Who is the best upcomming WKBatter in Subcontinent?

[honestbharani]

I think Akmal has kinda fluctuated between some extremely good takes and the odd ordinary miss as a keeper. But he has shown good temperament as a batter. Thing is, he was never tested on the leg side by the Indians. The way he scored so many of his runs on the off side reminded me of Sehwag's scoring charts. Time to test with some short stuff, boys.

 

[vandemataram]

I


Kamran Akmal - I'll be amazed if he does well in either. It's extraordinary enough that he's even scored a century in each form.

So you think the guys is lousy???

 

[vandemataram]

You make yourself look foolish out there by intentionally supporting the wrong guys. It may be anger that you're externalizing, but I don't see Karthik being any better than Akmal.

In Tests? Karthik.
Kamran Akmal - I'll be amazed if he does well in either. It's extraordinary enough that he's even scored a century in each form

Different ppl have different opinions, there are some that shares mine, calling ppl foolish just coz they don't think much about ur keeper is silly. And ur commnet of me being angry is way hilarious.

 

[Richard]

So you think the guys is lousy???

I don't think Kamran Akmal is a very good batsman, no.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I don't know how/why many of you guys are talking up Dhoni so much. He hasn't done anything much to date other than playing 2 ODIs. Karthik is certainly better than him.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Kamran Akmal without doubt

 

[aussie]

aussie

I don't think Kamran Akmal is a very good batsman, no.

obviously u didn't see his brilliant match saving hundred againts india in mohali

 

[Choora]

So you think the guys is lousy???

Actually the guy is very good, we don't need to compare him with the likes of Gilli and Sang who are class act.

Akmal is a good keeper and also a capable batsmen , who have scored two centuries , one each in both format of the game. He's going to improve and is seems to have a good future.

The young Pak guys that seems to impress me happen to be Danish, Akmal & Butt.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gilchrist is better than Sangakkara?
Err - how, sorry?
Sangakkara bats three with two exceptionally inconsistent openers, who rarely do well together; Gilchrist bats seven behind 6 other batsmen with high averages and pretty darn good consistency.
And before you go on about Gilchrist's rescue-acts - be assured that Sangakkara has performed similar one-man acts.

Gilchrist has a fair case to be the single most valuable player in the world today. Not only does he provide greater stability at number 7 than any other team in the world could hope for from a player in that position, but invariably when Gilchrist plays well he takes the game away from the opposition. Even looking past situations where he has come in when Australia is in trouble and rescued them, I couldn't count the number of times that he has played a vital innings when the match was in the balance or Australia slightly in front and absolutely turned the match on its head in the matter of a single session. An example is the Bangalore test against India last year. Australia weren't exactly in strife when he came in as Katich and Clarke had already made a significant contribution to put Australia in a decent position, but Gilchrist smashed a run a ball hundred, most of which came in the final overs of the first day. You simply cannot underestimate how crushing it is for the opposition when they've worked hard against a good batting lineup all day and got them to say 5/250 with 10 overs to go and those 10 overs go for 80 runs and all of a sudden they are struggling to keep the score under 400. He has the aura of intimidation about him that few players have (Warne is the only other player from this era that compares in this regard, against everyone except India), and his value can't be measured in runs and catches alone.

He would be useful enough in this regard simply as a batsman, but when you add to that the fact that he is a more than useful keeper and a top quality captain/vice-captain and leader on the field and you have one hell of a useful player. Sangakkara is quality by all means, but he's not going to be remembered for decades to come in the way Gilchrist is, and for good reason.

 

[social]

Gilchrist has a fair case to be the single most valuable player in the world today. Not only does he provide greater stability at number 7 than any other team in the world could hope for from a player in that position, but invariably when Gilchrist plays well he takes the game away from the opposition. Even looking past situations where he has come in when Australia is in trouble and rescued them, I couldn't count the number of times that he has played a vital innings when the match was in the balance or Australia slightly in front and absolutely turned the match on its head in the matter of a single session. An example is the Bangalore test against India last year. Australia weren't exactly in strife when he came in as Katich and Clarke had already made a significant contribution to put Australia in a decent position, but Gilchrist smashed a run a ball hundred, most of which came in the final overs of the first day. You simply cannot underestimate how crushing it is for the opposition when they've worked hard against a good batting lineup all day and got them to say 5/250 with 10 overs to go and those 10 overs go for 80 runs and all of a sudden they are struggling to keep the score under 400. He has the aura of intimidation about him that few players have (Warne is the only other player from this era that compares in this regard, against everyone except India), and his value can't be measured in runs and catches alone.

He would be useful enough in this regard simply as a batsman, but when you add to that the fact that he is a more than useful keeper and a top quality captain/vice-captain and leader on the field and you have one hell of a useful player. Sangakkara is quality by all means, but he's not going to be remembered for decades to come in the way Gilchrist is, and for good reason.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of posting the above.

