*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[Anil]

Aus vs India, 1st innings, 1st Test, 2001 (check the scorecard; without Hayden's and Gilchrist's knocks, Australia were in horrible trouble at 5/99).

Look, stats aside, anyone who's watched him play knows Gilchrist is a special batting talent. His average is above 60 but it's not as if he's had heaps of not-outs which prop his average up (only 13 out of 63 innings). He certainly has had it easier with such a strong batting line-up ahead of him and if he was batting higher, his average would certainly drop but I'd still expect his average to be above 50.

T_C, I said I feel he is a very good batsman, so averaging 50 at the top or in the middle may not be beyond him, but that is pure conjecture at this point. Delivering under pressure is also obviously not beyond him, but my point was that with a strong Aussie top and middle order, for the most part, he doesn't have to(I am not holding that against him, it's just that he might be found out more if he is exposed more...). I was pointing to his one day opening record to show that he doesn't do that well against fresh bowlers at the start of the innings even with the field restrictions for the first 15 overs.

He has a pronounced distaste for quality spin bowling as his experience in India shows. Ok, so he hit a hundred in Mumbai and bailed out the Aussies from a tough spot along with Hayden, but that innings was aided to a great extent by very poor fielding by the Indians(5 dropped catches off him or something) and he didn't do anything significant at all for the rest of the series.

 

[Richard]

on being dropped, when you hit the ball that hard, people are gonna drop you occasionally, and when you strike @ 85, lofted shots happen some times

Believe me, it's rather more than occasionally - Gilchrist gets dropped a hell of a lot more than most players. Sometimes it's a slightly trickier chance than it would be hit slower, but if the ball's coming straight at you you're expected to catch it. And Gilchrist gets more than his fair share of dolly-let-offs, too.
Lofted shots are fine if they go into gaps, but the point is if they don't and the fielder drops the ball it's not to the batsman's credit.
Dropped catches don't reflect a batsman's ability, but they can (as rather more people here alone than I've seen in my life put together seem to realise) inflate the perception of it.

 

[The Argonaut]

Gilchrist shouldn't be blamed or scorned if players can't catch. I imagine that he gets dropped no more than any other top order batsmen whi occupies the crease for long periods of time.

I think bowlers lose confidence against him if he hits a couple of early boundaries and therefore they forget the plan that they might have originally had. The bowling is then wayward and Gilchrist capitalises.

His average would drop if he batted at 5 or 6 but I think it would still be around 50. Also his current average includes a number of innings where he was required to come out and hit some quick runs and it hasn't come off. In those instances he should have just batted naturally and the runs would have come anyway. Batting at 6 and 7 also means that you face the 2nd new ball on occasions and he seems to handle that as well.

His keeping is not brilliant but is more than good enough. There are certainly other keepers in Australia that are better but when you add the batting into the equation no one comes close.

 

[age_master]

are you people stupid? the way gilchrist bats opening in ODI's is different to the way he bats in tests (since we seem to be talking more about his test average), he goes out to score runs fast in the first 15 overs when the field is up, his job is to smash the opening bowlers, if it comes off good, if it doesn't, oh well, doesn't matter. in tests he usually just comes out and plays his natural game, hitting the loose bowling (loose to him that is) its not his problem if the fielders cant catch, you cannot even use that as a reason for an 'inflated average' it is a completleye flawed argument, it is nothing to do with him if he gets dropped.

i would also argue that he plays better under pressure, he doesn't hit the ball as much (still strikes at about 75) and he hits the ball along the ground more. innings like the Hobart one are a perfect example, when he comes in under presssure he almost always comes good.

on facing spin, he does ok at the SCG, averaging 84 (in tests, and he has done ok there when hes played first class games there from memory), so he might not like it but he can play it ok.

you know you are right, alot of gilchrists lofted shots dont go into the gaps, they go over the fence

an interesting stat, even not counting his not outs he still averages 48, tendulkar averages only 3 higher at 51, Hayden just 52, Lara ust 50, that bunches them up alot, but i think Gilchrist woould be a good chance of overtaking them, scoring those 5 extra runs in 99% of innings that he is left not out, perhaps quite alot more.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think Gilchrist woould be a good chance of overtaking them, scoring those 5 extra runs in 99% of innings that he is left not out, perhaps quite alot more.

