Yes. I'm pretty sure Gilchrist's record against India is his worst against any team. I'd wager he averages less than 30 against us. So he doesn't concern me too much. (Gilchrist is still a sensational player though, and I'd grab him as my keeper in a second.) Flintoff probably averages more, and even if not, his current form and potential I think are ridiculous. He can also bowl so even if he goes out for a first ball duck, I know he'll come on to bowl at 90 mph at us. Gilchrist doesn't do that.zinzan12 said:
-
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.
Worlds Most Dangerous Cricketer (bowler or batsmen)
- Thread starter Zinzan
- Start date
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gilchrist averages 29.95 against India, with 2 centuries in India. Flintoff is 12.50 with a fifty in England.Gangster said:
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If i should do more than glance at stats ..then why have you produced the stat that flintoff has 58 wickets in his last 17tests?...
Anyway...I believe stats are more crucial in cricket than any other game and for Gilchrist to have this ave and strike rate in his whole career is incredible..
Why do we all acknowledge Bradman as the greatest bat of all time ....
because of his incredible statistics..... and i don't mean filtering stats to suit yourself like you are doing with flintoff(ie his last 17 games) i'm using Gilchrists full career stats here.....
I've also just heard that Waqar commentating in Aust also mentioned that Gilchrist is the most dangerous player...so I'm in reasonable company..
On distorting Stats, Matt Bell (a very ave ex-kiwi opener) averaged around 80 in tests 1 year..that doesn't mean he was one of the best batsmen in the world that year in fact most of you probably haven't heard of him...his overall ave is around 27. Flintoff like all players will be judged on their career stats, not last 17 test bowling ave
Anyway...I believe stats are more crucial in cricket than any other game and for Gilchrist to have this ave and strike rate in his whole career is incredible..
Why do we all acknowledge Bradman as the greatest bat of all time ....
because of his incredible statistics..... and i don't mean filtering stats to suit yourself like you are doing with flintoff(ie his last 17 games) i'm using Gilchrists full career stats here.....
I've also just heard that Waqar commentating in Aust also mentioned that Gilchrist is the most dangerous player...so I'm in reasonable company..
On distorting Stats, Matt Bell (a very ave ex-kiwi opener) averaged around 80 in tests 1 year..that doesn't mean he was one of the best batsmen in the world that year in fact most of you probably haven't heard of him...his overall ave is around 27. Flintoff like all players will be judged on their career stats, not last 17 test bowling ave
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Whats more....I highly doubt that Flintoff would make the Aussie side if he were born there. Just the same way as a Kiwi, I'd have to confess Chris Cairns probably wouldn't have been consistently in the aussie side through the 90s-2003. Cairns and Flintoff would both have been lucky to play a handful of tests if they were Aussies.....where as Gilchrist in a team of Superstars is one of their best....
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is that serious question?! It's obviously to show that he has been a different bowler in his most recent 17 Tests than he was earlier in his career! It's far more relevant than quoting career stats which incorporate the period when he was undercooked and too early exposed.zinzan12 said:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because Australia is so set for allrounders right? What with Harvey, Hogg and co. all starring throughout their legendary careers...zinzan12 said:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Going with the backward remixed styles...Gangster said:
2. Then you can't draw any comparisons with Gilchrist on the issue.
1. 11 wickets at 49.63. Irrelevant though, as that was the old Flintoff.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You can't honestly tell me that Australia wouldn't like to have a genuine allrounder in the mix. You also can't tell me that the likes of Shane Watson and Michael Clarke are superior allrounders to Andrew Flintoff. I (and many others) would laugh.zinzan12 said:
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Flintoff is potentially a great cricketer. Time will tell if he can add consistency to his other qualities.
In the meantime, Gilchrist has established himself as an all-time great and one of the 5 best all-rounders ever.
Even against India, where his stats are weakest, he has produced 2 match-winning hundreds in the first test of the last 2 series played on the subcontinent.
He is, IMO, easily the most dangerous player in world cricket today.
In the meantime, Gilchrist has established himself as an all-time great and one of the 5 best all-rounders ever.
Even against India, where his stats are weakest, he has produced 2 match-winning hundreds in the first test of the last 2 series played on the subcontinent.
He is, IMO, easily the most dangerous player in world cricket today.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Really? Does he know that?social said:
Deja moo
International Captain
I would say Gilchrist, but I would also add that he has a luxury that few cricketers in the world do; that of playing for Australia. IMO, take any of the present excellent players like Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Dravid etc ,put them into the Aussie team, and their averages would improve by 5 atleast.
McGrath is a strong candidate, maybe even more so than Gilchrist because of his excellent record and consistency vs all teams everywhere. He even averages 18 with the ball in India, I believe.
McGrath is a strong candidate, maybe even more so than Gilchrist because of his excellent record and consistency vs all teams everywhere. He even averages 18 with the ball in India, I believe.
cricket player
International Debutant
Bloody shahid afridi can hit the ball mile's away.
EVen in test match he trie's to hit every ball for six how suprising is that.
EVen in test match he trie's to hit every ball for six how suprising is that.
ReallyCrazy
Banned
I absolutely agree w/ Zinzan. Gilchrist is the most dangerous cricket player. I did put Flintoff's name down as the player of the year 2004 in another thread but that is only based on form.
Think about it...Gilchrist can walk into any team as a batter alone. His wicketkeeping is a plus. He is probably the best wicketkeeper-batsman ever. He can change the course of a match in a session. The notion that wicketkeepers need to be really good batters only came about after Gilchrist made his mark.
So its gotta be Gilchrist.
Think about it...Gilchrist can walk into any team as a batter alone. His wicketkeeping is a plus. He is probably the best wicketkeeper-batsman ever. He can change the course of a match in a session. The notion that wicketkeepers need to be really good batters only came about after Gilchrist made his mark.
So its gotta be Gilchrist.
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
LMAO!SJS said:No doubt whatsoever. The two most consistently dangerous players in cricket are Ganguly and Inzemaam.....to the batsman at the other end when they are calling, taking, refusing, negotiating, reconsidering, 'dashing for' a run
They took the mantle from Graeme Wood.