*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[marc71178]

I notice that in the Gilchrist vs. Stewart discussion, everyone's ignored the fact that Stewart has had to face the Australian attack but Gilchrist has had to face the English attack - a big difference.

 

[Top_Cat]

Flintoff, Gough, Giles, Jones, Silverwood,

And Australia has lost McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee, MacGill, Noffke. Realistically, only three of those guys (Flintoff, Gough, Giles) were indispensible team members and none of them are greats of the game like Warne and McGrath are (don't make me do a combined Test wicket taking tally to prove my point, bud ).

Having said that, the only injury we lost Warne to was the injury to his brain after being slapped behind the back of the head by Steve Waugh for taking a diuretic.

Still the injuries suffered here aren't quite as serious as the English squad's.

 

[Richard]

Richard if you cant confirm half of it then why dont you shut up about it , I've watched every test he's ever played in bar the one at Hobart against New Zealand & I can tell you the only times he has had what I would classify as an excessive amount of luck were the 2001 ashes series (dropped 5 times in 1 session before lunch on day 3 at Lords) & the New Zealand series in 2000 where he copped a few generous decisions & more than a few dropped catches.

As for the India series he was actually extremely unlucky , he made a chanceless hundred in the first match (best innings he's ever played , the hundred actually came off 84 balls but what people forget is he didnt get off the mark until his 19th ball & after facing 38 balls he was on 8 , 92 runs from his next 46 balls).
He got a shocking decision from that idiot Bansal(the main reason India won that match was this idiots umpiring:!( )
and another dodgy one in the second innings at Chenai.

Richard I'm not accusing you of lying or anything but I get the impression that on this particular subject you write what you know & what you dont know you make up !

I did not watch the Mumbai Test live but I saw highlights of it and Badani dropped him running back, then next ball Dravid put him down at slip.
If you watched this match, you must have forgotten this. Unless the editor was digging-up some footage from the tour of 1999\2000 in Australia, which strikes me as highly unlikely.
While he got three bad decisions in that series, they don't even begin to make-up the numbers.
I watched live play or extensive highlights from the only period I claim to know that Gilchrist was excessively lucky, and believe me I have made nothing up.

 

[Richard]

Have you applied to join the team yet Richard?

So far I have 3 articles published-

A Shane Watson profile- http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/shanewatson.shtml

A Nathan Hauritz profile-
http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/nathanhauritz.shtml

And a Nathan Bracken profile-
http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/nathanbracken.shtml

8D :P

I'm thinking over my trial article.

 

[Richard]

Maybe, but if all those catches had been taken we wouldn't be looking at a guy with a Test average of 60 or 3000 Test runs, it would be quite a bit lower because, a catch is a dismissal, which means he can't bat any more and can't score any more runs. Makes sense.

That is exceedinly well put.

 

[iamdavid]

I did not watch the Mumbai Test live but I saw highlights of it and Badani dropped him running back, then next ball Dravid put him down at slip.
If you watched this match, you must have forgotten this. Unless the editor was digging-up some footage from the tour of 1999\2000 in Australia, which strikes me as highly unlikely.
While he got three bad decisions in that series, they don't even begin to make-up the numbers.
I watched live play or extensive highlights from the only period I claim to know that Gilchrist was excessively lucky, and believe me I have made nothing up.

I know about the Dravid drop , however correct me if I'm wrong but I beleive he was already past 100.

 

[Richard]

I don't think anyone has proven that Gilchrist gets dropped more than anyone else. It's like complaining that a batsman's average should actually be higher because of a dodgy umpiring decision.

I have proven it as far as I'm concerned but most people for some reason try to rubbish the notion by not contradicting my statements about dropped catches, merely saying "the facts speak for themselves".
I have named the occasions where Gilchrist has scored runs when he doesn't deserve to, but the issue has been consistently avoided.
Yes, bad Umpiring decisions that saw-off innings when they shouldn't be must also be taken into any equation, but the fact is with Gilchrist these are exceedingly rare. Perhaps someone might like to contradict this?

 

[Richard]

I know about the Dravid drop , however correct me if I'm wrong but I beleive he was already past 100.

david - you're wrong! Badani dropped him on 64 and Dravid dropped him next ball (given that they ran 2, it was clearly on 66).

 

[Blewy]

Saying that a players average is inflated because he gets dropped alot, is just the same as saying a players average is inflated because he gets alot of edges which fall short of slip...

TOTAL AND UTTER RUBBISH.....

Gilchrist is without doubt in the top 5 players in world today, and for anyone to deny this is ludicrous...

 

[Top_Cat]

I have proven it as far as I'm concerned but most people for some reason try to rubbish the notion by not contradicting my statements about dropped catches, merely saying "the facts speak for themselves".

