*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Migara]

Where is Richard BTW?

 

[andyc]

Where is Richard BTW?

Was pretty busy for a while and came down with glandular around the same time IIRC. Hopefully will be coming back soon, enjoy a lot of his posts even if I don't agree with them.

 

[tooextracool]

Randiv > Mendis

From the little I've seen of Randiv, I think he might just be a good LOI bowler though Im not quite sure Id be very positive about his test match career. Then again, I havent seen him bowl in tests so its probably too early to pass judgement.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, I've read some of his posts. Quite like him TBF.

Though, he does have his blind spots (Hayden?), I guess. But surely he wouldn't argue Knight was anywhere near Gilchrist as an ODI player?

Why is this such a preposterous argument? Knight averages a whole 5 runs ahead of Gilchrist in ODIs. Gilchrist is an overrated ODI player if you ask me, nothing more than a glorified slogger.

 

[vcs]

I'm not sure Mendis should be written off just yet. He looked like an ATG bowler in the making in his debut series. Even though he had the mystery element in his favour back then, he still looked an awesome talent. I hope he gets it together because he's brilliant to watch.

 

[vcs]

Why is this such a preposterous argument? Knight averages a whole 5 runs ahead of Gilchrist in ODIs. Gilchrist is an overrated ODI player if you ask me, nothing more than a glorified slogger.

LOL.

There really is no other appropriate response to this post.

 

[tooextracool]

LOL.

There really is no other appropriate response to this post.

Well that is such a credible response. Just because the whole forum has an orgy over Gilchrist everytime he walks to the crease doesnt make him a great batsman. Knight was badly treated over the course of his career and also played in an era where England didn't play much ODI cricket and this largely held him back as a player.

 

[vcs]

Well, if there were mitigating factors outside his control that affected his career, that's just his tough luck. We can only judge him on what we actually saw him produce.

There's a reason people have orgies over players like Gilchrist, Jayasuriya etc. and averages will never reflect it.

Gilchrist is a shoo-in for my all-time ODI XI, and I daresay most people would agree.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, if there were mitigating factors outside his control that affected his career, that's just his tough luck. We can only judge him on what we actually saw him produce.

There's a reason people have orgies over players like Gilchrist, Jayasuriya etc. and averages will never reflect it.

Gilchrist is a shoo-in for my all-time ODI XI, and I daresay most people would agree.

Gilchrist is a shoo-in for an all time XI, simply because of his keeping skills. As a batsman alone there are probably 15-20 other names I could name at the top of my head who are better options.

Look, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya will always get more fame because of the way they played. They were crowd pleasers and people love watching someone destroy a bowling attack. At the end of the day Gilchrist was hit and miss (more so than Jayasuriya) and more often than not the guy batted like he was having a severe case of brain malfunction.

On Nick Knight, the guy is amongst a very select group of people who averaged 40+ while playing 100 games. And he did it in an era where few people averaged anywhere close. so if we are to judge him on what he actually produced than I would say thats pretty damn good especially when you consider that his record isnt inflated by hammering the likes of Bangladesh and Namibia like Gilchrist's is.

 

[vcs]

Nick Knight is not a better option than Gilchrist, even purely as a batsman. Knight has 10 not outs in 100 innings, Gilchrist has 11 in 279. I wouldn't read too much into the difference in their averages. Factor in the strike-rates, match-winning abilities, big match performances and it's a non-contest.

 

[Shri]

Why is this such a preposterous argument? Knight averages a whole 5 runs ahead of Gilchrist in ODIs. Gilchrist is an overrated ODI player if you ask me, nothing more than a glorified slogger.

Slogger? Its like you rate him along with the likes of Afridi, Imran Nazir, Yusuf Pathan etc. I would say he was a successful attacking batsman. Not a slogger by any means.

 

[Jono]

TEC, if you take into account economy rate when saying Murali > Warne in ODIs, surely you should take into account Gilchrist's strike rate when assessing him against Nick Knight?

 

[tooextracool]

Nick Knight is not a better option than Gilchrist, even purely as a batsman. Knight has 10 not outs in 100 innings, Gilchrist has 11 in 279. I wouldn't read too much into the difference in their averages. Factor in the strike-rates, match-winning abilities, big match performances and it's a non-contest.

The guy opened the innings, if he has a high proportion of not outs you'd think thats a good thing considering he batted through the innings. If anything it shows why hes better.

Gilchrist no doubt had a much better SR, but I dont think it makes up for the 7-8 run difference in their averages (and yes it is at least 7-8 runs when you remove the minnows).

 

[vcs]

LOL, if you're removing minnows, let me remove all the crappy two team series in which Knight made the majority of his runs. Who remembers those anyway?

 

[Ikki]

Hayden's a better opener to compare with Knight. He had better average and SR than Knight, but still people regarded Gilchrist as more important.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC, if you take into account economy rate when saying Murali > Warne in ODIs, surely you should take into account Gilchrist's strike rate when assessing him against Nick Knight?

I do take it into account. If you think that Gilchrist is better thats fine, I personally dont and thats a difference of opinion. What I dont understand if the logic behind it being so outrageous for the 2 of them to be even comparable. Knight averages 40+, you'd probably be able to find something like 10 players with better records than him when he was around (Regardless of how much weight you put on SRs). Averages were much lower back then, pitches had more juice in them and ODI cricket was very different. For his time Nick Knight is one of the best ODI players around, certainly one of the best England have produced.

 

[vcs]

I'd say Graeme Hick was a better ODI batsman than Knight.

 

[tooextracool]

LOL, if you're removing minnows, let me remove all the crappy two team series in which Knight made the majority of his runs. Who remembers those anyway?

Because England made it to so many world cup and tri series finals while Nick Knight was around?

Knight scored runs against Wasim and Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock in their pomp in ODIs. He struggled a bit against Australia earlier on in his career but he rectified it before the end of his career. I'd say thats a pretty impressive record.

 

[tooextracool]

Slogger? Its like you rate him along with the likes of Afridi, Imran Nazir, Yusuf Pathan etc. I would say he was a successful attacking batsman. Not a slogger by any means.

Not really, those guys are bad ODI players who wouldnt make it into any side if it werent for their all round abilities. Gilchrist is obviously a far more capable slogger than those guys, but its quite obvious that he only knew how to play one way which was to go boom boom boom and such a form of play wasnt always called for.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd say Graeme Hick was a better ODI batsman than Knight.

Yes he was, and he was even more harshly treated than Knight. Bit unfortunate because he'd have a bad couple of test matches and even if he averaged 50 odd in the ODI series preceding the tests he'd end up being dropped from both sides.