Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[flibbertyjibber]

Just for the record Prior has a better career with the gloves as a bat than Kumar. Gilly for me and there isn't really a discussion about it as he is so much better than anyone else.

 

[Ruckus]

Why does this thread even exist? Kamran Akmal is leagues ahead in both departments.

 

[The Sean]

Why are we punishing Gilchrist for not getting out?

 

[Spark]

When you take out 'not outs' for both guys then Kumar has the edge. So once again we'll be left with no scientific explanation why we still choose Gilchrist. As for Flower, his stats can be argued against because he didn't play a lot against big teams. But once again, we can ask why not Flower.

Why do you want to take not outs? How do you know Gilchrist wouldn't have scored 50 more runs had he not been stranded/declared on?

 

[rza]

A mixture of stats and qualitative judgements and context, based on where and when. Ie. in what circumstances batsmen scored their runs both in a specific match situation, the quality of the bowling they were made to face - did they score lots of runs against Malcolm Marshall or Ben Hilfenhaus, for example - and the historical context in which they scored runs - on the flat decks of today or the 30s/40s (I think) or the more bowler-friendly decks of the 80s or 90s, for example. Within that you have difficulties such as - did they score strongly against the strongest teams of their time, in all conditions (something which definitely counts against Kumar), in the toughest situations?

More than just stats.

Good point. As a number 3 batsman, Kumar faced the new ball against fresh bowlers. Sri Lankas batting was based around him, so his runs were make-or-break for the team. And he has tremendous stats against Australia in Australia - the best bowling attack in the world. And he has stats in his favour. And what can we say about Gilchrist's batting in tests?

 

[The Sean]

Good point. As a number 3 batsman, Kumar faced the new ball against fresh bowlers. Sri Lankas batting was based around him, so his runs were make-or-break for the team. And he has tremendous stats against Australia in Australia - the best bowling attack in the world. And he has stats in his favour. And what can we say about Gilchrist's batting in tests?

So we're back to comparing him to a wicketkeeper again, rather than other no.3 batsmen? Make up your mind.

 

[Spark]

Good point. As a number 3 batsman, Kumar faced the new ball against fresh bowlers. Sri Lankas batting was based around him, so his runs were make-or-break for the team. And he has tremendous stats against Australia in Australia - the best bowling attack in the world. And he has stats in his favour. And what can we say about Gilchrist's batting in tests?

That for all but the twilight of his career, he was bloody incredible. Scored freely and devastatingly in basically all conditions and in some tough circumstances too.

I will also mention that his record vs. us down here looks good because of one sublime innings - however that innings came after McWarne had retired, so it's not evidence that he necessarily scored against the best bowling attack in the world (in fact, who had the best attack in the world at the time? SA?). Most pertinently though, they came whilst he wasn't keeping so not really relevant to this discussion.

 

[rza]

Stats are a good measurement to a certain extent, but when you use them you have to take them into context of era, place, role within a side, and various other things. Sanga's an excellent bat, but there are several reasons why his average is higher than, say, Viv Richards or Allan Border while still not being rated as good a batsmen. These are, in brief:

- Sanga has scored the majority of his runs at home, where a very specific role is generally played on pitches that favour spin late on and not much else for the majority. This doesn't mean runs there are worthless, but it does mean generally less batsmanship is required than succeeding all around the world in a variety of conditions.

- He has played in an era that is generally higher scoring, and so sheer volume of runs has become expected rather than exceptional. This is true in most places, most notably in India and Australia.

I hope that explains where people are coming from. Of course, you can't blame Sanga for these things and it's not much of a criticism. It is, after all, his job to score double-tons on a familar Colombo surface and he does it brilliantly. If you want to think Sanga's awesome, go ahead.

Good points, which can be verified scienifically. We know that guys like Samaraweera have high averages, and that's because Sri Lankas wickets allow for higher totals compared to South Africa for instance. However, when compared with Gilchrist then Kumar still has an edge because of his good record in Australia against the best attack. So of course you can perhaps take 3-5 runs from his average because he played 50% of his games in Sri Lanka, but you also have to take out 'not outs' from Gilchrist's average, and perhaps take into account the fact that he was also a Prior in that he mostly came when the score was already on the board and all he needed to do was increase the pace before declaration or swing the bat.

I still don't see how Gilchrist is still better though, especially with the bat.

 

[Spark]

I see absolutely no reason to take out not outs in Tests.

 

[turnstyle]

I've never understood the argument about not outs. If you'd watched half a dozen of Gilly's 90 odd tests, you'd know he never looked like he was playing for red ink. In fact, i'd be inclined to take out the innings where he was pinch hitter in the second dig.

