• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Unpopular Opinions Thread

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Knott didn't keep to top spin though. I'm happy to rank him ahead of Gilchrist as a keeper, but by what distance given this question mark?
How he kept to Underwood's medium pace on stickies was legendary though. Requires the same amount of skill. I wouldn't expect Gilchrist to take all the bottom edged catches that Knott took. He was probably better at stumping too. Plus as I said he averages 41 at 7 over 81 innings. Very impressive. The way I see it: Knott is GOAT keeper plus decent enough batsman whereas Gilchrist is ATVG in both disciplines. An extra catch or 2 would make up for the batting.
 

Borges

International Regular
Knott was at his very best when he stood up to the stumps to Underwood on drying wickets; keeping to spin couldn't get more difficult than that.
 

Bolo

State Captain
How he kept to Underwood's medium pace on stickies was legendary though. Requires the same amount of skill. I wouldn't expect Gilchrist to take all the bottom edged catches that Knott took. He was probably better at stumping too. Plus as I said he averages 41 at 7 over 81 innings. Very impressive. The way I see it: Knott is GOAT keeper plus decent enough batsman whereas Gilchrist is ATVG in both disciplines. An extra catch or 2 would make up for the batting.
Weren't stickies basically done before Knott debuted?
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Weren't stickies basically done before Knott debuted?
They were gradually phased out in the 60s when he did play. Perhaps they continued longer in County. Dunno about that. Nevertheless he cemented a legendary reputation for it. Even on good wickets he took lots of bottom edged, near the ground, catches as well as stumpings.
 

Jack1

International Debutant

Jack1

International Debutant
Number 7s in Odis shouldn't be judged by their centuries
No. But an appalling strike rate isn’t ideal either, haha.

Dhoni needs to realise his average is irrelevant and hugely boosted by not outs. His strike rate is horrible to be honest.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I've come to believe Knott>Gilchrist since he averages 41 at 7 and was an immensely superior keeper. Whilst Gilchrist was clearly the superior bat, the difference in batting isn't that huge compared to the keeping difference which makes up for the former since a wicket is worth a lot more than 15 runs. Knott's hest also came in adverse circumstances which Gilly also bailed his team out of tbf. Though the problem is with Knott at 7 you have a guy that can hold an end and play second fiddle whereas Gilchrist can dominate though his explosiveness would come down a couple of notches in an ATG context. Knott is a step above Healy who was clearly superior to Gilly. Knott took some insane ones.
Also, O'Reilly> Warne. Better record against the best players of spin of his time in a batsman friendly era. Got closest to having the wood over Bradman. Great FC stats too.
I fail to understand why Knott is an "immensely better keeper" than Gilchrist. Gilchrist kept wicket to Warne and MacGill, a most difficult task. I cannot recall one instance where I thought Gilchrist was not an elite keeper (barring his last year, and he gave it away promptly once he lost his eye).

The Australian team of that era would not have tolerated a sub-par keeper, and could have easily played Gilly as a bat if they weren't happy with his keeping.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gilchrist was great, no doubt but Knott was just better. It's like the difference between Sobers and a 'normal' batting all rounder. All I'm saying is it makes up for the batting deficit.
 

Borges

International Regular
I've come to believe Knott>Gilchrist
Yes, there is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.


Also, O'Reilly> Warne. Better record against the best players of spin of his time in a batsman friendly era. Got closest to having the wood over Bradman. Great FC stats too.
This is not all that clear cut; though I accept that there is a strong case for O'Reilley.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes, there is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.




This is not all that clear cut; though I accept that there is a strong case for O'Reilley.
It's a shame there isn't s great deal of footage of Tiger but if what I've read about him is to be believed, he's better than Warne based on the fact that he troubled Bradman the most of any bowler he faced and I simply do not see a Warne being anything but fodder for Don. O'Reilly did better against Hammond and Bradman than Warne did against Lara and Sachin. Also why Tiger>Grimmett.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kapil Dev better than Ian botham in tests

Saqlain better than Murali in ODIs

Hadlee underrated both in tests and odis
Over the length of their careers, yes.

Saqlain has a very strong case but Murali has longevity.

And agreed. 3rd greatest fast bowler ever and that's not taking his batting into account.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No. But an appalling strike rate isn’t ideal either, haha.

Dhoni needs to realise his average is irrelevant and hugely boosted by not outs. His strike rate is horrible to be honest.
I’ve already explained to you how wrong you are in the tour thread so won’t spell it out again.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I’ve already explained to you how wrong you are in the tour thread so won’t spell it out again.
You have to be a really, really mathematically challenged (and have a severe lack of common sense) to think that averages are somehow less if they are "boosted by not outs"
 

Top