Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

[Anil]

Yeah, so you're agreeing with me Or did you quote the wrong person?

no i am just adding meat to your argument....

 

[Sanz]

No, he wasn't - he was just a bit better. Once again - you just don't seem to understand how good a wicketkeeper Stewart actually was. And he could bat better than Latif in his sleep.

As I Said, You have NO FREAKING CLUE. Latif was Clearly MILES and MILES ahead of Stewart as wicket Keeper, moin wasn't as good yet much better than Stewart for most part of his career.

No-one, ever, needs that. Batting is far more important thant wickekeeping. Neither were miles ahead - perhaps (and only perhaps) they might have been better wicketkeepers, but the differential was nowhere near enough to justify them playing ahead of Stewart.

If batting was more important India would never have dropped Deep Dasgupta, Ajay Ratra, Parthiv Patel. And If wicket Keeping wasn't that important, Rahul Dravid would have kept wickets for India in ODIs and Tests as well (thus he would have become the greates wicket-keeper ever to play the the game). As I said Wicket-keeping may not important for the English team, but it is very important for a sub-continent team like India because their bowlers suck, they hardly create any chance and if they do their Wicket-keeper has got to catch it, stump it or whatever.

Rubbish, Boucher was embarrased on both his trips to England. Stewart is clearly twice the batsman Richardson ever was and whether Richardson was a bit better as a wicketkeeper is hardly relevant.

For a wicketkeeper, keeping wickets is the primary job, you dont select a bowler because he bats okay and bowls crap, do you ? Or you dont select a batsman who bats crap and bowls allright, do you ? So why the exception for Wicket Keeper especially it is the toughest and hardest job in Cricket.

Their wicketkeeping isn't really relevant - their batting was nowhere near good enough to keep Stewart out of the side.

As I said, I dont know about their keeping, but if they were better Keepers than Stewart, I would pick them as WK for NZ.

You clearly haven't watched enough, then. Stewart had the skills to keep to ANYONE.

BS, If he had the skills, he wouldn't have gone 50+ tests as a pure batsman. As I said, it is admirable that Stewart learnt to keep wickets and did a good job, but he is no Gilchrist, Period.

 

[Sanz]

A revolutionary who is the best keeper/bat of all time and in the top 5 ODI batters of all time. Not sure where he would be in an all time list but certainly in the top 50 - 40.

Did you miss a 2 before the five ?? Sorry he might sneak in the top 25 but not in top 5. If you are talking about Wicket-keeper batsman in ODIs then I would say Rahul Dravid is the best WK/Batsman of all time.

 

[Sanz]

Explain, please, how Stewart was "less than ordinary" as a wicketkeeper-batsman when he managed to average 38 while keeping wicket for well over half his career?

What Rubbish ?? Stewart averagesonly 34-35 as a WK Batsman and if I remove his batting against Zimbabwe his avg. < 33. As a wicketkeeper Stewart never averaged more than 35. Now stop quoting stats from your cookbook, there is Cricinfo out there and guess what most of us look up there for cricket stats.

Stewart is clearly not massively behind Gilchrist as a batsman, Gilchrist has just played much worse attacks.Stewart was one of the best batsman-wicketkeepers ever.

Thanks, I had a rough day, it made my day.

 

[oz_fan]

A revolutionary who is the best keeper/bat of all time and in the top 5 ODI batters of all time. Not sure where he would be in an all time list but certainly in the top 50 - 40.

Yeah it was a bit of a stretch having him in the top 5 ODI batters, he could probably make it in to the top 25 though.

 

[Sanz]

Stewart is clearly not massively behind Gilchrist as a batsman, Gilchrist has just played much worse attacks.

Yeah Right !!1 That's why Gilly has better stats than Stewart in almost every category. Guess what those countries were resting their main bowlers every time Gilly came into bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

Gille, for mine, is the best 'keeper playing the game currently. Combine that with his batting, and I'd happily see him 'keeping in any all time XI anyone would care to mind. Without even thinking about it too much, either.

 

[andyc]

Gille, for mine, is the best 'keeper playing the game currently.

That's a big call, what about Gilly?

 

[silentstriker]

If you count Flower, then count Rahul Dravid

 

[mr cricket]

who do u think right at this moment is the best wicketkeeper?

 

[Sanz]

If you count Flower, then count Rahul Dravid

And how many tests did Rahul Play as Wicket Keeper ?

