Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[cnerd123]

How long till Aussie gets banned sweepstakes:

2 weeks - *****

 

[Dan]

Its either you can go against the known cricket history reality that the great quicks of the 1990s all were in decline by the late 90s into early 2000s & thus with the flat wickets becoming prevalent world-wide in the early/mid 2000s - made that era possess the flattest pitches & worst group of pace attacks since the 1930s or one can't.

Anyone suggesting that Wasim & Waqar were still top notch test bowlers in 1999, simply doesn't not understand how those players careers evolved.

Fact as I also mentioned before Gilchrist wasn't the only one who got his technique exposed in Ashes 05 - Matthew Hayden did also, but he corrected his faults and at the back end of his career unlike Gilchrist.

You know what else the 1930s had? The best batsman of all time.

So, y'know, while the pace bowlers may have been slightly worse in that decade (Australia's were, but England's certainly weren't) and the spinners might have been terrible (they weren't), and the pitches might have been slightly flatter (no quarrel with that point from me), you have to respect that there's another factor in the performances of bowlers that you've continually disregarded -- batsmen. Nice little false cause fallacy, really.

You call it "known cricket history" that bowling got worse in the early 2000s -- a statement you're inferring from the character of (bat-dominated) cricket we've seen since 2000ish. Given the relationship between batsmen and bowlers, I could argue that batsmen simply got better in the early 2000s, bringing about exactly the same results we witnessed. And I have exactly the same amount of evidence you do (i.e. none).

Did bowlers inexplicably turn to **** in the 2000s, making batsmen look better than they were? Or did batsmen inexplicably become so good that they devalue their own achievements by making us class everyone as a "poor attack" because they didn't average the same as somebody playing in 1950? The answer is we can't really tell, and any analysis we do becomes necessarily qualitative. Bowling averages don't occur in a batsman-less vacuum.

You are claiming that your opinions are facts. They are not.

 

[Dan]

I also enjoy the "If you ignore when Akram put in ATG performances after 1997, he wasn't an ATG bowler after 1997" claim.

Look, I know that I like to ignore the career aberrations that are every M Vijay score of 100+ ever because they aren't representative of the bloke's ability and he's little more than an extremely lucky Chris Martin who has prospered on flat decks against horrible Australian attacks (#revisionism), but even I will admit you can't actually argue a serious point that way.

Vijay still ****, ftr.

 

[Howe_zat]

I also enjoy the

makes long post about refuting it

This **** can **** off as well.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Howe_zat's "X post can **** off" posts can **** off too. What a terrible thread.

 

[viriya]

I also enjoy the "If you ignore when Akram put in ATG performances after 1997, he wasn't an ATG bowler after 1997" claim.

Akram could be an ATG but be bowling at an average level. Aside from a few performances vs SL and Zim, Akram did not bowl at a great level past 1998 in Tests. Doesn't mean he's not an ATG of course, just that 1999-2001 was his decline period.

 

[Furball]

1999 was when Wasim tore up the Asian Test Championship by taking hattricks in consecutive tests.

Peak Wasim would have taken hat-tricks in each innings in each Test. I thought that would have been obvious.

Plus, the batsmen couldn't have been that good anyway if Wasim could still take their wickets in 1999.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Akram could be an ATG but be bowling at an average level. Aside from a few performances vs SL and Zim, Akram did not bowl at a great level past 1998 in Tests. Doesn't mean he's not an ATG of course, just that 1999-2001 was his decline period.

I will never agree that wasim wasn't awesome in 99-2000. He had superb performances vs India, SL and WI. Aussie keeps talking about them as 'sporadic' great performances but the irony is that his series in Australia was a sporadic failure in a run of outstanding performances.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm going to do you all a favour. Start with the logic that it's only bowlers who win games, not batsman, and you'll understand what's really going on in this thread.

Enjoy.

 

[viriya]

I will never agree that wasim wasn't awesome in 99-2000. He had superb performances vs India, SL and WI. Aussie keeps talking about them as 'sporadic' great performances but the irony is that his series in Australia was a sporadic failure in a run of outstanding performances.

He did well in terms of average, but his impact in a game (wkts/game) dropped significantly.

