**.....UNOFFICIAL.....** ASHES 2007 thread

[Richard]

Ok, I'll try to make it as clear as I possibly can.
Since December 2003 Gilchrist has played 36 Tests (not counting, for obvious reasons, the recent Bangladesh game). In the first 13 of them, he averaged 28.63; in the next 8 he averaged 107; in the next 15 he's averaged 22.43.
In total, that's 36 games for an unexceptional average (by his previous standards) of 36. That, however, contains 1 short 8-game period, which can be removed in it's entirity. See? 36 - 8 = 28. In those 28, his average is 25.47; in the other 8, it's 107.
So you see? It's been a lot of very poor stuff with a short period in the middle of excellence. No coincidence, incidentally, that the excellence came against the weakest attacks.

 

[aussie]

Initially you said that his trott can be traced further back from the ashes to the 2003/04 Home series vs India, right?. I'm saying that it started from the ashes. So i dont really understand why you would add in all the test since the ashes as well, but ok i'll leave it as that.

I checked it out myself just now to be sure and yea your right about the STATS but judging by your arguments it seems as if you are basically formulating this idea just based on stats because if you actually watched Gilchirst in the 13 test between the India Home series to the away series in India it is obvious that he wasn't in any trott unlike the one that he is currently in.

Duirng the India home seires to the 1st test in Galle Gilly suffered the 1st MAJOR trott of his career. But it wasn't due to bowlers working him out at all. He can be faulted for the majority of his dismissals over those 5 tests. He then hit back with a superb 144 in Kandy

Againts the Sri Lankans at home after he failed in the 1st Innings in darwin where most of the Australian bastmen struggled except for Lehmann he made a very good 80 in the second innings in Darwin in testing conditons. In the cairns test if my memory serves me right i remeber him racing to a quick 30 odd then getting out to wild slash outside off to Malinga.

Then in India he batted fairly well for an player who is just average againts spin his superb hundred in Bangalore the highlight. Overall after actually seeing these 4 series their is no way he was going through a trott, his averae may have been inflated by the fact that he played 7 test in the subcontinet but he hit 2 superb centuries and in his career thats how he has been againts quality spin, `hit and miss`

Then in the 8 test has you pointed out he smoked NZ & PAK like good players should do.

While in the ashes and since the ashes bowlers have worked on the tactic of bowling around the wicket to him and he has clearly been out of form, but his is a great player and his 2 innings of 91 & 86 showed that he hasn't totally lost it.

So overal i totally disagree with this theory that his form slump can be traced to way back to the India 2003/04 series, since it clearly began from the lord's test simple..

 

[marc71178]

yes u stupid fool, and i presume you didn't read my post where i questioned that record?. So before you stupidly accuse me of defeding players because they are Australian get your facts right big head..

Well firstly you questioned something that is clear fact.

Next you claimed that the period of games highlighted was significant.

Add in the fact that you've never ever criticised an Australian cricketer...

But if in doubt, throw some more insults, I must admit to still be reeling at being called a whore.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Uh?
Clarke didn't play in South Africa!!!
What's he got to do with Gillespie, anyhow?

Quite obviously he meant Stuart Clark.

 

[Nate]

Hi all, this is my first post and for my two cents worth I think the slide of the Australian team their loss of aura, their diminished dominance etc etc is equally mirrored in the demise of the English side which has lost a series in Pakistan, just salvaged a draw in India before getting hammered in the on-going one day series there, I think with more than a point to prove in Australia and playing on home ground they will be very tough to beat.

Welcome.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Don`t let these idiots get to you, keep posting.

 

[aussie]

Well firstly you questioned something that is clear fact.

Next you claimed that the period of games highlighted was significant.

Add in the fact that you've never ever criticised an Australian cricketer...

But if in doubt, throw some more insults, I must admit to still be reeling at being called a whore.

Clear fact?, why because Richard said so. Well unfortunately after i did my little research on his analysis it certainly isn't.

This would be irrelevant because has i found he actually was not in a trott until the ashes.

I have, on this forum i criticised Clark all the way up to the 1st hour when he came on to bowl in the cape town test. I guess you missed that. Plus its not like Australian players have done much for me to criticise them, so get of this crap...

 

[marc71178]

Clear fact?, why because Richard said so. Well unfortunately after i did my little research on his analysis it certainly isn't.

Yes, clear fact.

Look at the games he's talked about, take out the short spell in the middle and you'll come up with the numbers he quoted.

 

[aussie]

Yes, clear fact.

