they did if they kept for their while career.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath doesn't step on the ball in Ashes 2005 and Australia win the series. No such thing applies to Gilchrist.

Gilchrist steps on a ball in Hobart 1999 and Pakistan go to Perth 1-1. No such thing applies to McGrath.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Majority of his career was averaging mid-50s tbh

McGrath doesn't step on the ball in Ashes 2005 and Australia win the series. No such thing applies to Gilchrist.

This is just so, so wrong. It definitely could apply to Gilchrist, if he ever actually missed a game through injury (IIRC he never actually missed a Test match)

 

[ankitj]

What a train wreck of a thread this is turning out to be.

 

[ankitj]

Majority of his career was averaging mid-50s tbh

I will wait for you to realise how wrong this statement is.

 

[ankitj]

Hint: For 2/3rd of his career, Gilchrist was averaging 42. At the same time for 2/3rd of his career he was averaging 52. Both are true simultaneously.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I will wait for you to realise how wrong this statement is.

His average didn't drop below 55 until mid-way through 2004 IIRC. ie about half his career. By the start of 2005 he'd already played 2/3rds of his career and was still averaging 53.

not entirely sure what you're talking about but I'm guessing you're breaking his career down into sections and analysing his average for each section? Which is great, but not at all what I was referring to, so no don't think the statement was wrong at all

 

[srbhkshk]

His average didn't drop below 55 until mid-way through 2004 IIRC. ie about half his career. By the start of 2005 he'd already played 2/3rds of his career and was still averaging 53.

Must have been a real spud in the second half.

 

[vcs]

He was just a Prior/Watling level keeper-bat including and after Ashes 2005, before that he was averaging 55.

 

[ankitj]

At 2/3rd mark i.e. 64 matches he was averaging 52 and also 42. You are looking at cumulative starting from 1st match; you can equally look at reverse cumulative starting from last match. It will be fair to say that he averaged 55 for majority of his career if some measure of instantaneous average (say, moving average over 25 tests) was above 55 for majority of his career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Must have been a real spud in the second half.

Yeah he was hovering about 40 average for his second half. "Real spud" maybe a bit harsh given it's still near ATG-level for WK/batsmen but definitely ordinary compared to how he started

At 2/3rd mark i.e. 64 matches he was averaging 52 and also 42. You are looking at cumulative starting from 1st match; you can equally look at reverse cumulative starting from last match. It will be fair to say that he averaged 55 for majority of his career if some measure of instantaneous average (say, moving average over 25 tests) was above 55 for majority of his career.

Obviously. Otherwise what I said would have been wrong. I chose that because it makes him sound better, while still being factually correct.

 

[ankitj]

Obviously. Otherwise what I said would have been wrong.

That's not the only valid perspective. I would say that's not valid in fact.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was just a Prior/Watling level keeper-bat including and after Ashes 2005, before that he was averaging 55.

I'd consider him a much better keeper than Prior at least. Though I didn't see a lot of Prior outside Ashes series. His scoring rate made him more valuable than a Watling-level bat too.

That's not the only valid perspective. I would say that's not valid in fact.

Of course, it was just one perspective. I didn't claim otherwise?

 

[ankitj]

It's misleading is all TJB. If one scores 300 in one innings and then 9 ducks, his average will be 60 for majority of his career according to how you are saying "majority". It doesn't tell us anything.

 

[vcs]

I'd consider him a much better keeper than Prior at least. Though I didn't see a lot of Prior outside Ashes series. His scoring rate made him more valuable than a Watling-level bat too.


Of course, it was just one perspective. I didn't claim otherwise?

Yeah he was certainly a better keeper. Prime Prior probably was better with the bat that Gilchrist was between 2006-08, can't be bothered looking it up though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's misleading is all TJB. If one scores 300 in one innings and then 9 ducks, his average will be 60 for majority of his career according to how you are saying "majority". It doesn't tell us anything.

Only if you misinterpret it in a certain way, which I didn't expect anyone to. And seriously, it was a throwaway line. Not exactly a vital piece of data in an intricate case I'm making. You're probably looking a bit too deeply into it.

Still don't think I will "wait to see how wrong this statement is" given that it's not wrong at all

 

[Coronis]

Gilchrist steps on a ball in Hobart 1999 and Pakistan go to Perth 1-1. No such thing applies to McGrath.

That was the 90’s though, no relevance to this thread.

 

[Burgey]

You’re right, he stopped being of any importance to his side on 1 January 2000. Muppet.

 

[Bolo.]

No but you're close. Sanga gave up the keeping to focus on his batting so that he could have the prime he did. De Villiers was in his prime while he kept having already got his batting to the level it was before he stated keeping. In both cases they were given extended periods of time to concentrate on their batting to get them to their world beating level. Gilchrist focused on both disciplines for his whole career, never getting to specialise for an extended period like those two.

Neither would likely have hit the batting heights they did if they kept for their while career.

You dont think a player who is in the side as a batting keeper focuses on their batting? Gilchrist cracked the side on the basis of his batting far more so than keeping.

Their batting all followed similar trajectories... not great until mid to late 20s (yes, Gilchrist not being good enough to get into the team counts here), then turbocharged. As it does for the vast majority of bats. There is plenty of evidence suggesting this to be correct. What you are proposing is a convoluted system that cannot even be compared across the three players, let alone through looking at multitudes of other careers.

Despite the fact that it is purely hypothetical, I'm not opposed to the idea that Sanga and AB would have had worse batting records if always keeping... it makes sense from a workload perspective. Possibly from a focus on batting perspective, although there is an obvious counterpoint in the fact that Gilchrist got to hone his play in FC. But even if correct, both them had monstrous peaks that lasted as about as long as Gilchrists career.

 

[stephen]

Ifs and buts and could haves.

Gilchrist played primarily as a wicket keeper. Sangakkara and de Villiers did not, taking up the gloves only for a short time. Maybe they could have been as good as keeper batsmen as Gilly but neither wanted the job and neither had the job for long.

Maybe Gilchrist wasn't special and any batsman can be a world class wicket keeper as well as being a top tier batsman. But nobody has done that over a career like Gilly did.