• 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.

Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight

  • Gilchrist

    Votes: 39 60.9%

  • Knight

    Votes: 25 39.1%
  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Who is/was the better OD opener and why?

IMO, this argument is just as ridiculous as the Hussain > Hayden theory of Richard's but he is also arguing that Knight > Gilchrist so thought I would poll opinions.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course, an English do-the-job-quietly batsman couldn't possibly be as good as a powerful Australian, no, no, that'd just be totally wrong. 8-)
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Fiery said:
Who is/was the better OD opener and why?

IMO, this argument is just as ridiculous as the Hussain > Hayden theory of Richard's but he is also arguing that Knight > Gilchrist so thought I would poll opinions.
Click to expand...
I don't really believe that Hussain comes anywhere near Hayden, but this is a much closer battle than Fiery is implying.

Assuming we are judging the players on batting only (and not importance to the team as a keeper), its almost even for me. Knight has 5 centuries after 100 matches, while Gilly has 15 after almost 275. So about even there.
But the amazing thing is that Knight has 25 fifties in 100 matches, while Gilchrist only has 50 fifties in 275 matches. So Knight was obviously the more consistent scorer.

Knight also has the higher overall average, 36 vs 40...which is pretty significant (an average of 40 is what guys like Lara have BTW). The only real advantage Gilly has is the superior rate of scoring, 70 vs 96. Thats a pretty significant difference, and I am a bit surprised that Richard places a lot of importance on a bowler's economy rate, but not as much on a batsman's strike rate in ODIs?

Perhaps its my bias towards Tests thats speaking, or my mentality as an Indian, but I'll go for Nick Knight, as he will provide more consistent scoring, albeit at a slower pace (even though his team was different than Gillys, and thus his lower rate of scoring could have a bit to do with the team situation too).

So Nick Knight it is, and the question isn't as ridiculous as Fiery thinks it is IMO.
 
Last edited:
open365

open365

International Vice-Captain
I think Gilchrist had the better match winning ability though Knight was a more consistent scorer.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't agree. By-and-large, the more you score the larger your impact on the game will be (so long, in ODIs, as you have a decent SR, which Knight did).
 
U

UncleTheOne

U19 Captain
i'm failing to see how this arguement is ridiculous, nick knight is without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most underrated odi players there has ever been, capable of exploiting the early fielding restrictions, as well as building well constructed innings, a real shining light in an often dire team.
 
Last edited:
open365

open365

International Vice-Captain
UncleTheOne said:
i'm failing to see how this arguement is ridiculous, nick knight is without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most underrated odi players there has ever been.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you support England but he's one of the most cherished from my experience
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Copied from the other thread:

Just like a lot of these arguments in reality it comes down to the different role that each batsman played in their respective sides. Gilchrist knew that he had a very strong batting lineup around him (Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Mark Waugh, Bevan, Hussey) so he knew that even if he made 30 off 25 balls that although he had failed personally, in the team context it wasn't as bad because there were other batsman available to score runs and he was usually just a launching pad off which they all started. If he went on to score a ton then there is a high chance that Australia would win, so destructive is his batting.
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fiery this isn't aimed specifically at you, but FFS public polls. WTF is wrong with people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top