You're not seriously suggesting Gilchrist as par with Sachin and Lara are you?

Granted, he's an excellent batsman and you do not maintain an average of 48 runs per innings (note - per innings, not per completed innings) without being good, but he's not THAT good.

 

[age_master]

no, what is saying is that his average is not that inflated, though i would definatley rate him in the current top 10 batsmen his batting is not quite on the level of HAyden, Lara and Tendulkar

 

[age_master]

Zimbabwe won the tossand elected to bat, 2/45, Lee 2/27 Williams 0/14

 

[Mr. P]

Stumps day 1. Zimbabwe 256/8. Carlisle was magnificant for 118, before being dismissed 3 overs before stumps by Bichel. The match is on even terms and to be honest, Australia haven't bowled too badly. Hogg bowled fairly well and Lee was sharp early. Katich didnt bowl as much as we could have been expected.

 

[age_master]

Stumps day 1. Zimbabwe 256/8. Carlisle was magnificant for 118, before being dismissed 3 overs before stumps by Bichel. The match is on even terms and to be honest, Australia haven't bowled too badly. Hogg bowled fairly well and Lee was sharp early. Katich didnt bowl as much as we could have been expected.

i wouldn't say it was even. Zimbabwe really have to make another hundred runs to be competitive, and i dont think that is likley. Katich will bowl more in the 2nd innings when the pitch is turning more.

 

[Eclipse]

Believe me, it's rather more than occasionally - Gilchrist gets dropped a hell of a lot more than most players. Sometimes it's a slightly trickier chance than it would be hit slower, but if the ball's coming straight at you you're expected to catch it. And Gilchrist gets more than his fair share of dolly-let-offs, too.
Lofted shots are fine if they go into gaps, but the point is if they don't and the fielder drops the ball it's not to the batsman's credit.
Dropped catches don't reflect a batsman's ability, but they can (as rather more people here alone than I've seen in my life put together seem to realise) inflate the perception of it.

Believe me you are wrong. I have only missed one test match Gilchrist has played in and apart form the England Ashes tour of 2000 were he was droped 8 times in 3 matches he has offerd few chances of witch most have been taken.

You just dont know what the hell you are talking about Richard.
And dont try and argue on this one you cant judge a player on droped catches. he has been making runs long enough for us to know it's no fluke.

 

[Eclipse]

T_C, I said I feel he is a very good batsman, so averaging 50 at the top or in the middle may not be beyond him, but that is pure conjecture at this point. Delivering under pressure is also obviously not beyond him, but my point was that with a strong Aussie top and middle order, for the most part, he doesn't have to(I am not holding that against him, it's just that he might be found out more if he is exposed more...). I was pointing to his one day opening record to show that he doesn't do that well against fresh bowlers at the start of the innings even with the field restrictions for the first 15 overs.

He has a pronounced distaste for quality spin bowling as his experience in India shows. Ok, so he hit a hundred in Mumbai and bailed out the Aussies from a tough spot along with Hayden, but that innings was aided to a great extent by very poor fielding by the Indians(5 dropped catches off him or something) and he didn't do anything significant at all for the rest of the series.

I would say he does fine against spin once he gets well enough set.

As for the innings in mumbi well he was only droped twice one when he was on 46 a very tough chance and the other one was about 4 runs before he got out.

 

[Andre]

I must admit, I was very impressed by Stuart Carlisle today. I thought Brad Williams had a solid first day at the office, too.

 

[V Reddy]

Why is Zim scoring so many runs? They struggled so much in Eng and i thought in AUS they would struggle to go past 200. I was thinking that India would struggle to make the scores they are making :wow: . Is the absence of McGrath affecting AUS?

 

[Andre]

Why is Zim scoring so many runs? They struggled so much in Eng and i thought in AUS they would struggle to go past 200. I was thinking that India would struggle to make the scores they are making :wow: . Is the absence of McGrath affecting AUS?

Yes and no. Australia would love McGrath back, but they are still doing ok.

As for the Zimbabwe scoring runs, it seems they've risen against the top side. Much like Bangladesh did.

Also, take in to account how superior australian conditions are for batting to those in England, and you have an answer.

