Adam Gilchrist

[Rik]

I assume you mean a Zimbabwe player?

Yeah but to be fair, in the spring he did look like an even shorter version of Tendulkar even if he is Zimbabwean

 

[Tim]

I wouldn't say Sachin is a brilliant fielder...he's made a few errors during the matches in Australia but he's definately an above average fielder & certainly in the top 3 fielders India have.

 

[Richard]

1/ Tatenda Taibu
2/ Jack Russell
3/ Wade Seccombe
4/ Prasanna Jayawardene

And some! (for example Boucher, Read, Hegg, Turner, Krikken, Pothas)
Russell and Jayawardene are a class apart. Never seen Seccombe, but everyone seems to talk highly of him. He also played for the club of my ex-hometown.

 

[Richard]

Sachin's an economical ODI bowler

Hmm...
Not quite sure about that!
Tendulkar might be useful for the odd wicket here and there, but accurate he ain't - he'd be pushing Sobers if he was.
His standards of accuracy are why he's a part-timer.

 

[Richard]

Guys does it really mattter if he was/wasnt dropped? At the end of the day the scorecard doesnt have picutres! It simply says Gilchrist 172 - sod the drop catches!!!

How you can describe scoring Gilly's innings as "tin-arsed his way to 172" is ridiculous. Like you said you did watch it, so the comments void. Gillys running between the wickets is an example to all of how it should be done.

Not seen this Wade guy so cant comment but he'd have to be something special to oust Gilly. Cant see it happening for a few years rest. Why is it they play Maher when they rest Gilly for ODI if this Wade guy is good? Who does this guy play for?

Course Gillys the best keeper in the world, whose better? Boucher? do us a favour, the guy has a test average of around 30 and dropped a bucket full of regulation ctaches Vs. Eng in the summer.

I think Bevans average would be completely different if he batted higher up. I reckon if Gilly batted in his position he'd have an average the same as Bevan's.

In pure glove work (not batting as well) Taibu is a better keeper than Gilchrist, and Parore was better as well.

However I agree with you regarding Gilchrist's 172. Criticising it because he was dropped is stupid. It was a great knock, the only criticism anyone can realistically make is that it was made against weak opposition.

Not surprisingly the same person that is criticising Gilchrist's innings is the one who doesn't rate Tendulkar's fabulous knock of 98 against Pakistan in the World Cup.

As for dropped catches, they ARE relevant. It's much easier to reach 172 when you get to bat 2 or 3 times in one innings. There were at least 2 genuine chances, plus a difficult one for Blignaut, and the catch that Hondo dropped was an absolute sitter.

It truly strains belief that people can simply not realise that there is no difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a dropped catch and a caught catch. The attitude "sod dropped catches" is quite a stupid one.
Dropped catches are far more important than the ability of the opposition bowling - you can only score runs against what is put up against you. It should be remembered, but if you need a dropped catch or another let-off, you haven't scored the runs entirely through your own ability, have you?
It doesn't take rocket-science to work that out.
And I don't rate Tendulkar's fabulous knock of 98 in WC2003 - because he didn't play one. He played two knocks in one innings, of 47 and 51. They were both brilliant innings', but the fact that they were against Pakistan, against a woefully substandard attack, doesn't mean they were anywhere near as good as, for instance, Lara's in the 1st game or Ponting's in the final.
As for the talking about wicketkeeping, it's fairly important to distinguish between wicketkeeping and wicketkeeper-batsmanship. Of course Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeper-batsman left, but there's absolutely no way he's the best wicketkeeper around. We have alreadly listed plenty, and there are plenty more.

 

[Thelwell]

Dick,

Scorebooks dont have pictures nor do they have a column for drop catches, so no one remembers when they were dropped, only what they scored.

Regards.

 

[bayly17]

Adam gilchrist was once an awsome batter but in recent form Girlchrist is preety much wrecking his stats and i think he is get on a bit at an age in the mid 30's.

