Is Adam Gilchrist an overrated test batsman ?

[PhoenixFire]

Anyone who calls Adam Gilchrist the best Keeper Batsman of all time, either forgets Les Ames, or severely underates him, because however good Gilchirst is/was, he won't ever be as good as Ames was.

 

[aussie tragic]

Anyone who calls Adam Gilchrist the best Keeper Batsman of all time, either forgets Les Ames, or severely underates him, because however good Gilchirst is/was, he won't ever be as good as Ames was.

I guess I must "severely undrate" Ames as Gilchrist has a much higher batting average and a much higher dismissals per test than Ames (without stats to back it up, I'd be pretty surprised if Ames was even close to Gilly's SR).

Fact is, Gilly is the prime reason Australia dominates as what other team has the luxary of batting their most agressive batsman at # 7.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Strike Rate isn't everything you know. I doubt Bradman has as a high as strike rate as Gilchrist, but you would never call him better, would you? And Shane Warne is the reason that the Aussies have dominated, not Gilchrist.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've heard of Les Ames, and there's no doubt he was a very fine keeper-batsman, but I can't see for the life of me how you're making the judgement that Ames is so clearly better than Gilchrist that anyone who doesn't think so must not have heard of him. Ames averaged a fair chunk less with the bat, made fewer big scores, and his first class record is fairly similar. Let's keep in mind also that, like Gilchrist, Ames played in an era of many high scores and many batsmen with far higher averages than him. Averaging 40 in the 1930s was a unique feat for a keeper, but it was nothing special as far as most batsmen go. Gilchrist's average of a bit under 50 now certainly makes him quite good even ignoring the strike-rate, and he did average in excess of 60 for a fair chunk of his career.

As a batsman, there's certainly no reason to believe Ames was better than Gilchrist. Comparable perhaps, except in terms of destructiveness, but not clearly better. As a keeper it's pretty hard to judge across a 60 year gap, but Gilchrist isn't exactly poor.

 

[aussie tragic]

Strike Rate isn't everything you know. I doubt Bradman has as a high as strike rate as Gilchrist, but you would never call him better, would you? And Shane Warne is the reason that the Aussies have dominated, not Gilchrist.

Then how come Aussie kept winning when Warne was out for a year and how come they lost the Ashes when Gilly finally ran into some bad form (and Warne had one of his best series ever)

 

[tooextracool]

His impact on the game as a wicket-keeper batsman is far better than either of the two & any wicket-keeper batsman over the course of test history. If i were to pick a world XI, Gilly biggest challenger for the spot would be Les Ames IMO.

But to answer your question no i don't think Gilchrist is over-rated, yes in the ashes he came up againts some top quality bowlers & failed but if you are going to use that argument to under-mine all the he has achieved since 1999 you might as well say Ponting, Dravid & Kallis have been over-rated since they have faced the same average bowlers on the same flat pitches except for Australia's & have made a lot of runs.

If International bowling attacks & pitches since 1999 would have been all-round very good i don't believe Gilchrist would have averaged 50+, but i think he would have been good enough to adapt & would have definately averaged more than 40+.

Dravid scored runs against the SA attack of the 90s-pollock, donald and klusener as well as the Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop trio
Ponting similarly did the same.
Gilchrist on the other hand struggled in India, struggled against England in the last Ashes and bar one inning struggled in SL as well. Its hard to think of any other attacks of note that he faced in his career.
to tell someone that they're wrong to consider him overrated is beyond me, because theres certainly credible evidence in that regard.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Maybe I should have rephrased my earlier post. In my opinion, I cannot understand how anbody can rate Gilchrist as a better Wicket Keeper batsman than Ames. Thats just my opinion and not fact.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyone who calls Adam Gilchrist the best Keeper Batsman of all time, either forgets Les Ames, or severely underates him, because however good Gilchirst is/was, he won't ever be as good as Ames was.

i think id take andy flower thank you very much....

