Mr Casson said:
Way to change your argument...
Basically, what you were saying is that Gilchrist is not even an allrounder - now you seem to be saying that he just isn't one of history's greatest all-rounders, which I imagine is something that will be debated in years to come...
Of all the arguements in the game, it is the one regarding the best all rounders that is the most passionate and the most difficult to pin down.
As it is, great bowlers who were decent bats were difficult to match up against great batsmen who were decent bowlers, or those who were good bowlers and good batsmen but not great. Now with the keepers being added to the all rounder category, it has become virtually impossible to place them in an order of priority that would be widely accepted.
Its best , therefore, not to get into this trap since it is totally pointless. This is really is apples and oranges. Next thing we will have to decide who is greater Michael Holding or Gordon Greenidge.
The point some were trying to make here was that a true all rounder is one who could be selected on the basis of either of his bowling or batting capabilies(add keeping to that). This has really been true of very very few over the history of the game.
The next best description of a true all rounder (and the best one I think) is one who could decisively turn a match with an individual performance in either of his two areas of proficiency. Many batsman/bowler all rounders will fit this.
The keepers are differnt for we do not look at matches being turned on their head by a great keeping performance. So , for the keeper/batsman all rounder, the first definition is better suited. Gilchrist clearly fits into an all rounder category. He would play for Australia easily as a batsman and I think (allthough I dont know enough about other Australian keepers of today) as a keeper. The same could be said for Les Ames. I cant easily recall many others over time. Walcott was a fantastic batsman but would not have played as a pure keeper, just as Alec Stewart wouldnt. It would depend upon the quality of other keepers available at that time.
Ames , to that extent was a better all rounder keeper than Gilchrist since he was also one of the finest keepers of all time which Gilchrist clearly isnt.
To conclude, Gilchrist IS an all rounder and one of the top 2-3 keeping all rounders of all time. That should satisfy all Gilchrist fans without having to struggle and try to weigh him against those who specialise in hurling the leather sphere rather than in pouching it.