Gilchrist is in virtually everyone's all-time World X1.

Sangakarra is a fine cricketer, no doubt, but Gilly has revolutionised his position.

 

[Choora]

Gilchrist is a champion cricketer, Sang is very good with the bat but doesn't even come close to Gillchrist.

 

[Richard]

I don't know how/why many of you guys are talking up Dhoni so much. He hasn't done anything much to date other than playing 2 ODIs. Karthik is certainly better than him.

Not in the one-day game, surely?
How can Karthik, with his OD average of 19 or whatever, be better than Dhoni, with his average in the 50s?
I'm sure Dhoni isn't as good as Karthik in the First-Class game, but I've not said "Dhoni for Tests" anywhere, have I?

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist has a fair case to be the single most valuable player in the world today. Not only does he provide greater stability at number 7 than any other team in the world could hope for from a player in that position, but invariably when Gilchrist plays well he takes the game away from the opposition. Even looking past situations where he has come in when Australia is in trouble and rescued them, I couldn't count the number of times that he has played a vital innings when the match was in the balance or Australia slightly in front and absolutely turned the match on its head in the matter of a single session. An example is the Bangalore test against India last year. Australia weren't exactly in strife when he came in as Katich and Clarke had already made a significant contribution to put Australia in a decent position, but Gilchrist smashed a run a ball hundred, most of which came in the final overs of the first day. You simply cannot underestimate how crushing it is for the opposition when they've worked hard against a good batting lineup all day and got them to say 5/250 with 10 overs to go and those 10 overs go for 80 runs and all of a sudden they are struggling to keep the score under 400. He has the aura of intimidation about him that few players have (Warne is the only other player from this era that compares in this regard, against everyone except India), and his value can't be measured in runs and catches alone.

He would be useful enough in this regard simply as a batsman, but when you add to that the fact that he is a more than useful keeper and a top quality captain/vice-captain and leader on the field and you have one hell of a useful player. Sangakkara is quality by all means, but he's not going to be remembered for decades to come in the way Gilchrist is, and for good reason.

I'd say by the end of his career Sangakkara most certainly will be remembered for decades to come.
The reason Gilchrist is so valuable has more to do with the rest of his side. He fits in perfectly with the rest of his batsmen, for the precise reason you state.
Gilchrist's aura of intimidation is inestimably useful for the current Australian side... how much use it'd be for other sides I don't know - and I certainly highly doubt he'd have been anywhere near as successful had he been born anything other than Australian.
However, to do what he does doesn't as far as I'm concerned take as much skill as to do what Sangakkara does. And if you think he's not an on-field leader... think again.

 

[Richard]

obviously u didn't see his brilliant match saving hundred againts india in mohali

No, I didn't.
And nor do I set much stall by a single innings... especially against such a relatively uninspiring attack as India's.

 

[Richard]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of posting the above.

Another predictable "I agree" comment.

Gilchrist is in virtually everyone's all-time World X1.

Not without deserving to be - but how useful he'd have been in any other XI (remembering that World XIs are fantastical) I don't know.

 

[social]

Another predictable "I agree" comment.

Not without deserving to be - but how useful he'd have been in any other XI (remembering that World XIs are fantastical) I don't know.

Obviously you would prefer me to say that Gilchrist is overrated by almost everyone that has seen him play as, despite all evidence to the contrary, he is simply not that good.

There, I said it.

Richard, you and I are now in total agreement.

BTW, would Don Bradman have been as good if he was born English?

 

[aussie]

aussie

No, I didn't.
And nor do I set much stall by a single innings... especially against such a relatively uninspiring attack as India's.

well that innings showed how good is is, i dont know if any of the other upcoming keepers in the sub-continent could play an innings of such characther, and since when the indian attack is uninspiring i dont agree with that

 

[honestbharani]

Akmal played a great knock that day, but his innings was predominantly offsidish. If that was because of the line the Indians bowled or because of his own strength on the offside or because of his weakness on the onside, only time will tell. But his stroke today was pretty daft.

 

[Richard]

well that innings showed how good is is, i dont know if any of the other upcoming keepers in the sub-continent could play an innings of such characther

Anyone can play 1 good innings. Freaks happen. You've got to do it 4 or 5 times before it shows how good you are.

and since when the indian attack is uninspiring i dont agree with that

It had 3 largely rubbish seamers, and 2 spinners who are effective only on turning pitches and by all reports the Mohali pitch didn't turn much.

 

[Richard]

Obviously you would prefer me to say that Gilchrist is overrated by almost everyone that has seen him play as, despite all evidence to the contrary, he is simply not that good.

Gilchrist is not overrated - much, he's just a bit flattered by his average.
Yet he's still a fantastic player - but he does fit especially well with the rest of the Australian side.
How good he'd have been had he been from somewhere else is open for question.

BTW, would Don Bradman have been as good if he was born English?

Who knows - I think so, personally.
We don't know how much environmental impact was had on him.