Is Adam Gilchrist an overrated test batsman ?

[Salamuddin]

People on this board reckon Hayden is a flat track bully and overrated......but Gilchrist is never lumped into that category, which is strange because Gilchrist has largely profited on the same substandard attacks that Hayden did and did far worse in last year's Ashes.

Gilchrist also does not have as good a record on the subcontinent as Hayden.
A lot of people think Gilchrist was simply out of form, in last year's Ashes ---- I don't think so --- he just came up against a very good attack and the deficiencies in his game were exposed.....if you deny him the cut and pull shot, you render him quite helpless as these are his bread and butter shots.

The problem is few pace attacks this decade have been able to exploit that weakness of his.
I reckon if Glichrist had played in the nineties he wouldn't have averaged more than 40.

What do you guys reckon ?

 

[andyc]

No, he isn't overrated. Anyone who thinks he is merely has a short memory.

 

[Salamuddin]

No, he isn't overrated. Anyone who thinks he is merely has a short memory.

Can't see how Haydos can be considered overrated and this guy not so.

 

[andyc]

Well, for one I don't consider Hayden to be overrated. But Gilchrist has played some great innings where Australia have been in trouble, and the most significant point about those innings is that they're mostly attacking ones, something which didn't really happen before he came on the scene.

 

[Salamuddin]

Is Gilchrist undoubtedly the best batsman-wicky ever ??? I'm not convinced.....I think both Andy Flower and Sanga woul give him a pretty good run for his money.

 

[grecian]

NO, silly thread, a man averages close to fifty, keeps brilliantly and has turned many test matches.

So again I say "no", and wish he was English.

 

[silentstriker]

Everyone wishes he was born in their country. Absolutely top class cricketer. Would be my pick for the wicketkeeper in an all time XI.

Many times countries hoped for an upset against the Aussies, and it was Gilchrist who counterattacked with unbelievable ferocity and took the game away. He scores faster than Viv Richards for god sakes, and has an S/R twice that of Rahul Dravid and an average of almost 50 to boot. Quite amazing.

 

[aussie]

Is Gilchrist undoubtedly the best batsman-wicky ever ??? I'm not convinced.....I think both Andy Flower and Sanga woul give him a pretty good run for his money.

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+.

 

[Mister Wright]

[Richard Mode on] If fielders had of caught Gilchrist every time he gave a chance, Gilchrist would struggle to average 20. [/Richard Mode off]

While I think Gilchrist is slightly over-rated, he has been great for Australia. He makes his own luck with his agressive style and it has paid off more often then not. Yes, he has had trouble when bowlers bowl a very good line and length to him, but like Hayden, I don't think it is because he is a poor batsman, more to not being used to it and not facing it regularly.

 

[howardj]

Whether he is 'over-rated' or not doesn't mean he's not a great cricketer. His aggressive batting; his 'keeping; his cricket brain; his aura; all make him an incredible cricket 'package'. Certainly one of Australia's top ten cricketers of all time.

 

[Slifer]

Gilchrist is not overated imho. But some (like cricinfo) make is seem as if no keeper/batsman in the history comes close, which just isnt true. As said b4, his closest competitors are Sanga, Ames, Flower and might I add the late Clyde Walcott. He would be in my World XI of all time but this is mostly down to his unrivalled aggression and the fact that as a number 7, he fits perfectly into my team.

 

[alternative]

Gilchrist is not overated, he is a gun.. Changes the match single handedly.. Just because he didn't perform well in the Last Ashes series doesn't mean that he is overeated, everyone has a bad day or two, in his case a series..

Best player imo

 

[SJS]

If we have a preconcieved notion of what makes a REAL test batsman (say someone in the Dravid mould) then we may tend to find Gilchrist a tad short of ideal to put it mildly. But all along the games history there have been batsmen who have broken free of the mould, defied the stereotype and shown a freedom of spirit in their batting that has not just thrilled the fans (not always the diehard purists I agree) but have also performed at a level of consistency that seems so out of 'sync' (for want of a better word) with the stereotype of the all conquering, consistently high scoring test batsman.

Once we accept that such batsmen will succeed but in a different way and are willing to assess them with slightly different tint on our glasses, we will find that they are very worth champions indeed.

Gilchrist is one such champion test batsman and we should delight in him rather than undervalue his skills just because he is 'different'. To do so would be no less unfair than whats done by those who undervalue Dravid/Atherton and their ilk for their 'strike rates'

 

[Top_Cat]

Not over-rated. His record and number of times hes played not only a rear-guard but an ultra-attacking rear-guard when Australia has been in trouble speaks for itself. He's not a classical Test player but then, the text books are a merely an accumulation of high-percentage play borne from previous experience, not the only way of doing things. Guys like Gilchrist have the basics solidly mastered but just plays a little differently to the 'usual' Test player.

Next silly question.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The mention that Gilchrist 'keeps brilliantly is a misguided insinuation IMO. He keeps wicket well with brilliance at times, but he is not a brilliant wicketkeeper and never has been.

In answer the topic at hand, in his prime he was not over-rated, but I think he has passed his prime and, while he is still very potent, he's not the player he once was. Also, I think he was lucky not to have faced much quality swing bowling in his career. Then again, a lot of the Australian averages reflect such luck.

 

[Slow Love™]

I think he's probably past his best (and I'd have no problem being proven wrong on this) and has suffered a couple of slumps, but overrated seems to have various meanings, and I think there's an insinuation in this that somehow Gilchrist isn't equipped to perform in difficult, testing situations, or against decent attacks.

If anything I feel that his efforts in the late order, often masking some inconsistency in the middle order, were a tad underrated, as was his innings against Bangladesh when Australia courted international humiliation. When his batting drops off, we suddenly look a dramatically weaker team.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No. Next question?

To amplify slightly, I do concur with SL that he may be slightly over the top (he is 35 after all & keeping is a very physical job) but the man has completely redifined the keeper's role. We'll never again see specialist keepers a la Bob Taylor who're not too flash with willow in hand.

What lifts him above Flower & Sanga for me is the quality of his keeping. The fact that he's been such a brutally (& gloriously) effective batter tends to make people overlook the fact that he's probably been the best keeper in the world for the majority of his career too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

And also, Ashes aside (where he had a poor run in both disciplines), Gilchrist has a tendancy to step up with the gloves when he's not performing at his best with the bat. Last summer following his terrible Ashes series he was pretty much flawless with the gloves. Quite simply, even if he averaged 30 with the bat for the rest of his career he'd still be easily worth his spot.

 

[Beleg]

Gilchrist is the most dangerous batsman in the Australian team. This guy steps up when the chips are down and that's what matters most.

 

[Laurrz]

no.