 

[BigBrother]

For me it's more baffling that the rest of the forum still hasn't figured out aussie and viriya gets off on people just responding to them and will never stop. Keeping on calling them out for crap posting is only encouraging them.

If you want thread to die so badly just stop responding to them directly.

 

[aussie]

Peak Wasim would have taken hat-tricks in each innings in each Test. I thought that would have been obvious.

Plus, the batsmen couldn't have been that good anyway if Wasim could still take their wickets in 1999.

Rahul Dravid scored 3 hundreds in his penultimate series in ENG 2011, was he still at his peak?

I will never agree that wasim wasn't awesome in 99-2000. He had superb performances vs India, SL and WI. Aussie keeps talking about them as 'sporadic' great performances but the irony is that his series in Australia was a sporadic failure in a run of outstanding performances.

You & others need to get your facts straight. Akram played 14 series after his 1997 peak - he averaged more than 30 in 6, with almost unheard of career high bowling series averages such a 55 in AUS 99 & 60 vs ENG 200 & less than 30 in 4.

 

[aussie]

You know what else the 1930s had? The best batsman of all time.

So, y'know, while the pace bowlers may have been slightly worse in that decade (Australia's were, but England's certainly weren't) and the spinners might have been terrible (they weren't), and the pitches might have been slightly flatter (no quarrel with that point from me), you have to respect that there's another factor in the performances of bowlers that you've continually disregarded -- batsmen. Nice little false cause fallacy, really.

You call it "known cricket history" that bowling got worse in the early 2000s -- a statement you're inferring from the character of (bat-dominated) cricket we've seen since 2000ish. Given the relationship between batsmen and bowlers, I could argue that batsmen simply got better in the early 2000s, bringing about exactly the same results we witnessed. And I have exactly the same amount of evidence you do (i.e. none).

Did bowlers inexplicably turn to **** in the 2000s, making batsmen look better than they were? Or did batsmen inexplicably become so good that they devalue their own achievements by making us class everyone as a "poor attack" because they didn't average the same as somebody playing in 1950? The answer is we can't really tell, and any analysis we do becomes necessarily qualitative. Bowling averages don't occur in a batsman-less vacuum.

You are claiming that your opinions are facts. They are not.

Well while I don't agree with you, respect as moderator/CW staff member for willing to discuss your POV unlike others.

I'm not sure what exactly your trying to say by referring to Bradman to be fair.

However in the 1930s and actually entire 1900-1939 there was not other good fast bowling attacks other than Bodyline 1932 lead by Larwood & AUS Jack Gregory/Tim McDonald (although some historians speak favourable of early Windies pair Constantine/Martindale). Teams started to have a regular presence 80mph/90pm as new ball bowlers until after WW2 with emergence of Lindwall/Miller.

Back in 1900-1939 of sticky wickets, teams were heavily spin based like a sub-continent team or had extinct medium pace bowlers of the Maurice Tate, Alec Bedser, Amar Singh, Bob Appelyard, Monty Noble etc ilk leading their bowling attacks.

From the 50s to the 90s many teams had regular pace attacks in large proliferation & I won't insult your intelligence & suggest you don't know who those were.

When the Donald/Pollock, Wasim/Waqar, Gough/Caddick, Ambrose/Walsh, hell even Srinath/Prasad for India & Streak led Zimbabwe all declined or retired at the end of 1990s into 2000s - from 2000-2005/06 only AUS had a consistently good pace/general attack in the formative years of the 2000s. Only other time teams faced challenging bowling was a trip to IND/SRI facing Kumble/Harbhajan, Vaas/Murali.

IND was crap. NZ entire 2000s era of talented fast-bowlers were whipped out due to injury & were a crap attack led by Chris Martin most of time, Akhtar was injured more than he played & PAK were crap most of time until Inzamam took over & Mohammad Asif arrived, IND was crap, SA were poor until Ntini peaked & Steyn emerged.

ENG Ashes 2005 attack which started in WI 04, was the only other pace attack of those 5-6 years that was solid for a long period of time.


That clearly made the 2000s era the worst time for the presence of good pace attacks since the 1900-1939 period.