 

[grecian]

On the link you gave to Cricinfo, Ames' profile, it says that at the time, many people didn't think Ames was the best Keeper at the time, and was picked for his batting. Its nice to know the same arguments were being made 70 years ago, that are now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, I think Gilchrist is severely underrated as a glovesman. If you compare him to the other quality batsmen who have also kept during his career like Sangakkara, Flower and Stewart, Gilchrist is a far better all-round keeper than all of them. He's kept with distinction to Warne for many years, has the best dismissal per test rate of any keeper in test history, and most notably has managed to replace one of the finest pure keepers Australia has ever produced in Healy without a major dropping off in keeping standards.

Dismissals per Test mean nothing other than the attack you're 'keeping to is quality and generally pretty accurate.

It begs the question though, is it a better reflection of a gloveman that he keeps wicket to some of the most consistent bowlers in the world, or to some of the most erratic? Hard to say IMO, but the Sangakkara doesn't get nearly enough credit as a gloveman IMO.

 

[open365]

He's not under-rated.

 

[aussie]

Strike Rate isn't everything you know. I doubt Bradman has as a high as strike rate as Gilchrist, but you would never call him better, would you? And Shane Warne is the reason that the Aussies have dominated, not Gilchrist.

i'd say other great players during the decade like the Waugh's, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gillespie have had a fair say too.

 

[silentstriker]

Strike Rate isn't everything you know. I doubt Bradman has as a high as strike rate as Gilchrist, but you would never call him better, would you? And Shane Warne is the reason that the Aussies have dominated, not Gilchrist.

No, but if someone had the S/R of Gilchrist and the average/conversion rate of Bradman, then you would call him better.

If averages are similar, the next thing I look for is S/R. It gives you an idea if the player is the type of person who'll get on top of you vs. someone who will take what you give. There are times where you need both, but overall I'll take the guy who will dishearten the side and make them give up every time.

I know C_C doesn't place much faith in S/R, and normally I agree with him, but here I can't disagree more.

The difference of 5-10 S/R may not be very much, but Dravid bats at an S/R of 42 and Gilchrist at 81, thats such a huge difference.....

Easily worth his place in an all time XI. He has kept well for arguably the greatest paceman and spinner of all time, in addition to his batting. After Bradman and Sobers, I'd pencil him in next (followed by McGrath, Tendulkar, Imran Khan...Sobers wouldn't bowl all that much in an all time side though he could be a nice change of pace if something isn't working, so Imran would be the all rounder there.).

 

[Macka]

I don't think his Test batting is overrated. He does pretty damn well considering he comes in at 7. Personally, however, I've always considered his ODI batting overrated. He simply gets too many starts and then throws it away. He should have more hundreds and a higher average. But, in saying that, that's the way he plays.

Actually, does anyone else get annoyed when Gilchrist gets dropped and all the Aussie commentators have to say is "Aww, that's the way he plays, Gilchrist, what a batsman"?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i'd say other great players during the decade like the Waugh's, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gillespie have had a fair say too.

Was Mark Waugh really a great Test player?

 

[C_C]

I for one, consider Andy Flower a better batsman than Gilly, who IMO isnt in the alltime great (read: Dravid-Ponting or above) category but is most certainly a worldclass batsman.
He has played some brilliant knocks in his time but he does come in an awful lot with the team sitting pretty and him having the luxury to throw his bat around.
He'd probably make it to my alltime XI (since he is a better keeper than Flower was) but i dont think Gilly's batting would be that much focussed on in an alltime XI populated with 6 of the greatest batsmen the world has ever seen. I can equally see someone picking a keeper like Alan Knott-not a shabby batsman at all but who's keeping was significantly better than Gilly's.

 

[grecian]

Yet again though, many people thought Bob Taylors keeping was better then Knotts.

 

[C_C]

Yet again though, many people thought Bob Taylors keeping was better then Knotts.

Oh no doubt but i wouldnt want someone TOTALLY inept with the bat ala Bob Taylor/Waseem Bari etc etc.

 

[Beleg]

How easily have the three W's been forgotten.

 

[C_C]

How easily have the three W's been forgotten.

Happens.
Everyone fades in memory. Grace is rarely brought up in alltime discussions, even though he was bigger in his era than even Bradman was in his. He isnt covered that much either except for in articles. Same will happen to Lara and Tendulkar one day.....