Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yep - boring, monotonous, same-same-same thing.Tim said:You obviously didn't see Gilchrist play yesterday did you Richard?
If he'd have skied one, though - great.
Yep - boring, monotonous, same-same-same thing.Tim said:You obviously didn't see Gilchrist play yesterday did you Richard?
I'm not sure Cairns would bowl his full quota anyway, Gayle is more than a part-time bowler in ODIs.Tim said:What I find interesting is the makeup of the World XI bowling attack.
McGrath, Gough & Cairns will presumably be the 3 pace-bowlers followed by either Bravo (if he's selected) or Vettori & Warne...with Gayle as the part-timer also.
Will McGrath, Gough & Cairns be able to knock over this Asian selection?..im not so sure.
When Adam Gilchrist retires, sometime along the line you're going to wish you watched more of him; you won't see anyone hit the ball to all parts of the wicket, with all the shots in the book, so cleanly, so hard, so indiscriminately as he does. You might think you've seen slogging before, but you may never see an Adam Gilchrist again.Richard said:Yep - boring, monotonous, same-same-same thing.
If he'd have skied one, though - great.
That's an ultra-purist attitude to have towards the game. Why can't Gilchrist absolutely murdering an attack be entertaining? You seem to like a strategic approach to cricket, and there's nothing more strategic than Gilchrist's way of play; it's just that he's the only one who can execute it.Richard said:The fewer players who bat like Gilchrist, the more I'll enjoy the game.
I simply don't like seeing the ball hit like that, no matter how "clean, hard and indescriminately" it's done (indeed the final is very much a turn-off).
You don't make 13 Test centuries by being indiscriminate.Richard said:The fewer players who bat like Gilchrist, the more I'll enjoy the game.
I simply don't like seeing the ball hit like that, no matter how "clean, hard and indescriminately" it's done (indeed the final is very much a turn-off).
Exactly - I don't like anomalies.Mr Casson said:That's an ultra-purist attitude to have towards the game. Why can't Gilchrist absolutely murdering an attack be entertaining? You seem to like a strategic approach to cricket, and there's nothing more strategic than Gilchrist's way of play; it's just that he's the only one who can execute it.
Yes, I know that, but the point is it looks so indiscriminate. Sometimes, anyway - there are innings (like the SCG one against England) where he scores at 120-per-100 despite barely hazarding an unconventional stroke (an indicator of how poor the bowling was).Adamc said:You don't make 13 Test centuries by being indiscriminate.
The best players are anomalies! Everyone else is just average, normal.Richard said:Exactly - I don't like anomalies.
It's like - he plays a way no-one has a right to play - consistently.
It just baffles me how much he gets away with it.
Sorry if that seems "purist" or whatsits, but that's just the way it is.
So why the hell don't you like him?Richard said:Gilchrist is more than just "one of the best players" - there's no-one remotely like him.
Just think for a second - a Test-average of 53 (or so) at a strike-rate of 70 (or so).
If anyone's ever achieved that (except Bradman, of course - who achieved nearly twice the average) I'll be amazed.
Hahaha, fair enough explanation; it makes sense.Richard said:I'd probably like him if he was English.
Just call it jealousy - something I'm normally not accusable of.
It just irks me - he epitomises the "we can do anything" nature of the Australia current (not in his personal agenda, I've nothing but admiration for his walking and humility - simply in the way he bats). And I don't like that.
Richard said:I'd probably like him if he was English.
Did you smoke a lot of crack the morning you posted that? More than your normal daily roast I'd wager.Richard said:To be one of the greatest games in history it would need some competetive meaning for mine.
I might also add that a slogfest such as that which those two would probably engage in would actually denegrate, not raise, the quality of viewing.
Mr Casson said:That's an ultra-purist attitude to have towards the game. Why can't Gilchrist absolutely murdering an attack be entertaining? You seem to like a strategic approach to cricket, and there's nothing more strategic than Gilchrist's way of play; it's just that he's the only one who can execute it.
I wouldn't be surprised, he didn't look his best in the last test, and will need to freshen up for the one dayers.Dydl said:Apparently Akhtar has withdrawn from the match with ankle injuries? Confirm?