Greatest Ever Test XI

[Kweek]

Agreed!

 

[Scallywag]

Flower was a better test batsman than Gilchrist and Gilchrist is a better ODI batsman than Flower.

The problem is to see these two separately when thinking of comparing two players. We are always mixed up by the form of cricket.

Sorry SJS but I just cant see where you are coming from, could you explain why Flower is better than Gilchrist in tests because I just cant see it.

Flower 63 tests 4794 runs 51.5 ave 12 tons 27 fifties 151 catches 9 stumpings
Gilchrist 68 tests 4452 runs 55.6 ave 15 tons 20 fifties 260 catches 27 stumpings

 

[SJS]

Sorry SJS but I just cant see where you are coming from, could you explain why Flower is better than Gilchrist in tests because I just cant see it.

Flower 63 tests 4794 runs 51.5 ave 12 tons 27 fifties 151 catches 9 stumpings
Gilchrist 68 tests 4452 runs 55.6 ave 15 tons 20 fifties 260 catches 27 stumpings

I am sorry, I was not looking at stats. I think Flower was a better test match player. If we decided all the arguments in cricket based om stats, there really would be no arguments left, right ??

 

[howardj]

The answer is simple Howard.

I was choosing who , in my humble opinion, was the better keeper. I gave no consideration to the batting. When you have the greatest batting side in the world, presumably, and the gretaest all rounder/s, presumably, surely one would not compromise on the keeper, to further bolster the batting. If the greatest keeper in the world was a totally incompetent batsman and needed to bat at number 11. I would have still chosen him. Just like while choosing a spinner, I have thought of Murali and Grimmett and not Benaud or Mankad, or while choosing a fast bowler, it is not Miller.

The logic is the same.

If batting has to be a criteria for everyone then we might as well have a team of all rounders which too would be a pretty formidable team I must admit.

Its a question of the premise or philosophy of the selectors'

QUOTE]

That's fair enough. One of my friends has the same philosophy. However, I always think the best philosophy when picking sides is: "which players will most increase your chances of winning". I think Gilchrist - very competent keeper and master batsman - would take a team further along the road to winning, than a player who was a slightly better keeper, but much inferior batsman.

Furthermore, you could turn your argument around by concluding that your side - like has been said of the current Australian side - has so many great bowlers that they are likely to create heaps of chances. Therefore, it doesnt matter so much if Gilly misses the odd stumping etc, as another chance is just around the corner.

 

[Scallywag]

I am sorry, I was not looking at stats. I think Flower was a better test match player. If we decided all the arguments in cricket based om stats, there really would be no arguments left, right ??

I only pointed out the stats because it would be easy to make an argument for saying Gilly is the better test player, you have stated that Flower is better than Gilly so I have asked the question as to why you made this statement. Gilly is reconised as a match winner and one of the best players in cricket at the moment, I have not heard as much praise for Flower even though he has proven to be a fantastic player.

I'm not saying Gilly is better but simply asking why you rate Flower a better test player than Gilchrist.

 

[Robertinho]

Andy Flower is truly one of the most underrated players in cricket... averaging 51, as a keeper, playing for Zimbabwe? Unheard of But I would rate Gilchrist higher.. sheer explosive power and the ability to complete turn a game around. Plus he bats at 7.

 

[Kweek]

Sorry SJS but I just cant see where you are coming from, could you explain why Flower is better than Gilchrist in tests because I just cant see it.

Flower 63 tests 4794 runs 51.5 ave 12 tons 27 fifties 151 catches 9 stumpings
Gilchrist 68 tests 4452 runs 55.6 ave 15 tons 20 fifties 260 catches 27 stumpings

dude..you are saying it yourself...he scored MORE Runs in less tests..!

 

[SJS]

dude..you are saying it yourself...he scored MORE Runs in less tests..!

And he never got to play Zimbabwe while Gilchrist never has to face Australia.

 

[SJS]

Plus he bats at 7.

Why ???

Why does he bat at number seven ?

 

[Scallywag]

dude..you are saying it yourself...he scored MORE Runs in less tests..!

Dude they are keepers and Gilly has 89 more catches and 18 more stumpings in 3 extra games. Also Flower had 112 innings compared to Gilly's 97 which means by the time Gilly has the same amount of innings as Flower he will have more runs.

 

[Scallywag]

And he never got to play Zimbabwe while Gilchrist never has to face Australia.

Gilly has played Zim 2 times and Flower has played Aus once, so you cant say Flower has faced better bowlers than Gilly because thats not true and you cant say Gilly has inflated his ave by playing Zim because that is not true.

 

[SJS]

Andy Flower is truly one of the most underrated players in cricket... averaging 51, as a keeper, playing for Zimbabwe? Unheard of But I would rate Gilchrist higher.. sheer explosive power and the ability to complete turn a game around. Plus he bats at 7.

Batting at number 7 isnt necessarily bad for your averages.

Here are Flowers averages at lower orders

At 5...54.9
At 6...58.4
At 7...70.0

It is higher up that the average drops.

 

[Scallywag]

Batting at number 7 isnt necessarily bad for your averages.

Here are Flowers averages at lower orders

At 5...54.9
At 6...58.4
At 7...70.0

It is higher up that the average drops.

Flower only batted twice at 7 for 140 runs, not a very big sample to go on.

