Pressure Players

[Swervy]

just to add however, I do think there is SOME merit in Richards(and by Richrd i mean Richard who posts on here) 1st chance averages thing...but it certainly does give the full story on a batsmans ability

 

[Anil]

erm..because Gilchrist actually has a better test average than Richards....I think an average of almost 60 gives Gilchrist the right to be mentioned with the great destroying batsman of the last 30 years or so.

Richards had a great eye, he obviously picked the flight of the ball very early..i would suggest that the way Gilchrist hits the ball he too must have a very good eye.

Gilchrist is similar( in results, not in style) to Richards, in that Richards and Gilchrist both utterly demoralised the opponents..making good balls look pretty ordinary.

also, both hit the ball so hard, even if they did give chances, they were very often very hard chances (which kind of p**ses on the First chance averages thing, because credit must go to a batsman who utterly smashes a ball, so hard that catching becomes very difficult).

I personally havent seen a batsman as instinctivly good as Richards (although I have only seen highlights of when he was at his very peak in the mid to late 70's), but Gilchrist's batting has pretty much the same effect

Gilchrist is a lower order batsman in tests for Australia while Viv was a top and middle order player throughout his career. Gilchrist's high career average(so far) has been helped by significantly decreasing bowling standards the world over while the 70's and 80's which Richards ruled over saw some of the all-time greats in bowling at their peak. Before you jump in and say that, let me say that obviously he didn't have to face the great West Indian pace attacks, but he faced Lillee and Thommo, Botham and Willis and Underwood(I think so, but I am not 100% sure on Underwood), the Indian spin quartet and Kapil Dev, Imran and Qadir, Hadlee....

No way can Gilchrist compare to the great man at this stage of his career!

Another thing: Don't you know enough about cricket to know that averages don't tell the whole story, in some cases, not even half the story?

 

[Swervy]

Gilchrist is a lower order batsman in tests for Australia while Viv was a top and middle order player throughout his career. Gilchrist's high career average(so far) has been helped by significantly decreasing bowling standards the world over while the 70's and 80's which Richards ruled over saw some of the all-time greats in bowling at their peak. Before you jump in and say that, let me say that obviously he didn't have to face the great West Indian pace attacks, but he faced Lillee and Thommo, Botham and Willis and Underwood(I think so, but I am not 100% sure on Underwood), the Indian spin quartet and Kapil Dev, Imran and Qadir, Hadlee....

No way can Gilchrist compare to the great man at this stage of his career!

Another thing: Don't you know enough about cricket to know that averages don't tell the whole story, in some cases, not even half the story?

indeed I know averages dont tell the full story..dont you worry.

I appreciate what you have said..and I do think Richards is the BEST batsman of the last 30 odd years....but I was answering the point about not even mentioning Gilchrist in the same breath as Richards...yes I know there were some great bowlers back then, but ther are some great bowlers now as well (maybe not as many I'll give you that). Gilchrists average still deserves some recognistion though, no matter where he bats in the team, or who he has faced etc.

All I am saying is that Gilchrist obviously has a great eye like Richards did, otherwise he would not be able to score at the rate he does score at

 

[Eclipse]

The fact Gilly scores faster in test cricket than any player by an absolute mile has to be taken into consideration.

Ricahrd's test strike rate was 69.82 Gillys is 83.

The nest best off all time is Kapil Dev with 73.

Gilchrist has never been a FTB or a batsman who only scores against the weeker teams he has proven himself many times that he is capable of playing his natrual game against all standerd's off attack.

I feel very happy mentioning him in the same breath as Richards in the context of what I was saying.

 

[thierry henry]

Chris Cairns (as a batsman).

He's always the player I want out there in a tight situation, despite not having as good a batting record as some of the NZ players.

 

[Eclipse]

Chris Cairns (as a batsman).

He's always the player I want out there in a tight situation, despite not having as good a batting record as some of the NZ players.

yeah he is good.

again he is a player who some might not expect to do well in pressure situations given the way he plays.

 

[thierry henry]

While Cairns loves to hit over the top, technically he is quite sound, he plays straight, and coupled with his great eye he always gives the impression of being very solid at the crease. In one-day games in particular, while he may throw his wicket away with disappointing regularity if the situation doesn't directly demand him not to, if the situation really demands it he is probably the man most NZ fans want to see.

 

[Swervy]

yeah I think Cairns is top notch

 

[Craig]

As fine a player Gilchrist is, I cant believe nobody hasnt put Andy Flower in there.

Zimbabwe's greatest ever player, he made 13 100's when Zimbabwe needed to aviod the follow on or were 3 or 4 wickets down for not many on the board.

To many he is an extremly under-rated player, and I rated him higher then Gilchrist because he had to bat for the team (Flower) a lot of the team and didnt have as strong as a batting line-up as Gilchrist has.

Still fine players non the less.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ricahrd's

The man's name is Richards, not Richard.

 

[tooextracool]

As fine a player Gilchrist is, I cant believe nobody hasnt put Andy Flower in there.

Zimbabwe's greatest ever player, he made 13 100's when Zimbabwe needed to aviod the follow on or were 3 or 4 wickets down for not many on the board.

To many he is an extremly under-rated player, and I rated him higher then Gilchrist because he had to bat for the team (Flower) a lot of the team and didnt have as strong as a batting line-up as Gilchrist has.

Still fine players non the less.

damn right!i personally feel that andy flower is the best wicket keeper batsman ever to play the game. his efforts are so often undermined because he played for a team that despite his performances on most occasions still lost. i still feel that gilchrist is good but until he does well in the sub continent(against india in particular) i will refuse to accept him as a great batsman