A Tribute To Adam Gilchrist

Richard · Jan 29, 2008

Lee was abysmal, I'm well aware how flattering his figures were (against New Zealand, at least, where McGrath and Warne did not fire at all - not against South Africa). Gillespie's overall figures were OK, undoubtedly, but he barely bowled a "big" spell. He would often get not many for not that many. His match-figures were 3-104, 3-45, 5-167, 2-80, 3-71, 4-133 and 1-83. Decidedly average.

As for Slater, averaging just under 40 is fine AFAIC. He's done better at other times, sure, but he did a damn sight better than summer than either Waugh did in 2001\02. There was no weak spot the way there was at four and five that year.

Jono · Jan 29, 2008

bond21 said:
...no hes not.....

he basically said he was a god for the first half of the article, then said he was a dedicated player, a good family man, stood up for his beliefs and thanked him at the end....

what are you reading??

What's that? You defending anything done by an Australian again?

Give it up, that's a pathetic article by Warne. The guy was a legendary cricketer, but he's so bitter and annoying in his retirement already.

Matt79 · Jan 30, 2008

^^ 21 wickets @ 32 ain't brillant, but its not really decidedly average either.

Richard · Jan 30, 2008

That's Lee I presume.

Look, take my word for it, I don't give a damn about the fact that his figures against New Zealand (and only New Zealand) were good, he bowled rubbish, as he did the previous summer (winter for Australians) and the following summer, and the one after that too. And even on plenty of occasions since 2005 too.

Lee was a very, very poor bowler in the 2001\02 season. That is not based on his rather flattering figures, but watching him bowl.

Top_Cat · Jan 30, 2008

Richard said:
That's Lee I presume.

Look, take my word for it, I don't give a damn about the fact that his figures against New Zealand (and only New Zealand) were good, he bowled rubbish, as he did the previous summer (winter for Australians) and the following summer, and the one after that too. And even on plenty of occasions since 2005 too.

Lee was a very, very poor bowler in the 2001\02 season. That is not based on his rather flattering figures, but watching him bowl.

Seriously Rich, you're exaggerating. Even at his worst, Lee was quick and swung the ball. No-one who plays Test cricket is a 'very, very poor bowler'. Lee was dropped rather late when it finally happened and certainly wasn't doing enough to maintain his place in the side but let's not forget, he was trying out for the best side in the world. At FC level, he was averaging low 20's with the ball so he deserved to be in the mix, even if he didn't deserve to be in the side.

Matt79 · Jan 30, 2008

Richard said:
Gillespie's overall figures were OK, undoubtedly, but he barely bowled a "big" spell. He would often get not many for not that many. His match-figures were 3-104, 3-45, 5-167, 2-80, 3-71, 4-133 and 1-83. Decidedly average

Matt79 said:
^^ 21 wickets @ 32 ain't brillant, but its not really decidedly average either.

Richard said:
That's Lee I presume.

Look, take my word for it, I don't give a damn about the fact that his figures against New Zealand (and only New Zealand) were good, he bowled rubbish, as he did the previous summer (winter for Australians) and the following summer, and the one after that too. And even on plenty of occasions since 2005 too.

Lee was a very, very poor bowler in the 2001\02 season. That is not based on his rather flattering figures, but watching him bowl.

Actually, they're the figures you yourself quoted for Gillespie.

Richard · Jan 30, 2008

Haha really? Never seemed to add-up to 21...

Either way - as I said, he didn't bowl out-and-out poorly. But decidedly below average. There were no standout performances - he was either OK or fairly poor.

Richard · Jan 30, 2008

Top_Cat said:
Seriously Rich, you're exaggerating. Even at his worst, Lee was quick and swung the ball.

Well, not really for mine. He only rarely got the ball to swing much, even over here in 2001. About the only occasion I can really remember him getting a great deal of swing was the SCG Test in 2002\03, when he got the new-ball because McGrath was injured. About all he had going for him was his pace, really - absolutely no use when you are as wayward as he was at that time.

No-one who plays Test cricket is a 'very, very poor bowler'.

Well no, by most people's standards of course not. But by Test standards he was one of the worst going around between 2001 and 2003\04. I can't see how that could be denied.

Lee was dropped rather late when it finally happened and certainly wasn't doing enough to maintain his place in the side but let's not forget, he was trying out for the best side in the world. At FC level, he was averaging low 20's with the ball so he deserved to be in the mix, even if he didn't deserve to be in the side.

True, but he only played 6 games between his worsening and the 2005\06 season. I can't conceive there weren't others doing well from more games, TBH.

Lillian Thomson · Jan 30, 2008

Richard said:
Look, take my word for it.

Lillian Thomson · Jan 30, 2008

Richard said:
That's Lee I presume.

