Is Adam Gilchrist an overrated test batsman ?

[silentstriker]

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.

That's just false. Cricinfo did an article last year (I'll try to find a link) and they showed that he averages about the same even when he comes in when Aussies are in trouble.


That's why he is so good. He's the biggest reason the Aussie batting lineup doesn't crumble often. He saves them more often than you give him credit for.

 

[Dasa]

That's just false. Cricinfo did an article last year (I'll try to find a link) and they showed that he averages about the same even when he comes in when Aussies are in trouble.

That's a different point. He does tend to come in when there are runs already on the board - giving him freedom to play however he likes.

 

[silentstriker]

That's a different point. He does tend to come in when there are runs already on the board - giving him freedom to play however he likes.

But that point is moot - because when he does come in where there aren't as many runs on the board - he still scores a lot of runs.

 

[Slow Love™]

That's just false. Cricinfo did an article last year (I'll try to find a link) and they showed that he averages about the same even when he comes in when Aussies are in trouble.


That's why he is so good. He's the biggest reason the Aussie batting lineup doesn't crumble often. He saves them more often than you give him credit for.

Yeah, somebody posted this in a thread here last year. I don't know that he bails the team out as often as he comes in with runs on the board (it's a strong batting lineup, after all), but he certainly does it often enough to avoid being knocked for not doing it when the chips are down.

As you say, he doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for turning precarious matches into winning ones.

 

[C_C]

But that point is moot - because when he does come in where there aren't as many runs on the board - he still scores a lot of runs.

There sure is a difference between comming in regularly at 10/2 than once-in-a-lifetime-innings spot of '100/5' or 'once in-fifteen-innings' at 200/5 (or below) and most of the time at 300/5 or so....

Gillchrist would be in the 'very good worldclass' batsmen - alongside the Cowdreys and Doug Walters or Saleem Maliks and Azharuddins of this world. Not Dravid-Ponting class or above.
In ODIs though, he is a monster batsman and combined with his strike rate (in a format where strike rates actually matter unless the difference is >25-30 or so on a consistent basis in near-identical scenarios) he is easily a shoo-in for ODI batsmanship.
'Great' to me is someone who makes the top 20 list of batsmen. Ie, a list where the likes of Dravid and Ponting have either gotten in or will get in shortly.So yes, if you see Gillchrist as on-par with Punters or Dravids of the world (let alone Tendys and Laras) then he is overrated. Otherwise, he is not.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd agree that Gilchrist isn't in the same class as a batsman alone as Dravid or Ponting. He isn't all that far off though, and the fact that he also keeps well certainly puts him in a unique class as a player.

 

[silentstriker]

'Great' to me is someone who makes the top 20 list of batsmen. Ie, a list where the likes of Dravid and Ponting have either gotten in or will get in shortly.So yes, if you see Gillchrist as on-par with Punters or Dravids of the world (let alone Tendys and Laras) then he is overrated. Otherwise, he is not.

As a batsman, he is not in the class of Ponting and Dravid (but he isn't far off). As a player, he surpasses both Ponting and Dravid.

 

[aussie]

Was Mark Waugh really a great Test player?

nah probably not great, he's more in the very good category.

 

[aussie]

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.

Very true this, in an all-time XI's with 6 of the best batsman of all time you probably need a top-class glovesman who can bat a fair bit guys like Knott, Marsh, Dujon, Ames would have a fair shout. It makes you wonder now who is probably the best pure glovesman ever?

 

[Mister Wright]

Gilcrist's glove work is so over-rated it's not funny. He is a batsman-keeper, not a keeping-batsman. Anyone who tries to defend his keeping work is disgracing Ian Healy.

 

[C_C]

Gilcrist's glove work is so over-rated it's not funny. He is a batsman-keeper, not a keeping-batsman. Anyone who tries to defend his keeping work is disgracing Ian Healy.

Or Taylor, Dujon, Kirmani, Bari, Knott, Murray, Jack Russell, etc etc.
He is an average steady glovesman- he doesnt foop up a few like Boucher does from time to time but he is nowhere as brilliant as Boucher can be sometimes either.
In my books, for alltime keeper's spot, Gilly vs Knott is a surprisingly close one.

