• 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 vs Wally Hammond

Which would add more value to the median Test team?

  • Total voters
    33
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Adorable Asshole said:
Who? Only Bert IronMonger I can remember. And most of matches between those two were in flat pitches.
Click to expand...
Gregory, McCormick, Lindwall, Miller, maybe Johnston, at a stretch Wall. Certainly more there, if only for brief times, than Constantine + Martindale + that murderer & change.
 
Cricket Bliss

Cricket Bliss

U19 Vice-Captain
If I have both Hammond and Gilchrist in my team, Hammond will be more valuable.

But Gilchrist has a higher chance of getting selected in team because there isn’t anyone better than Gilchrist in his spot, Not even Knott.

There are better No.4 atleast arguably with the likes of Tendulkar and Richards or better batting all rounders like Sobers or Kallis of which atleast one of them is unarguably a better cricketer.
 
Last edited:
sayon basak

sayon basak

Cricketer Of The Year
Johan said:
Hammond could play pace, ask Harold Larwood.
Click to expand...
In FC, Hammond scored 8704 runs @56.15; 31 centuries in matches involving one or more than one fast bowler in the opponent. (Not counting medium fast bowlers, like Tate)

Nissar: 110 (1). 2 hundreds, HS 217.
Voce: 97 (4). 9 hundreds, HS 317. With three of the hundreds, Larwood was playing as well.
McDonald: 71 (5). 3 hundreds, HS 250*.
Martindale: 52 (2). 2 hundreds, HS 281*. With one of the hundreds, Constantine was playing as well.
McCormick 51 (1). 1 hundred, HS 240.
Gregory: 49 (2). 1 hundred, HS 225.
Larwood: 47 (3). 5 hundreds, HS 130. With three of the hundreds, Voce was playing as well.
Miller: 42 (-). 3 hundreds, HS 121.
Constantine: 40 (11). 4 hundreds, HS 138. With one of the hundreds, Martindale was playing as well.
George Francis: 38 (3). 1 hundred, HS 238*.
Herman Griffith 38 (4). 1 hundred, HS 26
Herman Griffith 38 (4). 1 hundred, HS 264.
Tim Wall 37 (6). 3 hundreds, HS 145.
Hylton 29 (2). HS 47.
Eddie Gilbert 27 (-). HS 27.
Farnes 24 (2). HS 68.
Lindwall: 21 (1). HS 32.

Source:- peterhrt
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
Hammond is really overrated as a batsman on here imo, but still a tremendous package as a cricketer.
Click to expand...
Can't agree with the overrated part, only a very few have him like top 5 or 6.

Anywhere from 9 to 11 sounds about right for someone of his stature.

He was a incredibly tremendous package as a cricketer....
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Cricket Bliss said:
If I have both Hammond and Gilchrist in my team, Hammond will be more valuable.

But Gilchrist has a higher chance of getting selected in team because there isn’t anyone better than Gilchrist in his spot, Not even Knott.

There are better No.4 atleast arguably with the likes of Tendulkar and Richards or better batting all rounders like Sobers or Kallis of which atleast one of them is unarguably a better cricketer.
Click to expand...
Gilchrist has a better chance of getting selected than Murali, Imran, Ambrose, Smith, Steyn. Is he better than them as well?

I also do rate him above Kallis as an over cricketer.

But yeah, an ATG top 10 batsman at 4, top 4 slip fielder at 1st and a more than handle 5th bowler is more valuable than the wicket keeper, so no arguments there.
 
Johan

Johan

Cricketer Of The Year
sayon basak said:
In FC, Hammond scored 8704 runs @56.15; 31 centuries in matches involving one or more than one fast bowler in the opponent. (Not counting medium fast bowlers, like Tate)

Nissar: 110 (1). 2 hundreds, HS 217.
Voce: 97 (4). 9 hundreds, HS 317. With three of the hundreds, Larwood was playing as well.
McDonald: 71 (5). 3 hundreds, HS 250*.
Martindale: 52 (2). 2 hundreds, HS 281*. With one of the hundreds, Constantine was playing as well.
McCormick 51 (1). 1 hundred, HS 240.
Gregory: 49 (2). 1 hundred, HS 225.
Larwood: 47 (3). 5 hundreds, HS 130. With three of the hundreds, Voce was playing as well.
Miller: 42 (-). 3 hundreds, HS 121.
Constantine: 40 (11). 4 hundreds, HS 138. With one of the hundreds, Martindale was playing as well.
George Francis: 38 (3). 1 hundred, HS 238*.
Herman Griffith 38 (4). 1 hundred, HS 26
Herman Griffith 38 (4). 1 hundred, HS 264.
Tim Wall 37 (6). 3 hundreds, HS 145.
Hylton 29 (2). HS 47.
Eddie Gilbert 27 (-). HS 27.
Farnes 24 (2). HS 68.
Lindwall: 21 (1). HS 32.

Source:- peterhrt
Click to expand...
+ Hammond is universally, unquestionably as a superior of Compton (which he was), to the point where I'd say They're not even in the same discussion and Compton averaged 50+ against Lindwall/Miller duo minus the injury series, it won't make sense if Hammond literally couldn't play pace and yes is rated a league above Compton and was rated above Hutton until 60s or 70s.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
kyear2 said:
Gilchrist has a better chance of getting selected than Murali, Imran, Ambrose, Smith, Steyn. Is he better than them as well?

I also do rate him above Kallis as an over cricketer.

But yeah, an ATG top 10 batsman at 4, top 4 slip fielder at 1st and a more than handle 5th bowler is more valuable than the wicket keeper, so no arguments there.
Click to expand...
All of these players with the possible exception of Murali have a 100% chance of being selected really. There aren't teams that played in real life that wouldn't find a spot for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top