 

[SJS]

Gilly has played Zim 2 times and Flower has played Aus once, so you cant say Flower has faced better bowlers than Gilly because thats not true and you cant say Gilly has inflated his ave by playing Zim because that is not true.

Yes you are right. They havent played each others counttries enough for it to be a significant factor.

Just for the records. Flowers average without Australia is 52.4 and Gilly's without Zimbabwe 54.7.

 

[Scallywag]

Batting at number 7 isnt necessarily bad for your averages.

Here are Flowers averages at lower orders

At 5...54.9
At 6...58.4
At 7...70.0

It is higher up that the average drops.

Gilly

At 5...183
At6....63
At7....53

Funny that one.

 

[SJS]

Flower only batted twice at 7 for 140 runs, not a very big sample to go on.

I know my dear. But he batted 18 at six and 82 times at 5 and you can see that even at these positions his average is better than at 3 and 4.

Even for Gilchrist the averages are higher when he goes lower down. You should try and look at the argument rather than just go after the figures. The logic stands. Here are their figures in perspective.

Position.....Gilchrist.........Flowers
At 1-4............41.3(7).............27.6(8)
A7 5-8...........57.0(90).............55.8(99)

Figures in bracket are innings

Ok guys I have had enough of this argument. Average apart I think, and it is my humble opinion, that Flower was a better test batsman. You have your opinion and that is that. Thank you.

 

[Scallywag]

Ok guys I have had enough of this argument. Average apart I think, and it is my humble opinion, that Flower was a better test batsman. You have your opinion and that is that. Thank you.

Fair enough sweetie but just to sumarise I only wanted to know what makes you think Flower is a better player and you didnt really tell me. I wasnt trying to change your mind or prove otherwise it was just on what I have seen and the stats available it suggests otherwise.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I was thinking about the use of statistics to determine the values of players, and decided to select XIs based on statistics only, and see how they turned out.

Test Averages XI
Herbert Sutcliffe
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman
Graeme Pollock
George Headley
Eddie Paynter
Adam Gilchrist
Bill Bates
Bill Barnes
Sydney Barnes
George Lohmann

Test Endurance XI
Graeme Gooch
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Steve Waugh
Allan Border
Ian Healy
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
Courtney Walsh
Glenn McGrath

The first XI is picked on averages alone, with the top two openers by average and then the top four middle order bats by average, the keeper with the most dismissals per innings (also the keeper with the highest batting average, oddly enough), and the four bowlers with the lowest averages. The second XI is picked based on runs, overall dismissals and wickets. If you wanted to include three seamers and a spinner in each team, the first side would drop Bates and select Bob Peel, and the second side would drop Murali and pick Kapil Dev.

It's interesting that aside from Paynter and three of the bowlers in the averages side, these teams are pretty good, and not too far off what people have selected so far. In fact I believe all the other players aside from Healy and Walsh have been picked in somebodys all-time XI so far in this thread.

 

[SJS]

Fair enough sweetie but just to sumarise I only wanted to know what makes you think Flower is a better player and you didnt really tell me. I wasnt trying to change your mind or prove otherwise it was just on what I have seen and the stats available it suggests otherwise.

Oh what makes me think he is a better test player ? Ypou shoyuld have asked that and i would love to answer rather than get stuck in meaningless statistics.

I think the test match needs players who will play longer innings and, at times, test matches need players to stay at the wicket and consume time, and, there are times in test matches when it is not so much about aggression as about grinding the opposition into dust by relentless pursuit of staying at the wicket. Of course, there are times, when there is no hope of winning a game and you need to play out for a draw since in the longer version, this option is available.

For all these, Andy Flower had both the game AND the temprament.

When you add to that the fact that he could score fairly briskly (though not like Gilchrist clearly) , he is a very valuable player in the longer version.

Look at it this way. Gilchrist, immensly gifted that he no doubt is, does play for a team which is so very strong and is almost invariably in a position to push for a win. This unchallenged superiority of Australia over other teams is not so common. So while, in this strong Australian side, a dominating batsman like Gilchrist coming at number six or seven is absolutely perfect to totally crush the opposition where as for most other teams (lets say for those facing the mighty Australians) an andy Flower is preferable.

I hope you see what i am trying to say.

 

[SJS]

I was thinking about the use of statistics to determine the values of players, and decided to select XIs based on statistics only, and see how they turned out.

Test Averages XI
Herbert Sutcliffe
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman
Graeme Pollock
George Headley
Eddie Paynter
Adam Gilchrist
Bill Bates
Bill Barnes
Sydney Barnes
George Lohmann

Test Endurance XI
Graeme Gooch
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Steve Waugh
Allan Border
Ian Healy
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
Courtney Walsh
Glenn McGrath

The first XI is picked on averages alone, with the top two openers by average and then the top four middle order bats by average, the keeper with the most dismissals per innings (also the keeper with the highest batting average, oddly enough), and the four bowlers with the lowest averages. The second XI is picked based on runs, overall dismissals and wickets. If you wanted to include three seamers and a spinner in each team, the first side would drop Bates and select Bob Peel, and the second side would drop Murali and pick Kapil Dev.

It's interesting that aside from Paynter and three of the bowlers in the averages side, these teams are pretty good, and not too far off what people have selected so far. In fact I believe all the other players aside from Healy and Walsh have been picked in somebodys all-time XI so far in this thread.

Very interesting. One has done this excercise at times.

But some players like Border, for example, come in purely on the strength of longevity,

By the way, who is Bill Bates ?