 

[Perm]

Gilchrist is easily the best keeper-batsmen to grace both the ODI and Test game. Should be a certain selection for any all time XI in either form of the game.

 

[Ikki]

Let's just agree. Someone's going to come out with a whacked-out argument, attempt at making it look sane, then we'll all settle on the original hypothesis. Gilchrist, best ever .

 

[greg]

As I Said, You have NO FREAKING CLUE. Latif was Clearly MILES and MILES ahead of Stewart as wicket Keeper, moin wasn't as good yet much better than Stewart for most part of his career.



If batting was more important India would never have dropped Deep Dasgupta, Ajay Ratra, Parthiv Patel. And If wicket Keeping wasn't that important, Rahul Dravid would have kept wickets for India in ODIs and Tests as well (thus he would have become the greates wicket-keeper ever to play the the game). As I said Wicket-keeping may not important for the English team, but it is very important for a sub-continent team like India because their bowlers suck, they hardly create any chance and if they do their Wicket-keeper has got to catch it, stump it or whatever.



For a wicketkeeper, keeping wickets is the primary job, you dont select a bowler because he bats okay and bowls crap, do you ? Or you dont select a batsman who bats crap and bowls allright, do you ? So why the exception for Wicket Keeper especially it is the toughest and hardest job in Cricket.



As I said, I dont know about their keeping, but if they were better Keepers than Stewart, I would pick them as WK for NZ.



BS, If he had the skills, he wouldn't have gone 50+ tests as a pure batsman. As I said, it is admirable that Stewart learnt to keep wickets and did a good job, but he is no Gilchrist, Period.

Did you ever watch Stewart keep in more than a couple of test matches? You seem to think he is some sort of Geraint Jones equivalent.

BTW if Dhoni can make the Indian team, then it appears your contention about the value of a good wicketkeeper on the subcontinent is not shared by all the selectors - which is all that is need for Stewart to be picked :-)

 

[Top_Cat]

Did you ever watch Stewart keep in more than a couple of test matches? You seem to think he is some sort of Geraint Jones equivalent.

I watched Stewart since he first made the England side in 1990 and kept regularly and early-on, before he was a regular 'keeper, he wasn't a great 'keeper at all. Very ordinary but that's to be expected since he was expected to score runs. Once he kept regularly, though, he turned into a serviceable 'keeper but, in my opinion, was never spectacular. I'm also of the opinion that he was such a good batsman, he should never have been made the regular 'keeper, especially since there were a few in England who were far better with the gloves (Jack Russell, for example).

In fairness, Rashid Latif was hardly a fantastic gloveman in 1992 when I first saw him. But he progressed quite quickly and was very, very good after about 1995.

 

[marc71178]

Stewart's average once he was keeping wicket full-time was 11 higher than Russell's.

So ignore part of the career because it suits you - never seen that one before.

 

[Sanz]

BTW if Dhoni can make the Indian team, then it appears your contention about the value of a good wicketkeeper on the subcontinent is not shared by all the selectors - which is all that is need for Stewart to be picked :-)

Dhoni didn't play during Stewart's time, Mongia did. And I dont think Stewart was anywhere near Mongia as a wicketkeeper.

Dhoni is aweful as a wicketkeeper and he has another few matches to prove himself, if he doesn't he will be dropped like Patel, Dasgupta etc. Oh and btw, Dhoni averages better than Stewart as a WK Batsman.

 

[Armadillo]

Would he have replaced Latif\Moin? Unless the Pakistan selectors were completely insane, yes.

There's no unless about it.

 

[Armadillo]

Dhoni didn't play during Stewart's time, Mongia did. And I dont think Stewart was anywhere near Mongia as a wicketkeeper.

Dhoni is aweful as a wicketkeeper and he has another few matches to prove himself, if he doesn't he will be dropped like Patel, Dasgupta etc. Oh and btw, Dhoni averages better than Stewart as a WK Batsman.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=15707&highlight=mahendra+singh+dhoni+spectacular
How situations change......

 

[Richard]

I always hoped that Gilchrist, to let future generations know how good he was, would retire with a Test average in the mid-50's. Sadly, given his struggles of late, I wouldn't be surprised if it dips to 45 by the time the gloves are hung up. Im now convinced he will retire from all forms after WC 2007.

Something that afficts so many players.
Still - I can't help but feel Gilchrist does, to some extent, deserve his average to drop.
I always felt it flattered him rather to have a mid-50s average.