A Tribute To Adam Gilchrist

[Richard]

Wow, absolute ripping last page from Richard here.

Oh wait, it was ****. What a surprise.

Yeah, that's right, blame one party in a two- (or more) part exchange.

 

[Swervy]

@ Rich and Swervy tete-a-tete re posting styles - No-one else here cares, so why don't you guys pursue this on MSN or something, rather than in this thread.

fair do's to that

 

[Matt79]

I do wonder whether, say Hayden hadn't got lucky like he did at The MCG, whether he mightn't have gone by now too. Knowing his ability to just keep conquering adversity in one way or another though, I actually doubt it.

That's the Matthew Hayden who, since the end of the 05 Ashes, has scored over 2000 runs, including 8 centuries, in less than 40 innings, at an average of 55.97. Yeah, its clearly a specific piece of luck that has kept him in the team...

 

[Ikki]

Not this again. Had quite enough of that with the Flintoff case years ago.

He'd obviously have a better idea about his fitness, but not neccessarily his capabilities as a batsman. If you have skill as a batsman, you never feel you're losing it - and, indeed, maybe you aren't. Almost all batsmen whose performances drop off late in their careers say they still feel fine, but just keep getting out.

Educated viewers are at least as good as if not better than batsmen themselves at assessing their performance.

You are a not a Test-Class batsman, or anywhere near it. Gilchrist has more of an idea about his own batting than you ever could.

How do you even get off suggesting batsmen don't realise they're losing their powers? You need to accept you are nothing but a fan, and even at that you are highly controversial.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, that's right, blame one party in a two- (or more) part exchange.

I actually meant to (and thought I did) mention Swervy in that post.

 

[Swervy]

Well, in so many ways really. It is not a player's job to be performing poorly but "offering something in the dressing-room". He can offer something in the dressing-room without being a player, at the behest of the management if neccessary.

I'm very confident Haddin would have done a better job with the bat and probably gloves than Gilchrist this summer. Therefore, I'd prefer it had Haddin played. If Gilchrist could have offered something to whoever wanted his help, great, let Nielsen ask him to come in and hang around the dressing-room.

But don't keep him in the side if he and the side would do better for him to not be in there.

yes you are right, with the aid of hindsight.

But with Gilly, pretty much everyone always thought (and I would suspect he himself, and his team mates) that he had the potential to produce one of those great innings again,even after a lean patch, like he had done previously....and when all is said and done, players are only ever selected for a team based on the potential to produce the goods.

Whilst that potential was there, I think his influence within the drssing room in a period of transition was very important, not only for the likes of the younger players, but also for Ponting. From a strategic point of view, Gilchrist was for a long time, a very important cog within the leadership structure of that team. To take that away at the same time as Warne, McGrath and Langer going may have had a huge effect on the dynamics within the squad.

I guess Gilly weighed it all up, felt that that potential was diminishing, maybe because the internal drive was waning, and made his decision.

 

[Matt79]

He's well known as hating spending time away from his family, and over the next little while, the Aussies have tours to Pakistan, West Indies, and India. If you're beginning to find it hard to ignore the feeling your best is behind you, and you facing yet another long period of absences away from your wife and kids, and you've already achieved everything there is to achieve in your field, and you don't need to keep playing to be financially well-off, its a pretty sensible decision.

Kinda the reverse of the end of last summer, where the fact that Australia had no tests for almost 10 months led to a mass retirement.

 

[Richard]

You are a not a Test-Class batsman, or anywhere near it.

You don't need to be a Test-class batsman to understand Test batting.

How do you even get off suggesting batsmen don't realise they're losing their powers?

I'm not suggesting such a thing - sometimes, they do. But, as I said, many batsmen aren't losing powers that you can notice yourself losing. Look at the number of batsmen who've had poor finishes to their careers - they number far, far more than those who haven't. If they realised they weren't going to perform, they'd have retired before it happened - no-one likes to play without continuing to perform. Sometimes, you can still feel almost exactly the same when you're averaging 26 as you were when you were averaging 59. I don't need to have done it to realise this: I just need to have noticed the number of people who've it.

You need to accept you are nothing but a fan, and even at that you are highly controversial.

I've never suggested anything otherwise.

 

[Richard]

That's the Matthew Hayden who, since the end of the 05 Ashes, has scored over 2000 runs, including 8 centuries, in less than 40 innings, at an average of 55.97. Yeah, its clearly a specific piece of luck that has kept him in the team...

