Johan
International Vice-Captain
Iirc McGrath could reverse it if asked to and the Windies also had a variant of reverse but they weren't as good as Imran and Wasim at it.
-
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.
Viv Richards vs Adam Gilchrist
- Thread starter sayon basak
- Start date
Coronis
International Coach
Why?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
To have a team that covers all conditions
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
McGrath was nowhere near as effective at reverse and I literally can only remember a couple of spells where he did so.
I think it's important for the third seamer to be an old ball/reverse specialist in the modern game.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
It's not. But I would like an ATG XI to cover all sets of skills to maximize that side. Hadlee and McGrath to me overlap as such.
DrWolverine
International Debutant
Damn he getter better and better when it matters
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The vote for Gilly is kinda ridiculous. Yes he gets credit for starting a keeper bat trend but I have a sneaking suspicion that ABD was even better yet didn't keep quite as much.
smash84
The Tiger King
I don't get these types of answers.
You can literally argue the opposite for a slower SR batsman and things would still be valid.
Slower batsmen occupy the crease for longer tiring out the opposition batsmen. The longer occupation forces teams to change their plans, rotate bowlers, change fields, lines etc. instead of 1 session you can change the tide of a match in 1.5 session rather than score quickly and collapse. You do have 5 days after all and you can plan better over a longer period of time.
Then there's the multiple instances where slower batting is needed to play out time. Playing slower in the first innings means your opposition will get to bat on a worse pitch and face tougher batting conditions on latter day pitches.
The ability to do all these things sets players apart from their peers.
After all that, what eventually matters is that you can score more runs per 100 balls rather than just scoring them 10 balls quicker.
kyear2
International Coach
I admire the hell out of Gilchrist and think he's a top 5 all rounder and for me a top 25 player of all time.
I don't think he's over rated and he was probably the 4th or 5th most important player on what is arguably the greatest team ever.
Your argument is that Gilchrist is an absolute lock for an AT World team and the 3rd name in the team sheet and I will give you my arguments as to why I don't share that belief.
1. Some will always prefer the better keeper. There's only one spot and from a philosophical perspective there are many who would prefer to have the better pure keeper. I shared a video not a week ago showing that exact argument. Even when Cricinfo released their effort, the introduction article had only two dissents for the team, one was wondering why, in a team with such batting strength would they not go with the better pure keeper.
2. There's been two, as close to official as it gets, ATG teams selected in the 21st century, Gilchrist didn't make both of those. The Wisden All Time XI has Knott as the keeper, going with the sentiment of the above point. Kimber and Bumble are (at some point hopefully) competing an ultimate XI and they too have decided to go with Knott over Gilchrist. He's not been automatic in such exercises.
3. You've made the argument that he's further ahead than this competition than anyone bar Bradman. That's really dependent on perspective. He's not the best keeper, not even top 10, and not sure if top 15. Knott, who isn't a bad batter himself isn't that far behind Gilchrist, especially if weighting keeping more. Warne (motives can be questioned), was quite clear during his career over a specialists like Healy, even going as far as starting a sentence once with "if I had a competent keeper". While I don't share those views, there's also no question that Healy was comfortably better.
Then there's the batting. Ponting often gets a lot of criticism here on CW, he played in one of the flattest eras and came in behind one of the greatest opening tandems and was free to attack from the word go. Gilchrist had all of those advantages and coming in 4 spots lower.
I'm not saying Gilly wasn't great, but he escapes the criticism and adjustments dolled out to other contemporaries.
I also didn't say Viv is more locked on for a spot, I don't think either is more than the other. I also don't think either are more locked on than Marshall or Sachin.
I've mentioned the argument that you've repeated, that Gilchrist was further ahead in his dual role over the competition than Marshall over his. But Marshall was ahead of his, and there's 2 opening spots and 3 overall Sachin roo is ahead of his competition and there's 2 spots.
Yes they have their rivals.
For Marshall there's McGrath, Hadlee and to a lesser extent Steyn.
Tendulkar? There's Viv, Lara and again to a lesser extent Smith.
As closer as it may appear, none of them are beating either, and both are now seen both inside and outside of CW as the greatest middle order batsman (not named Bradman), and the greatest bowler ever. Yes there are arguments for Richards or McGrath, but the former maintains a plurality of support. No one did it for longer than Sachin and no one could do what Marshall could, far less everywhere he did it.
I'm not saying Gilchrist doesn't make mine, I actually have a post where I go into detail of how mine is selected, I'm just saying that to say that Gilchrist is and has been a unanimous or automatic selection is factually incorrect, while there's no way Marshall not Tendulkar doesn't make one of these with any collaborative elements.
Literally the last vote we had for an AT team, Marshall was unanimous with the most votes (Bradman was automatically entered and the voting around Sobers was a little confusing), the last mini effort we had, he received every bite bar one, and the thread for an AT attack was all but unanimous and not remotely close.
Not to add when you're building a team it's your premier batsman and spear head that's top of mind. We just also happen to have a batsman, all rounder and slip specialist all in one that also forces himself into that discussion.
The effort by many to consistently downplay Marshall's greatness and impact on the game and as a surety for this team is a conversation for another time, but one that exists.
But yeah, Gilly was amazing, just not ahead of these two for me. Not in terms of greatness nor certainty to make said XI.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah now you are being disingenuous again.
Whenever you made it a point to bring up ATG XIs to point out someone who is or is not there, you always bring up Cricinfo and Wisden as your authoritative XIs.
You know for a fact that Gilly is in the Cricinfo XI. So why do you need to just completely ignore that now when it doesn't suit your argument? Very shady.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
Only a couple of matches in the WI, don't recall much, just thinking that he wasn't tidy and that Jacobs was better.
Most of what I currently use is extended clips of Zim bowling, and while the actual keeping was not great on it's own, there's also always references of drops.
He really wasn't special as a keeper.
kyear2
International Coach
Exactly.
kyear2
International Coach
Love to see posts like this.
kyear2
International Coach
Tbh only 2 areas I would fight you are
The great Barry Richards at the top for Hobbs
&
Swap Viv and Sachin in the order
Johan
International Vice-Captain
latter I can do
kyear2
International Coach
kyear2
International Coach
Seconded
kyear2
International Coach
The community here has been apparently and steadily moving towards a consensus of Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee and it's honestly growing on me.
Was listening to a conversation of some former test bowlers and even when the topic of an all time attack came up no one mentioned reverse. And all of them revered Sir Richard.
But still a bit conflicted, Hadlee's superiority of Wasim's magic and niche.
kyear2
International Coach
None of that is true.
And the thing is, it's considerably easier for a high strike rate batsman to slow down and consolidate, than it is to ask a Sutcliffe, Boycott etc to accelerate.
And yes, taking a bowler to the woodshed immediately forces the opposing captain to make changes and to change the field, less slips, more players in the outfield etc, can't have the game getting away from you.
Batting defensively and slowly you can still get a jaffer and get out as well. Sutcliffe and Hutton doesn't place the opposing team under pressure, even if they're not getting out, they're not hurting you either.
smash84
The Tiger King
So except the part in bolded, you agree with everything else?
Also, why is the bolded part not true? There is a set batsman who's been around for 30 overs, of course the opposing captain will be forced to change his plans. His plans aren't working that's why the batsman is sticking around.
Also, it isn't really a given that attacking batsmen can slow down when needed. In fact one of the criticisms against Viv was that he would often get bored and hit out. So it really isn't easy for attacking batsmen to play a blockathon. In fact batsmen like misbah and dravid could accelerate when needed. So that's that