Look, take my word for it, I don't give a damn about the fact that his figures against New Zealand (and only New Zealand) were good, he bowled rubbish, as he did the previous summer (winter for Australians) and the following summer, and the one after that too. And even on plenty of occasions since 2005 too.

Lee was a very, very poor bowler in the 2001\02 season. That is not based on his rather flattering figures, but watching him bowl.

Funny how the thousands of people who saw Viv Richards bat were deluded into thinking he was greater than he was because your abacus doesn't agree. Yet here the same abacus gives Lee good figures but they don't count because you saw him. :laugh:

Hopefully one day you'll tell us the full story of the exact moment when you reached that junction in the road of life where reality went to the right and you took a sharp left.

GotSpin · Jan 30, 2008

Lillian Thomson said:
Funny how the thousands of people who saw Viv Richards bat were deluded into thinking he was greater than he was because your abacus doesn't agree. Yet here the same abacus gives Lee good figures but they don't count because you saw him.
Hopefully one day you'll tell us the full story of the exact moment when you reached that junction in the road of life where reality went to the right and you took a sharp left.

Damn.

Ikki · Jan 31, 2008

Lillian Thomson said:
Funny how the thousands of people who saw Viv Richards bat were deluded into thinking he was greater than he was because your abacus doesn't agree. Yet here the same abacus gives Lee good figures but they don't count because you saw him.
Hopefully one day you'll tell us the full story of the exact moment when you reached that junction in the road of life where reality went to the right and you took a sharp left.

That's what they call: "Layin' the smack-down". :laugh:

Matt79 · Jan 31, 2008

itstl

Richard · Jan 31, 2008

KaZoH0lic said:
That's what they call: "Layin' the smack-down".

Nah, not really, I couldn't give a flying about that idiot and nor could very many other people, I'm not even going to bother responding to that post in fact.

Lillian Thomson · Jan 31, 2008

Richard said:
Nah, not really, I couldn't give a flying about that idiot and nor could very many other people, I'm not even going to bother responding to that post in fact.

Ah that explains the constant ridiculing by all and sundry of everything I write and whole threads dedicated to how irritating I am............no wait a minute, that's you, oh well never mind. :laugh:

Of course poor old Dick can't respond, because once again he knows I'm right. :cool:

Richard · Jan 31, 2008

Lillian Thomson said:
Ah that explains the constant ridiculing by all and sundry of everything I write and whole threads dedicated to how irritating I am............no wait a minute, that's you, oh well never mind.

Yeah, that's right, the forum's the only place people ever talk about the forum............ no wait a minute, it isn't.

People also realise there's some point in starting threads trying to reason with me, and realise there's no point doing the same thing with certain other people.

Oh yeah, almost forgot... :laugh:

Lillian Thomson · Jan 31, 2008

Richard said:
Yeah, that's right, the forum's the only place people ever talk about the forum............ no wait a minute, it isn't.

People also realise there's some point in starting threads trying to reason with me, and realise there's no point doing the same thing with certain other people.

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

I didn't forget. :laugh:

aussie · Jan 31, 2008

Richard said:
Well I didn't either. Certainly hasn't been for the last 4 years. The fear-factor has remained (an on the odd few occasions he's lived-up to it briefly once again) but more often than not the last 4 years he's not offered a hell of a lot with the bat.

Nonetheless, for the previous half of his career he averaged 59. Now, that'd have been a bit lower but for the odd few crucial dropped catches, but it'd still have been 50 at the very least. At least.Gilchrist simply did the job (between 1999\2000 and 2003, and not thereafter).

Ha, well its better than you saying he has been awful or poor from IND 2003/04 to now..

aussie · Jan 31, 2008

Richard said:
He's been on the decline since 2003\04, and while as I said, once a decline starts, it doesn't really matter much how long it goes on for, I think The Ashes could potentially have served as a last-hurrah, rather than finishing with what he's ended-up finishing with.

And this is where your wrong his decline began in the 2005 Ashes & not a moment sooner.

aussie · Jan 31, 2008

Prince EWS said:
I'm not sold on him averaging around 35, though. I certainly think Gilchrist would still be the better option at this stage had he not retired, which was essentially my point. I get the impression that some people believe Haddin now > Gilchrist now, and I couldn't disagree more.

Not sure if that the idea i've been getting that Haddin now > Gilchrist, its more of Haddin simply is a great replacement to have now that Gilly is retiring. Interesting to hear your views on haddin as a person who obviously would have seen alot of him unlike myself & many others that would have only seen him in ODI's & has definately been impressed.

Since it has been proven with many players that ODI success doesn't always equate to similar joy in the longer form of the game instantly. But i'm hoping your wrong & Haddin turns out to be another Hussey & Clark..

A Tribute To Adam Gilchrist

Cricket Web Staff Member

Virat Kohli (c)

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member