Adam Gilchrist vs Ian Botham

[PlayerComparisons]

Two ATG all rounders

 

[Majestic]

Tough one but Gilchrist is well ahead in his suite. Botham at its peak was probably one of the best thing you can have but otherwise Gilchrist is the answer.

 

[ma1978]

Botham because he was cooler

 

[Howe_zat]

In Tests only probably Botham.

The thing people usually like to hold against Botham is the second half of his test career being a lot less than the first half, but Botham was probably the best cricketer around for at least 5 years, and was still world class as late as 85 or so.

Gilchrist also had a shortish period as a peak in tests too, after 2004 or so his test record declined quite sharply.

People thinking of Gilchrist dominating for a longer period are probably thinking of his ODI career.

 

[sayon basak]

Botham because he was cooler

>>>>>

 

[sledger]

Difficult one. If my team was crap I'd rather have Botham. But if it was already pretty strong and I was looking for a player to take it to the next level I'd probably take Gilchrist.

 

[sledger]

And not that it really makes any difference in terms of who was "better, Gilchrist can probably be attributed with revolutionising the position of the wk/batter. And the same can't really be said about Botham re: batting/bowling all-rounders.

 

[sayon basak]

Difficult one. If my team was crap I'd rather have Botham. But if it was already pretty strong and I was looking for a player to take it to the next level I'd probably take Gilchrist.

What if you had a good team with a wicket keeper already?

 

[sledger]

What if you had a good team with a wicket keeper already?

Depends if that wicket keeper is Sangakkara.

 

[sayon basak]

Depends if that wicket keeper is Sangakkara.

And if he is Musfiqur Rahim? And you don't have any All rounders? Whom would you take?

 

[sledger]

And if he is Musfiqur Rahim? And you don't have any All rounders? Whom would you take?

Then I would wish Musfiqur Rahim all the best with his future endeavours.

And if I had no all-rounders it would depend on what the bowlers were like.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist wad just the better player, the remainder of the argument is moot.

 

[BazBall21]

Gilchrist had an 8 year Test career. If Botham only played the first 8 years, his raw figures would be immense. 4409 runs @ 36 (13 hundreds)
343 wickets @ 26 (4.3WPM&25 five-wicket hauls)

His record v WI is an issue though and Gilchrist takes pioneer points.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Gilchrist record might have been better if he was picked a few earlier tbf. I think he missed out on a few of his peak years.

 

[BazBall21]

Yeah that is true. 90s was harder though so it's a double-edged sword.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gilchrist had an 8 year Test career. If Botham only played the first 8 years, his raw figures would be immense. 4409 runs @ 36 (13 hundreds)
343 wickets @ 26 (4.3WPM&25 five-wicket hauls)

His record v WI is an issue though and Gilchrist takes pioneer points.

Botham's stats definitely improve, but I still won't take those over Miller. And I rate Gilchrist ahead of Miller.

 

[BazBall21]

Botham's stats definitely improve, but I still won't take those over Miller. And I rate Gilchrist ahead of Miller.

Miller >> Gilchrist > Botham

Imo.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Miller was Botham but for longer

 

[capt_Luffy]

Miller >> Gilchrist > Botham

Imo.

Nah, I would disagree, especially with the ">>"

 

[BazBall21]

Nah, I would disagree, especially with the ">>"

That was only to convey that I think there's a bigger gap between them than Gilchrist and Botham.