Hayden's form in 2005\06 and 2007\08 has been just fine, of course. But had he not had those Hoggard let-offs his 2006\07 would have been very poor indeed, and as we all know 1 bad series is usually enough to start tongues wagging at his age.

 

[Matt79]

Hayden's form in 2005\06 and 2007\08 has been just fine, of course. But had he not had those Hoggard let-offs his 2006\07 would have been very poor indeed, and as we all know 1 bad series is usually enough to start tongues wagging at his age.

Even if you accept that as being true, the fact that Langer was going would have meant they'd have wanted to keep Hayden in the team for a little while longer to avoid having two green openers, a la Perth this year. Plus the fact that the guy is a legend and giant of the game probably would have earnt him more than one series' grace.

 

[Richard]

But with Gilly, pretty much everyone always thought (and I would suspect he himself, and his team mates) that he had the potential to produce one of those great innings again,even after a lean patch, like he had done previously....and when all is said and done, players are only ever selected for a team based on the potential to produce the goods.

Beyond question, Gilchrist had and probably will continue to have for another 10 years, if he keeps playing at some level or other, the ability to produce such innings. As I've said many times, his performance since December 2003 has mostly been very poor, but he's still scored a fair few sensational knocks in that time, be it that 144 in Kandy, the 57-ball century at The WACA, or that 90-odd (IIRR) against South Africa. If you want to keep someone in the side who'll score 6 or 7 low scores for every one of these sensational knocks, well, stranger choices have been made. But I'd reckon Haddin could do better TBH.

Whilst that potential was there, I think his influence within the drssing room in a period of transition was very important, not only for the likes of the younger players, but also for Ponting. From a strategic point of view, Gilchrist was for a long time, a very important cog within the leadership structure of that team. To take that away at the same time as Warne, McGrath and Langer going may have had a huge effect on the dynamics within the squad.

If you think Gilchrist could help with team dynamics or whatever, have him in there in a staff\consultant role - you don't need to be a player to be in the dressing-room.

 

[Richard]

Even if you accept that as being true, the fact that Langer was going would have meant they'd have wanted to keep Hayden in the team for a little while longer to avoid having two green openers, a la Perth this year.

I don't think having two "green" openers would matter in the slightest, though - Jaques hasn't exactly struggled. Nor do I think will Rogers presuming he gets a few more chances. If the players in question have the ability, they can be as "inexperienced" as you like, they're still going to perform.

I'm very confident that had Martyn and Hayden gone, along with Langer, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath at the end of last summer, Australia would still have had a very fine team this summer. Might have been different if Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Clark and Lee had gone to the ICL mind.

Plus the fact that the guy is a legend and giant of the game probably would have earnt him more than one series' grace.

It might well have done - it did in 2004\05-2005.

 

[Matt79]

I don't think having two "green" openers would matter in the slightest, though - Jaques hasn't exactly struggled. Nor do I think will Rogers presuming he gets a few more chances. If the players in question have the ability, they can be as "inexperienced" as you like, they're still going to perform.

Disagree - players frequently fail to play to the level their ability would suggest, and many of the more common reasons for that occurring derive from players lacking experience. Players are more likely to fulfil the potential of their ability when they are put in a forum where there is experienced leadership, guidance and support.

How much more comfortable has Jaques looked with Hayden at the other end, compared to having Rogers as his partner and seemingly feeling the pressure to provide leadership in the relationship?

 

[NUFAN]

in 1999, Ian Healy wouldn't have looked out of place in an All Time Australian XI Team. Now some 96 Tests later, this idea isn't thought of by too many people at all.

Gilly was gun, he's been brilliant against all countries apart from India and has won an amazing 73 Tests so far, with a slight chance of making it 74 out of 96.

Brilliant.

 

[Richard]

Disagree - players frequently fail to play to the level their ability would suggest, and many of the more common reasons for that occurring derive from players lacking experience. Players are more likely to fulfil the potential of their ability when they are put in a forum where there is experienced leadership, guidance and support.

Don't agree - good players don't need leadership, they lead themselves. If you need leadership, you're going to get, well, not that far TBH.

Experience is hopelessly overrated. Essentially it derives from the (ludicrous) idea that younger players don't know how to bat or bowl. Often it's mistaken for the fact that players get better (not more experienced, just better) as their careers go on. Jaques, though, didn't need to - he was already a top-standard batsman as he started his Test career.

Ability, not experience, is what counts. There are some young players who are a bit stupid, but if anyone's telling me most young players don't know where to bowl the ball, or how to bat well, they're mad. But ability can, and very often is, improved throughout a player's career.