 

[roofromoz]

I must admit, I was very impressed by Stuart Carlisle today. I thought Brad Williams had a solid first day at the office, too.

Agreed. I thought that Carlisle's innings was the glue that held the Zimbabweans innings together. It was a patient innings, but there were also signs of controlled aggression.

It seemed that every player in the top order (with the exception of Dion Ebrahim) got a start, but just couldn't convert it. If at least one of those guys was able to convert that start into a 50, the Zimbabweans would be a in a stronger position.

But having said that, I think they have done pretty well to be in their current position.

Brad Williams had a good debut day, getting a couple of wickets. If this guy gets more opportunities after this match, he will be a very reliable performer.

 

[marc71178]

Why is Zim scoring so many runs? They struggled so much in Eng and i thought in AUS they would struggle to go past 200. I was thinking that India would struggle to make the scores they are making :wow: . Is the absence of McGrath affecting AUS?

To be fair, the Aussies are missing 3 of there 4 first choice bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist shouldn't be blamed or scorned if players can't catch. I imagine that he gets dropped no more than any other top order batsmen whi occupies the crease for long periods of time.

Then you imagine wrong.
I have counted, and believe me, Gilchrist gets dropped quite a bit more than anyone else.
No, Gilchrist shouldn't be blamed if players can't catch, but he doesn't lose anything through it so it doesn't matter whether he should be blamed. As he gains something it therefore matters whether it is to his credit that this happened. And a batsman deserves no credit for a dropped catch.

 

[Richard]

its not his problem if the fielders cant catch, you cannot even use that as a reason for an 'inflated average' it is a completely flawed argument, it is nothing to do with him if he gets dropped.

It's nothing to do with him if he gets dropped? What a flawed argument that is!
It's everything to do with him if he gets dropped. It means he should have been out and he wasn't!
And he deserves no credit for not being out.

 

[Richard]

Believe me you are wrong. I have only missed one test match Gilchrist has played in and apart form the England Ashes tour of 2000 were he was droped 8 times in 3 matches he has offerd few chances of witch most have been taken.

You just dont know what the hell you are talking about Richard.
And dont try and argue on this one you cant judge a player on droped catches. he has been making runs long enough for us to know it's no fluke.

I have never said "he ONLY, EVER" makes runs through fluke - I said not long ago that I reckon he'd average about 40 if he didn't get dropped so many times as he has been.
I don't need to watch a match to work-out that Gilchrist has been dropped. I honestly can't remember the first 9 Tests of Gilchrist's career, but having read reports on all his not-insignificant scoring in that period I have not yet found one that mentions a let-off.
However, in the oft-praised innings at The Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai, he was dropped twice in 2 balls, by Badani running back and by Dravid at slip. Neither were exactly sitters but both should have been taken. They were on 44 and 46, incidentally.
In The Ashes 2001 (not 2000) he made a four-chance 154 (15, 69 and 102 and 154) and a five-chance 90 (13, 30-odd, 48, 56 and 90). He scored a crucial half-century at Trent Bridge, but nothing else.
He then scored a century against New Zealand and a 78* in which he was missed lbw at least once. Then a 200* in which he was dropped on 12 and 110-odd. He then made 138* where he should have been stumped in the 30s.
He scored a century against us at The SCG, chanceless, and that 113* against the hapless and hopeless Zimbabweans.
Still not a record to be sniffed at - I really must make an exact calculation - but not one as good as the scorebook average.

 

[Richard]

I am very pleased for Stuart Carlisle but the fact is, but for Matthew Hayden's bout of butterfingers it would have been 36 and no more.
It must also be noted that Australia's attack is threadbare. McGrath, Gillespie and Warne missing. Plus MacGill and the increasingly-excellent Lehmann. Katich, a Lehmann-standard bowler or batsman? Don't make me laugh.
Seriously, though, Williams bowled OK but nothing special. One lbw that was missing leg and Wishart chasing a nothing-ball. Lee bowled his usual pies and got one excuse-for-a-Test-standard-player-who-only-keeps-getting-picked-because-of-outside-interferance and one clueless tail-ender. Hogg bowled OK but neither of his wickets were exactly unavoidable. Bichel's wickets had marked similarity - chasing wide, swinging balls.