Look at the games he's talked about, take out the short spell in the middle and you'll come up with the numbers he quoted.

geez, cant you read?, i said checked his stats i came up with those numbers and even though the stats show that its cleary not true if you actually saw Gilchrist bat during the 2003/04 series vs India at home to the 2004/05 vs India away.

 

[marc71178]

It appears you can't read if you've checked the numbers, seen they agree with what Richard said and then are disputing that they're fact.

 

[aussie]

WTF, what are trying to say where did i agree then disagree with what he said?, what are you blind, i am quite clearly againts his views on Gilly's form slump.

 

[marc71178]

So therefore you can't have studied it because he has posted clear facts and you're denying them.

 

[aussie]

So therefore you can't have studied it because he has posted clear facts and you're denying them.

you are a heache, you keep saying he posted clear facts, my post (the second post on this page) clearly goes againts his idea so it obviously isn't any fact at all, so its not a case of me denying anything he said, its a case of me disagreeing.

 

[marc71178]

I keep saying he posts clear facts because what he posted was a clear fact.

You denying it is illogical as it is a clear fact.

 

[aussie]

facts given, that are proven to be inaccurate cannot be termed a ``clear fact``. Since its not true.

 

[marc71178]

But they are not inaccurate. If you take the scenario he gave and look at the numbers they are what he said them to be.

Therefore they are clear facts.

 

[aussie]

dont know what sense this makes, but have it your way it is clear facts, but its not true.

 

[Richard]

Initially you said that his trott can be traced further back from the ashes to the 2003/04 Home series vs India, right?. I'm saying that it started from the ashes. So i dont really understand why you would add in all the test since the ashes as well, but ok i'll leave it as that.

I checked it out myself just now to be sure and yea your right about the STATS but judging by your arguments it seems as if you are basically formulating this idea just based on stats because if you actually watched Gilchirst in the 13 test between the India Home series to the away series in India it is obvious that he wasn't in any trott unlike the one that he is currently in.

Duirng the India home seires to the 1st test in Galle Gilly suffered the 1st MAJOR trott of his career. But it wasn't due to bowlers working him out at all. He can be faulted for the majority of his dismissals over those 5 tests. He then hit back with a superb 144 in Kandy

Againts the Sri Lankans at home after he failed in the 1st Innings in darwin where most of the Australian bastmen struggled except for Lehmann he made a very good 80 in the second innings in Darwin in testing conditons. In the cairns test if my memory serves me right i remeber him racing to a quick 30 odd then getting out to wild slash outside off to Malinga.

Then in India he batted fairly well for an player who is just average againts spin his superb hundred in Bangalore the highlight. Overall after actually seeing these 4 series their is no way he was going through a trott, his averae may have been inflated by the fact that he played 7 test in the subcontinet but he hit 2 superb centuries and in his career thats how he has been againts quality spin, `hit and miss`

Then in the 8 test has you pointed out he smoked NZ & PAK like good players should do.

While in the ashes and since the ashes bowlers have worked on the tactic of bowling around the wicket to him and he has clearly been out of form, but his is a great player and his 2 innings of 91 & 86 showed that he hasn't totally lost it.

So overal i totally disagree with this theory that his form slump can be traced to way back to the India 2003/04 series, since it clearly began from the lord's test simple..

Gilchrist might've been got out with the round-the-wicket ploy a few times since Lord's 2005, but if it really was that simple he'd not have averaged 60 or close ITFP. No, he's played more than his share of poor strokes since Lord's 2005, too.
I watched most of the Gilchrist innings in 2003\04 and early 2004\05, too, and he quite clearly played far more poor strokes than he had done in most of the 1999\2000-2003 period. Maybe (and only maybe) that had to do with bowlers bowling better at him - and also, of course, due to the fact that he faced some quality spin in the period, something he did little of in the 1999\2000-2003 time.
Purely and simply, I'd say Gilchrist's style of play was always likely to get him into some trouble - I've always said that if he'd played in a time of better bowling and better catching, he'd not have averaged 60 as he did at first, probably more like 35-40.

 

[Richard]

Quite obviously he meant Stuart Clark.

Well then quite obviously he should've typed Clark instead of Clarke.

 

[Richard]

dont know what sense this makes, but have it your way it is clear facts, but its not true.

What you mean is that you are disputing the meaning of these facts.
Which is all well and good, and I'm more than willing (as I have above) to continue the discussion.
But you can't change the fact that I HAVE posted "clear facts".

 

[marc71178]

dont know what sense this makes, but have it your way it is clear facts, but its not true.

How can something be clear facts and not true at the same time?