This is a well established and its not even my opinion hardly. You talk about facts - well a long time ago people already proved it:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/442008.html

"A time to loot and plunder.Aided by fat bats, flat pitches and the absence of menacing bowlers, batsmen made merry in the 2000s, setting new records and devaluing Test run-making in the process - Peter Roebuck"

http://www.espncricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441892.html

"Why 55 is the new 50. Numbers indicate that the noughties was the best decade for batting in a long, long time - S Rajesh"


I don't buy that batsman have gotten better. T20 cricket has probably made them more aggressive, more innovative with their strokes & yea they take more batting risks than before. But since 2006 more teams have had good fast bowlers & we have a better balance now compared to 2000-2006.

You look at how poorly most teams play the moving ball now worldwide vs these good attacks & that IMO is one the side effects of what the FTB early 2000s era & T20 has done to batters techniques.

AUS batsman historically for eg always had their problems vs spin, but they have never played swing-bowling so badly as batting group in AUS cricketer history as they have been doing since 2009.

 

[Victor Ian]

Ha! Let me see if I understand this. Gilchrist only gets to play 5 years in the era of batting easyness as proved by the link posted by Aussie, "Why 55 is the new 50 blah blah blah". Sangakara plays through the whole of this era, and on into the next decade where things have gotten even easier for batsmen. Yet Gilly is the guy who had it easier. Is that about right? I don't understand the reason you posted your link, seeing as it undermines Sangakara's efforts more.

Regarding Kumar, I guess his lesser average during the period of terrible bowling is due to the fact that he is such a great guy that he wont plunder average bowling against losers rather than the fact that he was also keeping.

 

[Pratters]

Pacman is a better batsman than Bradman. Pacman never made runs as a batsman. Yet seeing his chomping abilities, I strongly believe he would even though he never did while he was chomping.

 

[Migara]

Gilly was a great batsman, but I don't think he is in the same class as Kumar when it comes to batting. Keeping wise both are pretty equal. Kumar only played 1/3 of his tests as a keeper. If he had kept all his career he would not have averaged 57, rather somewhere around 50. If he never kept, he would have averaged somewhere around 62. Eitherway, Kumar is ATG as a batsman or a wk-bat. But Gilly is in the right batting position for a wk-bat unlike Kumar.

I sincerely believe it is Flower who takes the cake as the best wk-bat, neither Kumar nor Gilly.

 

[Coronis]

Gilly was a great batsman, but I don't think he is in the same class as Kumar when it comes to batting. Keeping wise both are pretty equal. Kumar only played 1/3 of his tests as a keeper. If he had kept all his career he would not have averaged 57, rather somewhere around 50. If he never kept, he would have averaged somewhere around 62. Eitherway, Kumar is ATG as a batsman or a wk-bat. But Gilly is in the right batting position for a wk-bat unlike Kumar.

I sincerely believe it is Flower who takes the cake as the best wk-bat, neither Kumar nor Gilly.

Flower's keeping skills were not up to par with Gilly and Sanga's.

 

[aussie]

Ha! Let me see if I understand this. Gilchrist only gets to play 5 years in the era of batting easyness as proved by the link posted by Aussie, "Why 55 is the new 50 blah blah blah". Sangakara plays through the whole of this era, and on into the next decade where things have gotten even easier for batsmen. Yet Gilly is the guy who had it easier. Is that about right? I don't understand the reason you posted your link, seeing as it undermines Sangakara's efforts more.

Regarding Kumar, I guess his lesser average during the period of terrible bowling is due to the fact that he is such a great guy that he wont plunder average bowling against losers rather than the fact that he was also keeping.

No Sanga scored runs in the FTB area vs joke attacks & roads, along with the post current FTB since 2005/06 vs more good pace attacks.

Plus the majority of 2005/06 period - Sanga didn't even begin to peak as a batsman yet.

 

[aussie]

Pacman is a better batsman than Bradman. Pacman never made runs as a batsman. Yet seeing his chomping abilities, I strongly believe he would even though he never did while he was chomping.

Barry Richards still opening in S Africa all-time XI, still illogical for you?

 

[Furball]

Rahul Dravid scored 3 hundreds in his penultimate series in ENG 2011, was he still at his peak?



You & others need to get your facts straight. Akram played 14 series after his 1997 peak - he averaged more than 30 in 6, with almost unheard of career high bowling series averages such a 55 in AUS 99 & 60 vs ENG 200 & less than 30 in 4.

In that series, yes. His batting was exquisite.