Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[robelinda]

That was Saqlian, hysterical stuff, what on earth was he doing there, dancing or some crap????

 

[Top_Cat]

Geez that's a good attack they're up against. Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar and Saqlain make for a fine attack. Probably one of the best ever assembled. And it was in the 90s as well so Wasim and Waqar weren't past it either.

Yeah they were. Wasim and Waqar were not very dangerous in that series at all. Waqar especially was topping out in the mid-130's for pace, was well past his best.

 

[smash84]

Yeah they were. Wasim and Waqar were not very dangerous in that series at all. Waqar especially was topping out in the mid-130's for pace, was well past his best.

awta but in the same test Waqar got Ponting out with such a beauty indipper IIRC. Wasim, was decent at that time although not at his peak but Saqlain and Akhtar were at their peaks or so. It was a pretty decent attack by all means although Waqar was probably the weakest link in the attack.

Also we had one or two very crucial umpiring blunders that went against us else we should have had this match in the bag .....this one still riles me

Also this defeat led to total demoralization for the team.

The Pak fielding has always been bad but the number of dropped catches seem to be rising every year. The Khatmals and the farhats grass a chance at every opportunity

 

[smash84]

of course which is not to take anything away from Gilchrist's innings. This was one of the finest test innings ever played IMO

 

[SamSawnoff]

Adam Gilchrist 149* vs Pakistan 1999/00 PART TWO - YouTube

Adam Gilchrist 149* vs Pakistan 1999/00 PART ONE - YouTube

My favourite wingnut.

I think half the reason I dislike Haddin so much is because he replaced Gilly. I should really let that one go!

 

[Hurricane]

I have no problem with taking Gilchrist's average at face value, but you can't have it both ways, which means that we have to take Kumar's average at face value as well, which place him right in the ATG XI as a batsman. We could even argue that his average would have been higher had he not kept wickets, which makes him even more deserving of a spot as a batsman. If we take Kallis' average at face value, then we have no business not declaring him the best behind Bradman and maybe Sobers as the greatest cricketer of all times.

So it's either you put an average into context or take it at face value. But you can't do both.

Stick to your guns mate you have them on the ropes.

 

[Debris]

The argument that you ignore 'not outs' only has any validity at all if they are batting in the same position. A number 7 has a lot more chances at a 'not out' but a lot less opportunity to make a 100 and almost never a 200. You might as well argue that Sangakkara has been padding his stats by batting at 3 and racking up 200s

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[Howe_zat]

The argument that you ignore 'not outs' only has any validity at all if they are batting in the same position. A number 7 has a lot more chances at a 'not out' but a lot less opportunity to make a 100 and almost never a 200. You might as well argue that Sangakkara has been padding his stats by batting at 3 and racking up 200s

It doesn't have any validity full stop. A batting average already ignores not outs, as it only counts runs and dismissals. Counting "out" and "not out" as the same thing, in any attempt to judge any part of batsmanship, is completely unjustifiable.

 

[Ikki]

Disagree, I don't think it is "completely unjustifiable" but it is in this case. It really has more to do with the value people put on the batting average and less in terms of the context of the runs scored, where people think an average is "wrong", so to say.

 

[Howe_zat]

If you want to measure runs per innings instead of runs per wicket, and you think you have a reason for doing that, sure, go ahead.

But counting not outs as outs goes against any pretensions of fairness. It's just arbitrarily deciding that a batsman got out when he didn't. It's tripe.

Why stop at just deciding he got out at the end of each Gilchrist innings? You may as well add in an extra dismissal into the middle of every innings, and say he averaged 24.

 

[smash84]

people first need to understand what the average means. It is just a simple runs scored/no of outs. It does not represent the amount of runs scored per innings by a batsman

 

[Himannv]

You're trying to get the Walcott thing in people's subconscious pre scorecard draft voting thread IMO - everyone knows Alan Knott was the best.

Les Ames clearly the best.

 

[GIMH]

On the whole out/not out thing, Dravid today is a good example. I am hungover and really cbf to expand so hopefully someone else will.

 

[Joao]

I think a lot of stuff in this thread is a little over the top.

It is reminding me of old school Gilly though - WAG. A notch above any other Keeper-Batsman I have seen as a package.

For the record, Kumar is my favourite non-Watto batsman and easily my favourite non-Australian player since all the gun 90's fast bowlers retired (honourable mention to Steyn).

 

[Prince EWS]

If you want to measure runs per innings instead of runs per wicket, and you think you have a reason for doing that, sure, go ahead.

But counting not outs as outs goes against any pretensions of fairness. It's just arbitrarily deciding that a batsman got out when he didn't. It's tripe.

Why stop at just deciding he got out at the end of each Gilchrist innings? You may as well add in an extra dismissal into the middle of every innings, and say he averaged 24.

Yes, I completely agree. There are probably better ways to 'deal' with not outs when determining batsmanship than the current batting average formula, but counting them as outs is definitely not one of them.

If anything, there's actually an argument to suggest that the current method actually robs batsmen who finish not out short, particularly if they get scores like 20*, 40* etc, as almost all proper batsmen average more after the reach 20 and they're set than they do from 0. The current system essentially makes not-out batsmen go through the 'getting set' part of their innings twice for the same calculation as a batsman who only goes through it once.

 

[Hurricane]

We had a guy in our team who batted 11 and would top the batting averages in the club every season by accumulating not outs and he was a terrible bat.

In some ways not outs do inflate your average -

If you have played 4 innings/outs for 100 runs and score 20 not out in your 5th inning your average will be 30.

If you had've gotten dismissed in that 5th inning you would have need to have scored 50 to end up with an average of 30.

In this way a score of 20 not out helps you more than a score of 45 out.

Interestingly with more dismissals the dynamic does not change. For example a batsman with 40 dismissals at an average of 40 - if he scored 20* would raise his average to 40.5 - if had've been dismissed he would have needed to have scored 60 for an equivalent impact on his batting average.

I think it is way easier to score 20* than it is score either 45 or 60 - therefore IMHO if a batsman does have an abnormal number of not outs they will have an inflated average.

 

[Spark]

If you want to measure runs per innings instead of runs per wicket, and you think you have a reason for doing that, sure, go ahead.

But counting not outs as outs goes against any pretensions of fairness. It's just arbitrarily deciding that a batsman got out when he didn't. It's tripe.

Why stop at just deciding he got out at the end of each Gilchrist innings? You may as well add in an extra dismissal into the middle of every innings, and say he averaged 24.

awta so so so much.

It's slightly more justifiable in LO cricket when there is a natural and enforced conclusion to the innings at the end of 50 overs and position does have a big impact, but even then...

 

[DriveClub]

This should settle it pretty easily, Kumar was no where near the batsman he is, with the gloves.

 

[Spark]

Careful of the sample size...