Adam Gilchrist vs Brian Lara

[Thala_0710]

No, He is great in both discipline. If batting was really that important, people would chose Flower instead of him.


Oh.

Yeah but teams always choose a Pant/Dhoni over Saha/PJ despite Saha/PJ being leagues the better keeper, simply because being a leagues better keeper has a smaller impact than being a moderately better bat, since making runs and taking wickets just have a bigger value in the game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but teams always choose a Pant/Dhoni over Saha/PJ despite Saha/PJ being leagues the better keeper, simply because being a leagues better keeper has a smaller impact than being a moderately better bat, since making runs and taking wickets just have a bigger value in the game.

Definitely, but a keeper is a must to have position. Gilchrist's keeping leaves nothing on tables, instead it's better than most. There's an argument that Gilchrist replacing an average keeper leads to more runs in a team than Lara replacing an average batter, simply because an average keeper is that much worse with the bat than an average batter. And significantly more so before the 90s

 

[kyear2]

In primary discipline he may not even top 10

It is his secondary discipline that elevates him

While I agree Lara is better, I also have Gilly as a top 20 cricketer.

And I would argue that Gilly's keeping is his primary and he was at the very least world class, if not great, ummm probably not great... But probably close.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist is ATVG in both his disciplines, not a feat you can say any all rounder has ever done.

I rank Gilly as a top 4 all rounder, just below Kallis and ahead of Miller.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist is ATVG in both his disciplines, not a feat you can say any all rounder has ever done.

And on a separate note.

What's wrong with

ATG
Great
World class / Elite (?)
Above test standard
Test standard
Average
Below average
Poor

Great is much more representative of these players than ATVG imho

We can even slide Legendary above ATG for those top 2 or 3 in the pantheon.

 

[kyear2]

First of all he is not an all rounder. He is a WK.

His batting is the reason people select him in ATG teams.

He's an all rounder because wicket keeper itself is a specialist position.

Most modern wicket keepers by definition and default are all rounders.

And he's the only arguably great keeper who's also a great batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but teams always choose a Pant/Dhoni over Saha/PJ despite Saha/PJ being leagues the better keeper, simply because being a leagues better keeper has a smaller impact than being a moderately better bat, since making runs and taking wickets just have a bigger value in the game.

Teams or primarily India?

And even on a broader scope, that's been quite a recent and misguided premise.

England fiddled with Stewart over Russell and weakend the team in two spots. That's really hard to do.

 

[sayon basak]

While I agree Lara is better, I also have Gilly as a top 20 cricketer.

And I would argue that Gilly's keeping is his primary and he was at the very least world class, if not great, ummm probably not great... But probably close.

Difference?

 

[Migara]

All rounders are generally rated above specialists.