More devastating...Richards or Gilchrist??

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sehwag is a tremendous cricketer BUT he has only played a relatively small no. of tests and he bats in the most favourable conditions in the sub-continent i.e. opening.

Let's talk more about him when he has played 50 or more tests.

BTW, how many saw Gilchrist today - UNBELIEVABLE.

Yeah, he was incredible. Three centuries in a row now, perhaps the best form of his life.

 

[GermanShepherd]

Gilchrist is an excellent player but King Viv was something else.

Even on a seaming pitch against a pumped up attack, Viv would come in and smash the ball to all corners off the ground.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

So has Gilly, sunshine.

 

[EnglishRose]

So has Gilly, sunshine.

No he hasn't. I've seen every one of Gilchrist's hundreds since Brisbane 1999 and with the exception of Mumbai 2001, they've pretty much all come on benign tracks.

Viv displayed a greater level of skill when confronted with the same variety of conditions as Gilchrist.

 

[C_C]

if sehwag can average 55 over almost 70 tests at a rate that Gilchrist does, then fair enough...but I just dont think he will do. Fair play to him if he does though

That is a legitimate reasoning but i think Sehwag can be classified in that group currently- he has scored at an excellent clip against all teams......15-20 more matches and i think it should not be an issue

Shewag does not score at the same rate as Gilly anyway, Gilly scores a whole 11 runs per 100 balls probably more after the end of this innings....

Mate, there is a big difference opening the batting(arguably the hardest job in test cricket batting) while facing bowlers at their freshest and taking on bowlers who are much more tired and jaded from the battering given by the fearsome Aussie batting unit.

Eclipse-unless Gilly plays in the same vein for the next 3-4 years, i would say that Sehwag is the likeliest candidate of holding the most sixes's record...he is considerably younger and hits sixes at the rate of a six per match...

If he averages 55 in 5 years time, or ever manages to get his strike rate up to Gilchrist's level, I'll be surprised.

Strike rate- i would be surprised.... since he doesnt have the luxury of facing tired and jaded bowlers atleast half the time but bowlers at their freshest.
But average ? Gilly averages 54.9 whilst Sehwag is averaging 53.5... pretty frickin close i would say!

 

[marc71178]

Eclipse-unless Gilly plays in the same vein for the next 3-4 years, i would say that Sehwag is the likeliest candidate of holding the most sixes's record...he is considerably younger and hits sixes at the rate of a six per match...

But bear in mind there's only a year between him and Flintoff, and he's well behind Flintoff.

 

[C_C]

True- i would say Flintoff is another genuine contender for most sixes record.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Mate, there is a big difference opening the batting(arguably the hardest job in test cricket batting) while facing bowlers at their freshest and taking on bowlers who are much more tired and jaded from the battering given by the fearsome Aussie batting unit.

By your reasoning Hayden would fall into the same group - he averages in the mid 50s opening the batting and scores at a greater rate than Richards did. However, he is unquestionably not as devastating as Gilchrist is, even when he was making more runs.

But average ? Gilly averages 54.9 whilst Sehwag is averaging 53.5... pretty frickin close i would say!

Yes, but as others have pointed out Sehwag is still early in his career. Between October 2003 and April 2004 Gilchrist's average dropped by 9 runs. Before that he had maintained an average in excess of 60 for 18 months between the tour of South Africa and the home series against Zimbabwe. After his unbeaten century in the match where Hayden broke Lara's record he averaged 61.08 before heading into his drought during the India series, and his career peak was 61.48, the best since Bradman. Now he averages a touch under 55 and it's going up again from a low point of 52.88 prior to the century against Sri Lanka that ended his drought. This is why it's worth looking at how many matches Sehwag has played and seeing if his average is still in the 55 range in 5 years time.

It's Gilchrist's remarkable consistency despite his risky strokeplay that makes him so remarkable - he remains one of the relative rarities who has NEVER had a test average under 40 (just 17 in test history with 30 innings or more), and only a couple of times has it ever dropped below 50. All this with a strike rate a massive distance ahead of his nearest competitor in test history. Couple this with the situations in which he gets his runs and the effect he has on the opposition and you have a strong case to be the most devastating player in test history.

 

[Eclipse]

Mate, there is a big difference opening the batting(arguably the hardest job in test cricket batting) while facing bowlers at their freshest and taking on bowlers who are much more tired and jaded from the battering given by the fearsome Aussie batting unit.

Gilly doesn't open who know's how he would go if he did.. my guess is he wouldn't change his approch one bit.. just look how he always plays the second new ball, or the fact he reguarly come's in under pressure and responmds with attack! most of his good scores have been when the team is under pressure..

Eclipse-unless Gilly plays in the same vein for the next 3-4 years, i would say that Sehwag is the likeliest candidate of holding the most sixes's record...he is considerably younger and hits sixes at the rate of a six per match...
!

Maybe, he doesn't hit nearly as many sixes per innings on average as Gilly does though..

 

[luckyeddie]

I think he means devastating.

Very true.

Devestating is what strikers get booked for when they've just scored a goal.

I never saw anyone like Richards, but then again I never saw anyone like Gilchrist either - superb hand-eye co-ordination.

 

[luckyeddie]

Gilly doesn't open who know's how he would go if he did.. my guess is he wouldn't change his approch one bit.. just look how he always plays the second new ball, or the fact he reguarly come's in under pressure and responmds with attack! most of his good scores have been when the team is under pressure..



Maybe, he doesn't hit nearly as many sixes per innings on average as Gilly does though..

There's a HUGE difference between playing the second new ball and the first - the strike bowlers have already got 20 overs or so under their belts and the batting side are on top. In the case of Gilchrist, if he's playing against the second new ball, then in all likelihood the Aussies are 300+ for 5 or 6, so he's under no pressure at all in those circumstances.

