How good was Gilchrist?

[TheJediBrah]

Inconsistent? The bloke averages 48 and has over 10 100's coming in at 7. Hardly inconsistent.

That post you quoted was just weird all round

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

i don't think he should even get a peek into an all-time test xi...

Probably the second name on the teamsheet.

 

[Senile Sentry]

When Gilly completed 2,000 Test runs and averaged 60+, I recall thinking this is on the level of G.Pollock, G.Headley.
Then he maintains 60+ average after 3,000 Test runs. Superlative considering being wk, explosive batting, but alas too good to last

View attachment 27376

Comes back to my point about Gilly and Aus lucky to see him debut at the beginning of his absolute peak as a batsman and keeper.

Over a longer period, assuming he debuted much earlier, say 22-23, Gilly would probably have averaged in late 30s to early 40s. Matt Priorish.

 

[Red]

not top tier in keeping but very solid, especially the 2nd half of his career...also an explosive albeit inconsistent middle order bat, spectacular and could take the game away from the opposition in short order when he was on...

i would have him in an all-time one day xi as the keeper and a middle order (emphasis on middle order and not opening) batsman...i don't think he should even get a peek into an all-time test xi...

weird that you could basically get everything wrong in one post

 

[Red]

Lookout we got a badass over here

I'm now in my 40s (just). I've played indoor on and off since I was in primary school, playing pretty consistently a game a week all thru my teens and 20s.

Now that I think about it I've probably played closer to 1000 games. Mega badass

 

[TheJediBrah]

Over a longer period, assuming he debuted much earlier, say 22-23, Gilly would probably have averaged in late 30s to early 40s. Matt Priorish.

Unlikely

I would even speculate the opposite in a different hypothetical. If he debuted 3-5 years earlier, a period in which he was already excellent, he may have retired earlier and skipped much of the decline. Could have ended with a mid-50s average.

 

[Anil]

weird that you could basically get everything wrong in one post

sure it would be weird except i didn't...anyhoo...

 

[jimmy101]

Unlikely

I would even speculate the opposite in a different hypothetical. If he debuted 3-5 years earlier, a period in which he was already excellent, he may have retired earlier and skipped much of the decline. Could have ended with a mid-50s average.

It's indeed speculative, but I can't see him averaging any higher than his career Test average if he debuted earlier. In fact, he most likely would have averaged less due to the higher quality of international bowlers at the time, external pressure on his spot in the side & the larger playing surfaces back then.

His Shield batting averages from that timeframe don't really suggest a mid-50s Test batting average.

1992/93 - 30.44
1993/94 - 8.60
1994/95 - 26.53
1995/96 - 50.52
1996/97 - 39.00
1997/98 - 47.66

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's indeed speculative, but I can't see him averaging any higher than his career Test average if he debuted earlier. In fact, he most likely would have averaged less due to the higher quality of international bowlers at the time, external pressure on his spot in the side & the larger playing surfaces back then.

His Shield batting averages from that timeframe don't really suggest a mid-50s Test batting average.

1992/93 - 30.44
1993/94 - 8.60
1994/95 - 26.53
1995/96 - 50.52
1996/97 - 39.00
1997/98 - 47.66

I can see the logic you're going with and it's fair enough but an overly simplified way of looking at it. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have stepped up and averaged what he did (or close enough to it) in 1999 if he had the chance in 1995 or 1996. It's not as simple as looking at Shield averages and extrapolating. If anything I'm actually surprised his Shield averages are as high as they are in those years, didn't think they would be. He faced plenty of very strong bowlers and challenging conditions in the first 2 years of his career too, he was no Voges.

 

[jimmy101]

I can see the logic you're going with and it's fair enough but an overly simplified way of looking at it. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have stepped up and averaged what he did (or close enough to it) in 1999 if he had the chance in 1995 or 1996. It's not as simple as looking at Shield averages and extrapolating. If anything I'm actually surprised his Shield averages are as high as they are in those years, didn't think they would be. He faced plenty of very strong bowlers and challenging conditions in the first 2 years of his career too, he was no Voges.

Tbh there's no reason to assume he would have averaged as much as he did, or higher, if he debuted earlier either. For him to have reached a mid-50s average, he would have needed to average somewhere in the 60s in those first few (hypothetical) Tests (1995/99). Hard to see him punching out those kinds of numbers on tough tours of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & the Windies to be frank. When he did debut in late-1999 Australia was already set up as a powerhouse, with less pressure on the team's lower-order in general & was pounding hapless Ind/Pak touring sides & cakewalking the Ashes. This wasn't so much the case in the years leading up to that. Also keep in mind that he had to move to WA cause he couldn't get a game for NSW in his early years.

Not saying that it's impossible, but seemingly more likely he would have averaged less during that timeframe being a less experienced cricketer than what he would become.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tbh there's no reason to assume he would have averaged as much as he did, or higher, if he debuted earlier either.