All you've done is state that Gilchrist gets dropped a lot by your arbitrary definition of 'a lot' or 'more than most players' but without attaching to it examples of your reasoning (other than a couple of examples where Gilchrist has been dropped; I fail to see how pointing out where he's been dropped infers the rate of dropped catches against other players is less than his) or examples of players who get dropped less.

Name me a player who gets dropped less over the course of their career or even show me some numbers which indicate that Gilchrist's rate of being dropped is higher than the world-wide average or whatever. You've not provided these facts (key facts in establishing that Gilchrist gets dropped more often than others) and so haven't really 'proven' anything. I mean, let's face it; boiled down, the discussion is all about comparisons with other players and their propensity to be dropped relative to Gilchrist's yet you've failed to show any examples of players other than those involving Gilchrist. It's akin to saying that the Earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.8ms-2 is higher or lower than anywhere else without at least looking at the other planets. Trying to do a comparison between one thing and another is exceedingly difficult when you avoid talking about what you're trying to compare that thing to.

Gilchrist gets dropped more than most players, eh? Prove it. I want to see how many times Gilchrist has been dropped vs how many times other players get dropped or, like I said, a world-wide dropped average or something similar. Continually pointing out examples of where Gilchrist has been dropped merely says he's been dropped. It infers nothing about his propensity to be dropped vs other players and certainly does nothing to prove that he gets dropped more than others or most players or anyone, for that matter.

Until you can do this in any way, excuse me if I relegate your 'argument' or 'proof' to more of a 'belief' that he gets dropped more than others than a 'proof'.

 

[Tim]

I want to see how many times Gilchrist has been dropped vs how many times other players get dropped or, like I said, a world-wide dropped average or something similar

Yes Mr.Taylor I will have it in essay format by 9am tommorow

 

[Eclipse]

david - you're wrong! Badani dropped him on 64 and Dravid dropped him next ball (given that they ran 2, it was clearly on 66).

HE WAS DROPED ON 44 not 64 and then again quite some time later and if memory serves me right he was passed 100.

I listend to the match so I know fairly accuratly what happend in that innings. And I have others backing me up on this.

Now stop bull****ing when you clearly have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

 

[iamdavid]

HE WAS DROPED ON 44 not 64 and then again quite some time later and if memory serves me right he was passed 100.

I listend to the match so I know fairly accuratly what happend in that innings. And I have others backing me up on this.

Now stop bull****ing when you clearly have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

HERE , HERE , I watched the match on Foxtel & I only recall him being dropped once when he was already past 100 , I may have missed any earlier drop Im not sure , as I didnt see him being dropped before 100 I listed it as a chanecelss 100.

 

[Eclipse]

It was quite a tough chance on 44 as well.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I did not watch the Mumbai Test live but I saw highlights of it and Badani dropped him running back, then next ball Dravid put him down at slip.
If you watched this match, you must have forgotten this. Unless the editor was digging-up some footage from the tour of 1999\2000 in Australia, which strikes me as highly unlikely.

david - you're wrong! Badani dropped him on 64 and Dravid dropped him next ball (given that they ran 2, it was clearly on 66).

From the ball-by-ball of India v Australia at Mumbai (27 Feb-1 Mar 2001)

End of over 44 (2 runs) Australia 170/5 (trail by 6 runs)
AB Agarkar 6-1-23-1 - Garware Pavilion End
AC Gilchrist 36* (39b 6x4 1x6) ML Hayden 84* (127b 11x4 1x6)
44.1 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, no run
44.2 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, no run
44.3 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, no run
44.4 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, FOUR
44.5 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, FOUR
44.6 Harbhajan Singh to Gilchrist, two runs, sweeps it across, gets it high in the air towards mid wicket, Badani runs from mid wicket and makes a valiant attempt invain

That sounds like a drop on 44 to me. Obviously, Dravid couldn't have dropped him the next ball, because it was a new over.
The next ball he batted was this: 45.2 Agarkar to Gilchrist, nice ball on off stump with bounce

The next drop chance I can find is this:

56.3 Tendulkar to Gilchrist (at 100), two runs, rocks back and cracks it towards cover, gets it straight to Sanghvi who promptly drops it.

Ball-by-ball, 1st Test, Mumbai

Strangely I can't find a Dravid drop - possibly the commentator mistook Sanghvi for Dravid.

Sorry, mate.

 

[iamdavid]

Oh dear , Richard got it wrong (& badly) :P :P

 

[marc71178]

Gilchrist is without doubt in the top 5 players in world today, and for anyone to deny this is ludicrous...

I wouldn't put him that high. He's a good player, but not that good!

 

[marc71178]

OTT insults and shouting snipped

Steady on Eclipse - no need to get abusive.

 

[Anil]

In terms of batting, he is not as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Hayden, Vaughan, Dravid......He is an excellent batsman and a competent 'keeper most of the time, but if I remember correctly, on a poll here on who is the best Aussie player after Bradman, a lot of people voted for Gilchrist and he is hardly that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah Eclipse, just cool it a little. No need for abuse, eh?