 

[Anil]

Gilcrist's glove work is so over-rated it's not funny. He is a batsman-keeper, not a keeping-batsman. Anyone who tries to defend his keeping work is disgracing Ian Healy.

exactly...and in an all-time xi chock-full of the greatest batsmen of all time, you don't need a batsman-keeper at no.6 to shore up the batting, you need a great specialist wicket keeper(wouldn't hurt if he can bat a bit but that shouldn't be the main criteria at all)....gilchrist is just not good enough a 'keeper to be considered in an all-time xi at all...i am amazed at the people with significant cricketing knowledge who still do so....

 

[PhoenixFire]

He wasn't so good when he came up against a quality seam and swing attack in the Ashes was he? IMO he's a flat track bully, who is very effective at turning a good lead into a very good lead, but nothing more.

 

[open365]

exactly...and in an all-time xi chock-full of the greatest batsmen of all time, you don't need a batsman-keeper at no.6 to shore up the batting, you need a great specialist wicket keeper(wouldn't hurt if he can bat a bit but that shouldn't be the main criteria at all)....gilchrist is just not good enough a 'keeper to be considered in an all-time xi at all...i am amazed at the people with significant cricketing knowledge who still do so....

1) It depends what criteria your selecting your XI on, simply the best play in each position or the best players who would make the best team

2) If so, i think the super series has proven that a team of greats can all fail at the same time.

 

[silentstriker]

He wasn't so good when he came up against a quality seam and swing attack in the Ashes was he? IMO he's a flat track bully, who is very effective at turning a good lead into a very good lead, but nothing more.

Jesus Christ. Cricket has other series besdies the Ashes. One series does not unmake six years of dominance.

 

[Goughy]

He would probably be the 2nd name down on my all time team (depending on my mood). Also throughout the late 90s and early 2000s he was the player I would have traded for if I was England, if given the choice of one player from another country.

Warne would have filled the none existent English spin bowling department and Lara or Sachin would have dramatically boosted an average batting lineup but Gilchrist at 7 would change the compostion and nature of the team in such a positive way.

I guess to answer the original question, No

 

[Anil]

1) It depends what criteria your selecting your XI on, simply the best play in each position or the best players who would make the best team

2) If so, i think the super series has proven that a team of greats can all fail at the same time.

1. either way, gilchrist wouldn't make it because he just isn't close to being the best wicket keeper....and an all-time team would have the greatest all-rounders to play the game(and i don't mean the modern definition of wicket keeping "allrounders", but batting-bowling-fielding allrounders)...and wouldn't need a gilchrist at that position to shore up the middle order....

2. so what? even a team full of wonderful batsmen can fail once in a while, sure...what does that prove? that the team needs a gilchrist? that seems like the most massive of overreactions...!

 

[aussie]

He wasn't so good when he came up against a quality seam and swing attack in the Ashes was he? IMO he's a flat track bully, who is very effective at turning a good lead into a very good lead, but nothing more.

nonsense..

 

[Jono]

Can someone actually point out Gilchrist's flaws in keeping? No he's no Healy, but I'd like to know what is actually wrong with his keeping (throughout his career, don't go soolely pointing out dropped catches during the Ashes). As far as I'm concerned, he's done a top notch job keeping to one of the greatest spinners in history for a very long time now.

 

[Burgey]

He wasn't so good when he came up against a quality seam and swing attack in the Ashes was he? IMO he's a flat track bully, who is very effective at turning a good lead into a very good lead, but nothing more.

That's one of the more unfair comments I've read here. He had a lousy series in the Ashes but remains one of the most explosive players in world cricket. The attitude of possuming someone after one bad series is reflective of the reason England struggled for so many years instead of giving people a fair crack.

As for only being good for turning a good lead into a very good one, that's ridiculous. His role for Australia has been very similar to that of Dujon for the Windies in their era of dominance. There have been any number of times when Australia have been 5 for not-many and he's come out and crunched big scores to make the matches competitive. For example, his 1st test ton v Pakistan at Hobart and the test in India when he blazed with Hayden in 2001 are but two. There are plenty of others - too numerous for me to list without reference to the appropriate records, but I'd say he's far more likely to score runs when Australia are 5/150 than when they are 5/400. That's what made his low run in the Ashes so glaringly disturbing - for once he did not come to the rescue of the middle order.

Lastly, he's changed the way the game is played. He's not the best 'keeper ever, and arguably hasn't been the best 'keeper in Australia from time-to-time, but every test team these days is experimenting with batsman-keepers rather than necessarily picking their best glove man. That's because they've seen the value of a genuine all-rounder being your keeper.

He's a great.