How much more comfortable has Jaques looked with Hayden at the other end, compared to having Rogers as his partner and seemingly feeling the pressure to provide leadership in the relationship?

And how about when he had Greg Mail or whoever at the other end? Still seems to have gone pretty damn well then. In any case, he's scored loads of runs after Hayden's been dismissed.

I don't think Jaques is a poor enough player to be affected by who's at the other end.

 

[Matt79]

Gilchrist's resiliance and durability was also amazing - exemplified by the fact that despite being the clear number 2 keeper for the last 3+ years, a period when Gilly had already entered his mid-30s, Haddin has yet to be required for a single test. Unless I misheard what was being said in one of the radio tributes, he played his 96 tests without any interruptions - a record for the most tests without a miss and an amazing testimony to the guy's fitness and professionalism.

 

[Richard]

Nah, not even close to a record (Border holds that with 153 ) but I'm almost certain it's a record for a wicketkeeper.

Not having missed a Test is a famous trait of Gilchrist's, amazed you haven't noticed.

 

[Matt79]

Don't agree - good players don't need leadership, they lead themselves. If you need leadership, you're going to get, well, not that far TBH.

Experience is hopelessly overrated. Essentially it derives from the (ludicrous) idea that younger players don't know how to bat or bowl. Often it's mistaken for the fact that players get better (not more experienced, just better) as their careers go on. Jaques, though, didn't need to - he was already a top-standard batsman as he started his Test career.

Ability, not experience, is what counts. There are some young players who are a bit stupid, but if anyone's telling me most young players don't know where to bowl the ball, or how to bat well, they're mad. But ability can, and very often is, improved throughout a player's career.

And how about when he had Greg Mail or whoever at the other end? Still seems to have gone pretty damn well then. In any case, he's scored loads of runs after Hayden's been dismissed.

I don't think Jaques is a poor enough player to be affected by who's at the other end.

All of that seems to me to be predicated on the notion that there's no difference in terms of a player being able to perform between FC and Test level. I obviously don't agree with that, and feel that the legion of good FC players who have been test failures demonstrate that point.

Experience being readily available within the team can play a huge role in a player's ongoing education and development. Most new test players are soon exposed to conditions, opposition or situations the likes of which they've not previously encountered. When that happens, they'll often learn quicker how to deal with it if there's someone who's been there and done that to give them a steer. That can be a coach, but often the best placed person is another team mate.

Experience without ability doesn't make you a good player, but having a experienced team supporting you undoubtedly makes it easier for an inexperienced player to perform. The absence of such experience doesn't make it impossible, but it makes it more difficult.

I'd reckon that if you looked at the career of almost any successful player, they'll acknowledge that at some point early in their career, they benefitted from the presence and advice of a senior player.

 

[Matt79]

Nah, not even close to a record (Border holds that with 153 ) but I'm almost certain it's a record for a wicketkeeper.

Not having missed a Test is a famous trait of Gilchrist's, amazed you haven't noticed.

Just took it for granted tbh...

 

[Richard]

All of that seems to me to be predicated on the notion that there's no difference in terms of a player being able to perform between FC and Test level. I obviously don't agree with that, and feel that the legion of good FC players who have been test failures demonstrate that point.

Well, the difference is the difference in standard. Some things that are good enough for domestic level aren't for international. Nothing to do with experience or lack of experience.

Experience being readily available within the team can play a huge role in a player's ongoing education and development. Most new test players are soon exposed to conditions, opposition or situations the likes of which they've not previously encountered. When that happens, they'll often learn quicker how to deal with it if there's someone who's been there and done that to give them a steer. That can be a coach, but often the best placed person is another team mate.

Experience without ability doesn't make you a good player, but having a experienced team supporting you undoubtedly makes it easier for an inexperienced player to perform. The absence of such experience doesn't make it impossible, but it makes it more difficult.

I'd reckon that if you looked at the career of almost any successful player, they'll acknowledge that at some point early in their career, they benefitted from the presence and advice of a senior player.

Beyond question. But that's not to say those giving advice have to be experienced players - as I've said any number of times, if people want help, they can seek it from players who've just retired, or someone else. You don't need the players with loads of games to remain in the team for the players who are looking to benefit from gain of knowledge via them. Ex-players are here, there and everywhere, and often just at the end of a phone, too.

Wise heads are rarely a bad thing. But they don't need to be wise heads on the teamsheet of 11 your national team's current Test-match.