I take your point about when he does come in under pressure, though.

 

[Eclipse]

There's a HUGE difference between playing the second new ball and the first - the strike bowlers have already got 20 overs or so under their belts and the batting side are on top. In the case of Gilchrist, if he's playing against the second new ball, then in all likelihood the Aussies are 300+ for 5 or 6, so he's under no pressure at all in those circumstances.

I take your point about when he does come in under pressure, though.

all true...

but i just don't think gilly would change his approch, but again who knows because he has never tried it at Test level..

 

[C_C]

By your reasoning Hayden would fall into the same group - he averages in the mid 50s opening the batting and scores at a greater rate than Richards did. However, he is unquestionably not as devastating as Gilchrist is, even when he was making more runs.

Like i said, Richards wins handsomely given the average scoring rate of his era and the bowlers he had to face...Gilly/Sehwag/Hayden is a much more direct comparison since they are largely from the same era... give or take a few years... and Sehwag outguns Hayden by a fair clip plus Haydos doesnt have the misery of facing his own bowlers..never forget that.

Yes, but as others have pointed out Sehwag is still early in his career. Between October 2003 and April 2004 Gilchrist's average dropped by 9 runs. Before that he had maintained an average in excess of 60 for 18 months between the tour of South Africa and the home series against Zimbabwe. After his unbeaten century in the match where Hayden broke Lara's record he averaged 61.08 before heading into his drought during the India series, and his career peak was 61.48, the best since Bradman. Now he averages a touch under 55 and it's going up again from a low point of 52.88 prior to the century against Sri Lanka that ended his drought. This is why it's worth looking at how many matches Sehwag has played and seeing if his average is still in the 55 range in 5 years time.

utterly irrelevant how one's career projectile works out. Its at the end/overall that matters. And i dont think Hayden's/Gilly's career peak of 61.4 average is the best since Bradman...Lara and Richards have averaged more than Hayden/Gilly's at various points in their careers.
This up/down of average is irrelevant for its momentary...for all we know, Gilly can average 70 for the next 30 matches or 35 for the next 30...

but i just don't think gilly would change his approch, but again who knows because he has never tried it at Test level..

Approach is irrelevant without success.... If approach was the only criteria then Richards/Gilly etc. are all left in the dust by one Shahid Afridi.Since gilly hasnt batted regularly when bowlers are very fresh, you cant make that assumption.

 

[Eclipse]

Approach is irrelevant without success.... If approach was the only criteria then Richards/Gilly etc. are all left in the dust by one Shahid Afridi.Since gilly hasnt batted regularly when bowlers are very fresh, you cant make that assumption.

who really cares, just because he doesn't open the innings doesn't make his runs less valueble..

what he does i doubt anyone else could do, maybe he wouldn't be that good as an opener but who is to say Shewag would be anygood batting at number 7..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

utterly irrelevant how one's career projectile works out. Its at the end/overall that matters. And i dont think Hayden's career peak of 61.4 average is the best since Bradman...Lara and Richards have averaged more than Hayden at various points in their careers.
This up/down of average is irrelevant for its momentary...for all we know, Gilly can average 70 for the next 30 matches or 35 for the next 30...

I'm talking about Gilchrist not Hayden by the way, but you are missing my point, which is that Sehwag's current good average may well be temporary too. If we were having this discussion about Gilchrist two years ago, he was averaging in the 60s and at that time, his average was the best since Bradman (I'm aware that other batsmen have peaked in the 60s too - Hobbs spent most of his career averaging 60-65+, as did Sutcliffe and Sobers). Therefore Sehwag wouldn't be particularly close. At the moment Gilchrist's average has dropped and Sehwag's is high, but we won't know for a few years yet if Sehwag will do what Gilchrist and Richards did, which is to back up aggressive, devastating strokeplay with consistency over a long period. The fact that Gilchrist sits in a group of just 17 players in test history with a constant 40+ average is testament to exactly how consistent he is. The "up/down of average" is relevant, because it goes to the level of consistency Gilchrist has shown, which is why I am saying that we have to see what Sehwag averages in 5 years time before he can be compared to Richards or Gilchrist in terms of being devastating.

 

[C_C]

who really cares, just because he doesn't open the innings doesn't make his runs less valueble..

No but it makes his job a LOT easier.

I'm talking about Gilchrist not Hayden by the way, but you are missing my point, which is that Sehwag's current good average may well be temporary too. If we were having this discussion about Gilchrist two years ago, he was averaging in the 60s and at that time, his average was the best since Bradman (I'm aware that other batsmen have peaked in the 60s too

Again, irrelevant. Most accurate comparision for current players is to compare upto-date record and for past players is to compare the whole thing...for the cumulative record takes into account any ups and downs and balances em out. Or else, going by your assertion, we cannot say that McGrath is a better bowler than Irfan Pathan NOW because who knows-McGrath may average 40 with the ball for the next 3 years and end with a 23-24 ave and 550 wickets and Irfan could average 19 with the ball for the next 15 years and end with 550-600 wickets @ 21..right ?

What gilly was two years ago or what sehwag will be two years ago is irrelevant. What is relevant is how good he is cumulatively TODAY and how good Sehwag is cumulatively TODAY.

 

[social]

Eclipse-unless Gilly plays in the same vein for the next 3-4 years, i would say that Sehwag is the likeliest candidate of holding the most sixes's record...he is considerably younger and hits sixes at the rate of a six per match...


QUOTE]

6 per match?

 

[C_C]

A six per match..ie 1 six/match

 

[luckyeddie]

How many glaziers rely on him as their main source of income?

Tino Best he is not.

 

[social]

ok sorry

Richards = all time great

Gilchrist = all time great

Sehwag = on path to becoming all time great i.e. give him time