Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

[open365]

Err - because there are better batsmen in his own team?
Most influential I wouldn't argue with, but greatest? No way.

GIlchrist would kick everyones *** no matter who he played for.

 

[Richard]

For most of his career, Gilchrist could walk into most teams on his batting alone, same couldn't be said about any other wicketkeeper or allrounder.

Flower? Sangakkara?
Stewart? I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day.

 

[Richard]

GIlchrist would kick everyones *** no matter who he played for.

Gilchrist is IMO only about 10th in the list of best batsmen of his time.

 

[Richard]

Gilli will remain the top keeper bats untill Dhoni emerges as a succesful keeper bats in the longer format of the game.I will give Gilly a year time to remain the top Keeper bat, after that Dhoni will be the king!

Not if he keeps playing the shocking strokes he played several times in the recent series, he won't.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Henry Blofeld > Gilchrist > The Kumar's At No 46.31

 

[open365]

Gilchrist is IMO only about 10th in the list of best batsmen of his time.

But look at what Gilchrist has done to cricket, he's completely changed the way we think about wicket keepers, much like Shane Warne and leg spin.

Yes, there are other great keeper batsmen around, but Gilchrist is tha daddy, he is a devastating batsman in test matches and in ranked 2nd? in the ODI rankings, plus, he was the first to really take the attack to the bowlers in test matches.

 

[Richard]

OK, just for the heck of it ..

Gilchrist vs Walcott vs Ames ?

TBF Leslie Ames isn't quite as good as he's made-out to be - average (40) goes down to 38 if you remove the substandard New Zealand side. Even then, averages in the high 40s against South Africa, India and West Indies and just 27 against Australia.
The Mohammad Yousuf of his day.
As for Clyde Walcott - does he really count? 15 Tests as 'keeper (in which he averages just 40.36, BTW) compared to 29 as non-'keeper (in which he averages 64.66).
Walcott was, beyond all question, a fantastic batsman (behind only Headley, Weekes and Sobers in West Indian quarters IMO) but I'm never totally sure whether or not he counts as a true batsman-wicketkeeper.

 

[Richard]

But look at what Gilchrist has done to cricket, he's completely changed the way we think about wicket keepers, much like Shane Warne and leg spin.

Yes, there are other great keeper batsmen around, but Gilchrist is tha daddy, he is a devastating batsman in test matches and in ranked 2nd? in the ODI rankings, plus, he was the first to really take the attack to the bowlers in test matches.

Gilchrist certainly hasn't changed the way we think about wicketkeepers - the trend for wicketkeepers to be aggressive batsmen was already well established by the time he arrived. What Gilchrist has changed IMO is the style of Test batting - turning it from aggressive to very aggressive. He certainly wasn't, though, the first to really take the attack to the bowlers - that was probably someone in the 1880s or so.

 

[wpdavid]

TBF Leslie Ames isn't quite as good as he's made-out to be - average (40) goes down to 38 if you remove the substandard New Zealand side. Even then, averages in the high 40s against South Africa, India and West Indies and just 27 against Australia.
The Mohammad Yousuf of his day.
As for Clyde Walcott - does he really count? 15 Tests as 'keeper (in which he averages just 40.36, BTW) compared to 29 as non-'keeper (in which he averages 64.66).
Walcott was, beyond all question, a fantastic batsman (behind only Headley, Weekes and Sobers in West Indian quarters IMO) but I'm never totally sure whether or not he counts as a true batsman-wicketkeeper.

Fair points all of them, and thanks for the info.

 

[greg]

Flower is the best keeper player of spin. His record is seriously skewed by playing so many tests against Asian sides.

Gilchrist today has become a caricature of himself. A myth has built up of him coming to the wicket with Aus in trouble and turning the game around in 20 minutes. And he has bought into it and no longer bothers to play himself in before trying to hit every ball for four. Unsurprisingly his average has dropped from alltime great levels towards what his average is in one day games.

 

[open365]

Gilchrist certainly hasn't changed the way we think about wicketkeepers - the trend for wicketkeepers to be aggressive batsmen was already well established by the time he arrived. What Gilchrist has changed IMO is the style of Test batting - turning it from aggressive to very aggressive. He certainly wasn't, though, the first to really take the attack to the bowlers - that was probably someone in the 1880s or so.

prove it

 

[Sanz]

Flower? Sangakkara?
Stewart? I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day.

Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.

 

[greg]

Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.

Rubbish.

 

[luckyeddie]

i dont get you on this idea of `luck` at all. You say McGrath has been a lucky bowler over a certain period which doesn't make sense at all. Why has Gilchrist been a luck batsman tell us?

Because if all else fails when it comes to being able to construct an argument that anyone in their right mind would believe, there's always good old witchcraft and superstition to fall back on.

There's no answer to 'he was lucky', therefore Richard wins by default.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.

Balderdash. Piffle too I'd venture.

 

[Sanz]

Rubbish.

If he was so good a wicket-keeper batsman why did he play 55 tests purely as a batsman ?

some of you totally ignore the fact that when Stewart played as the designated wicket-keeper of England, he averaged 33 Now compare that with Gilchrist's average of 50.

 

[Sanz]

Balderdash.

Why not look at the Wicket-Keeper Batsman Stewart's average, here is it :-

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Why not look at the Wicket-Keeper Batsman Stewart's average, here is it :-

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

How does that pertain to his 'keeping skills?

 

[Sanz]

How does that pertain to his 'keeping skills?

Okay as Richard said that on his Batting/Keeping skills he would have walked into many side of his days. Now who were the wicket Keepers of his days

Australia - Healy/Gilchrist - NOWAY
Pakistan - Latif/Moin - NOWAY
India - Mongia/More - NO WAY
Zimbabwe - Flower - NO Way
SA - Boucher/Richardson - NO WAY
WI - Jacobs/ ?? - Jacobs was a better WK than Stewart, dont remember RJ's batting
NZ - Lee Germon/ ?? - Maybe
SL - Kaluwitharna/Sangakkara - NO WAY

I dont remember how good Germon was as a wicketkeeper and apart from Germon I dont see Stewart being able to replace any one else on his wicket keeping skills alone or even on his combined skills. He may be better batsman than some of those e.g. Kalu, Mongia, Latif etc but he is a much inferior wicketkeeper than them.

Do you still think Richard's statement "I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day" is justified ?

 

[greg]

Okay as Richard said that on his Batting/Keeping skills he would have walked into many side of his days. Now who were the wicket Keepers of his days

Australia - Healy/Gilchrist - NOWAY
Pakistan - Latif/Moin - NOWAY
India - Mongia/More - NO WAY
Zimbabwe - Flower - NO Way
SA - Boucher/Richardson - NO WAY
WI - Jacobs/ ?? - Jacobs was a better WK than Stewart, dont remember RJ's batting
NZ - Lee Germon/ ?? - Maybe
SL - Kaluwitharna/Sangakkara - NO WAY

I

Is this some sort of a joke? Jacobs is probably the worst wicketkeeper to have played for any test nation, ever. Stewart at his peak was probably one of the top 3 wicketkeepers in England.