 

[Spark]

Yeah indeed. If anything he sometimes became even more reckless and more unselfish trying to smash quick runs at the expense of his average.

 

[turnstyle]

He could also turn a test in a session. I guess the counter-argument would be Flower was always battling to keep Zimbo in the match, but if it came down to a straight shoot out, it's a bit of a no brainer.

I wouldn't even consider Kumar, even if he's a class act.

Edit: To all the non Australian fans - who would you rather NOT come in at 7 against your team in a test?

 

[rza]

Why do you want to take not outs? How do you know Gilchrist wouldn't have scored 50 more runs had he not been stranded/declared on?

Because as a number 7 you will have more 'not outs' than a number 3 would have, that is scientific and can be verified. So we know that 'not outs' can inflate a person's average tremendously. I'm trying to compare a number 3 with a number 7, so you can't take their stats at face value. Of course we know that Gilchrist has more 'not outs' than Kumar has, so it would be senseless to give Gilchrist an advantage in that sense. So it's better to take out 'not outs' for both, but then I can see why Gilchrist would be disadvantaged.

 

[turnstyle]

Because as a number 7 you will have more 'not outs' than a number 3 would have, that is scientific and can be verified. So we know that 'not outs' can inflate a person's average tremendously. I'm trying to compare a number 3 with a number 7, so you can't take their stats at face value. Of course we know that Gilchrist has more 'not outs' than Kumar has, so it would be senseless to give Gilchrist an advantage in that sense. So it's better to take out 'not outs' for both, but then I can see why Gilchrist would be disadvantaged.

Thing is you pace your innings differently batting at different positions. There's also the factor of the second new ball.

 

[NUFAN]

I've never understood the argument about not outs. If you'd watched half a dozen of Gilly's 90 odd tests, you'd know he never looked like he was playing for red ink. In fact, i'd be inclined to take out the innings where he was pinch hitter in the second dig.

Yeah exactly.

rza, I think the key to judging cricket is by watching them.

Lets wait for Kumar to finish his career first as Gilly had an extraordinary first 70 odd Tests and since you want to be all scientific remember what goes up must come down.

BTW, Sangakarra is a brilliant Test batsman and one of my favourite Cricketers.

 

[Uppercut]

I see absolutely no reason to take out not outs in Tests.

It's an absurd idea. And in this case, introduces a huge bias in favour of the top order batsman.

 

[weldone]

When you take out 'not outs' for both guys then Kumar has the edge. So once again we'll be left with no scientific explanation why we still choose Gilchrist.

So, considering 'not outs' as 'outs' is the most scientific of approaches; is it?

Why not consider 'caught behind' and 'boundaries' the same also, then?

 

[rza]

I've never understood the argument about not outs. If you'd watched half a dozen of Gilly's 90 odd tests, you'd know he never looked like he was playing for red ink. In fact, i'd be inclined to take out the innings where he was pinch hitter in the second dig.

Here's the argument. Can a number 3 batsman play an innings that Gilchrist played when he blasted the fastest century back then? No, not even Sehwag. So there are things a number 7 can do that a number 3 can't. A number 7, as we see with Prior, can walk into crease with 400 on the board, and his job would be give strike to the settled batsman just before declaration, or to blast his way into a quick 50. So we can't compare an innings at number 7 to an innings at number 3. It's not like Gilchrist had to rescue the team now and then, all he did was to play freely. The Prior we see today is exactly how Gilchrist's conditions were when he came into the crease. But then that's not a number 7's fault.

Stats wise, a number 7 has more 'not outs', and it's not because he's difficult to dismiss, it has to do with the fact that he's batting at the end of the innings, especially when Gilchrist had Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Waughs, etc. So those 'not outs' need to be balanced somehow to give stats context. Gilchrist's average of 47 gives an impression that he scored 47 runs every innings, but that's not true. So you want to compare runs vs runs, not runs vs 'not outs' and runs.

 

[weldone]

Quick food for thought:

If Bradman batted at no. 11 all the time, how many 'not outs' would he require to average 99.94? And what does that average drop to when we consider all those 'imaginary not outs' as outs?

 

[weldone]

Gilchrist's average of 47 gives an impression that he scored 47 runs every innings, but that's not true. So you want to compare runs vs runs, not runs vs 'not outs' and runs.

Here is the definition of batting average for n-th time in CricketWeb:

Batting Average = No. of runs scored / No. of dismissals

It has nothing to do with runs scored per innings, no. of innings or no. of not outs. It requires 2 inputs - total runs scored and total no. of dismissals.

It is not a measure of how many runs a batsman scores per innings, but it's a measure of how many runs a batsman scores on average before getting dismissed.

Very unscientific, is it?