That wasn't the basis of my speculation. It was on the assumption that if he started earlier, he'd have retired earlier and possibly had a higher average level of performance across his career as a result of playing less post-2005 when he was older and his eye wasn't quite the same. Even if he didn't quite average 60 right off the bat for those first few years as he did starting in 1999, he could still have ended up higher overall.

I also speculate that being exposed to Test cricket earlier during his younger years could have rocketed his game up a lot quicker than wasting his time travelling around the Shield.

 

[jimmy101]

That wasn't the basis of my speculation. It was on the assumption that if he started earlier, he'd have retired earlier and possibly had a higher average level of performance across his career as a result of playing less post-2005 when he was older and his eye wasn't quite the same. Even if he didn't quite average 60 right off the bat for those first few years as he did starting in 1999, he could still have ended up higher overall.

I also speculate that being exposed to Test cricket earlier during his younger years could have rocketed his game up a lot quicker than wasting his time travelling around the Shield.

Maybe. But if he had a rocky start to his Test career, which is very much possible, it would have cancelled out any lapse in form in his latter years. Also, a baptism of fire for an underdeveloped player at international level doesn't necessarily equate to levelling up, so to speak. Phil Hughes was a good example of that. Whereas players such as Hussey, Love & Hodge, who all probably spend too long in the domestic shuffle, were able to come in to the Australian side & start scoring runs almost instantly due to having strengthened their game in the Shield for years on end beforehand.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe. But if he had a rocky start to his Test career, which is very much possible, it would have cancelled out any lapse in form in his latter years. Also, a baptism of fire for an underdeveloped player at international level doesn't necessarily equate to levelling up, so to speak. Phil Hughes was a good example of that. Whereas players such as Hussey, Love & Hodge, who all probably spend too long in the domestic shuffle, were able to come in to the Australian side & start scoring runs almost instantly due to having strengthened their game in the Shield for years on end beforehand.

All very fair. Good chat.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe. But if he had a rocky start to his Test career, which is very much possible, it would have cancelled out any lapse in form in his latter years. Also, a baptism of fire for an underdeveloped player at international level doesn't necessarily equate to levelling up, so to speak. Phil Hughes was a good example of that. Whereas players such as Hussey, Love & Hodge, who all probably spend too long in the domestic shuffle, were able to come in to the Australian side & start scoring runs almost instantly due to having strengthened their game in the Shield for years on end beforehand.

Yeah and a lot of this will apply for folks like Siraj, Thakur, Mayank who all recently came in for India on the back of very strong domestic performances.

 

[sunilz]

At par with Rahane as a Captain as they both won BG trophy overseas.
It isn't surprising that both IND/AUS lost the only test in 2020/2004 series in which Kohli/Ponting captained.

Rahane: Kohli = Gilichrist: Ponting

 

[jimmy101]

In all honesty Gilchrist should have been captaining Australia after the 2005 Ashes. It was Ponting's inability to read the pitch conditions that basically cost them the series.

Kohli & Ponting are similar in that they both inherited great teams (made great largely down to their very own greatness). Cricket, though a team sport, boils down to a series of individual battles. In a sport like this, inept captaincy can be masked by the individual brilliancy of a team's best players, moreso than other team sports imo.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Unlikely

I would even speculate the opposite in a different hypothetical. If he debuted 3-5 years earlier, a period in which he was already excellent, he may have retired earlier and skipped much of the decline. Could have ended with a mid-50s average.

Except that this never happens in the real world.

Gilchrist averaged around 38 with the bat in the last 45 odd tests he played (nearly half of his total career). He was ineffective in England, SA and India- the best of the teams that he faced in this period.

You want another Gilly like example ? Mike Hussey.

 

[Gob]

Except that this never happens in the real world.

Gilchrist averaged around 38 with the bat in the last 45 odd tests he played (nearly half of his total career). He was ineffective in England, SA and India- the best of the teams that he faced in this period.

You want another Gilly like example ? Mike Hussey.

Scored the fastest double ton at the time in SA

Ineffective indeed

And you mentioned in that period so nvm

 

[Bolo.]

Except that this never happens in the real world.

Gilchrist averaged around 38 with the bat in the last 45 odd tests he played (nearly half of his total career). He was ineffective in England, SA and India- the best of the teams that he faced in this period.

You want another Gilly like example ? Mike Hussey.

No. The playing at his peak comparison is somewhat comparable, but the comparison falls apart after that.

Gilly averaged 50 way from home.

IDK how Gilly did against the other teams you mentioned, but he averaged something like 65 in RSA, including beating us into a bloody pulp in a series that was billed as an unofficial 'best in the world' face off. Man of the series, and the difference between the two teams in a series that started the period of clear Aus dominance in world cricket

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gilchrist averaged around 38 with the bat in the last 45 odd tests he played (nearly half of his total career).

That fits in with what I'm speculating perfectly actually, weird thing for you to bring up as a counter-point