 

[KishanTeli]

And I don't rate Tendulkar's fabulous knock of 98 in WC2003 - because he didn't play one. He played two knocks in one innings, of 47 and 51. They were both brilliant innings', but the fact that they were against Pakistan, against a woefully substandard attack doesn't mean they were anywhere near as good as, for instance, Lara's in the 1st game or Ponting's in the final.

So you consider Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib "woefully substandard" compared to Srinath, Zaheer, and Nehra who bowled to Ponting :O ?

 

[djsj]

hell no

 

[Thelwell]

Adam gilchrist was once an awsome batter but in recent form Girlchrist is preety much wrecking his stats and i think he is get on a bit at an age in the mid 30's.

Disagree his age is affecting his place in the team, agree he's been abit outta form recently.

Form is temporary but class is permanent.

 

[Richard]

Dick,

Scorebooks dont have pictures nor do they have a column for drop catches, so no one remembers when they were dropped, only what they scored.

Regards.

Fortunately, there are more important things in cricket than the scorebook.
Most people remember dropped catches, they just don't understand the significance. There is no difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a missed chance and an accepted chance. No-one has ever been able to argue with that when I have put it to them.
There are better indications of a batsman's ability than his scorebook average.

 

[Richard]

So you consider Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib "woefully substandard" compared to Srinath, Zaheer, and Nehra who bowled to Ponting :O ?

One, that doesn't matter - Ponting played a chanceless 156*(?), Tendulkar scored 47 and 51.
And normally I would say Waqar and Shoaib are far better than Khan and Nehra, but no way were either above woeful on those two days.
Good bowlers do bowl poorly, you know. So do average bowlers, and both sets bowled absolutely terribly in these respective games.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One, that doesn't matter - Ponting played a chanceless 156*(?), Tendulkar scored 47 and 51.

If you're going to compare the two innings in that fashion then you'll have to take into account the conditions for each game as well as the intermediate bowlers, therefore rendering your comparison ridiculous.

You can't say that Ponting's was better than Sachin's because Ponting didn't play his innings in Tendulkar's circumstances and vice versa.

 

[marc71178]

Fortunately, there are more important things in cricket than the scorebook.

Oh really?

So who wins the game if the scorebook is ignored?

 

[Richard]

If you're going to compare the two innings in that fashion then you'll have to take into account the conditions for each game as well as the intermediate bowlers, therefore rendering your comparison ridiculous.

You can't say that Ponting's was better than Sachin's because Ponting didn't play his innings in Tendulkar's circumstances and vice versa.

*Sighs very deeply*
No, Liam, we can't make a microcosmic comparison of every mediating factor, but we can make the point that Ponting, in one dig, scored 60 more than Tendulkar did in two. It is my judgement that Ponting's innings was better than Tendulkar's, even though Ponting played the odd false stroke, Tendulkar played probably one in the entire time at the crease.
IMO the bowling was almost equally poor in both cases, but yes, if you rated both attacks on a scale of 0 to 1000 there would probably be some difference.:rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

Oh really?

So who wins the game if the scorebook is ignored?

The result is irrelevant to the judgement of a player's ability.

 

[bayly17]

GIRLCHRIST SUCKS!!!

 

[Thelwell]

GIRLCHRIST SUCKS!!!

Dont talk such rubbish.

 

[Thelwell]

Fortunately, there are more important things in cricket than the scorebook.
Most people remember dropped catches, they just don't understand the significance. There is no difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a missed chance and an accepted chance. No-one has ever been able to argue with that when I have put it to them..

Thats cos your talking rubbish

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

*Sighs very deeply*
No, Liam, we can't make a microcosmic comparison of every mediating factor, but we can make the point that Ponting, in one dig, scored 60 more than Tendulkar did in two. It is my judgement that Ponting's innings was better than Tendulkar's, even though Ponting played the odd false stroke, Tendulkar played probably one in the entire time at the crease.
IMO the bowling was almost equally poor in both cases, but yes, if you rated both attacks on a scale of 0 to 1000 there would probably be some difference.:rolleyes:

No need for the exasperation. My point is simply that Ponting's innings was under different circumstances. Who knows how many runs Tendulkar would have scored against the Indian attack. :P