Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

[Richard]

19538 - That is the no. of times you have posted rubbish on this forum. Hell post 19538 times more, and it will still be rubbish.

Really?
Care to respond to some of them and point-out what rubbish is contained?
As I have done.

 

[Richard]

Shaun Udal>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Richard

Good observation, Einstein - professionals are generally better than people who don't even bowl the same style at club level.

 

[Richard]

What Rubbish ?? Stewart averagesonly 34-35 as a WK Batsman and if I remove his batting against Zimbabwe his avg. < 33. As a wicketkeeper Stewart never averaged more than 35. Now stop quoting stats from your cookbook, there is Cricinfo out there and guess what most of us look up there for cricket stats.

And quite what reason have you for removing Zimbabwe? That they were substandard? No, not when he played them (except 2003, which makes little difference).
Stewart averaged more than 35 - 38, in fact - once he was given the gloves full-time.
One thing for sure - you can do nothing to change that.
And for me, if you deny it has any meaning (as you have seeked to do by dredging-up these nonsensical stats) is pretty stupid, because for me it says one hell of a lot.

Thanks, I had a rough day, it made my day.

What a wonderful response. So much meaningful argument as to why it made your day.

 

[Richard]

As I Said, You have NO FREAKING CLUE. Latif was Clearly MILES and MILES ahead of Stewart as wicket Keeper, moin wasn't as good yet much better than Stewart for most part of his career.

No, he wasn't. Latif was a very, very fine wicketkeeper - Stewart was an extremely good one.
And that doesn't really matter very much anyway - batting is what counts.

If batting was more important India would never have dropped Deep Dasgupta, Ajay Ratra, Parthiv Patel. And If wicket Keeping wasn't that important, Rahul Dravid would have kept wickets for India in ODIs and Tests as well (thus he would have become the greates wicket-keeper ever to play the the game). As I said Wicket-keeping may not important for the English team, but it is very important for a sub-continent team like India because their bowlers suck, they hardly create any chance and if they do their Wicket-keeper has got to catch it, stump it or whatever.

Err, how on Earth do you class the batting of Dasgupta, Ratra and Patel as worthy of mention, never mind Test-standard? All 3 were pretty average batsmen and didn't deserve their places.

For a wicketkeeper, keeping wickets is the primary job, you dont select a bowler because he bats okay and bowls crap, do you ? Or you dont select a batsman who bats crap and bowls allright, do you ? So why the exception for Wicket Keeper especially it is the toughest and hardest job in Cricket.

No, for a wicketkeeper batting is the most important job, as long as he doesn't drop chances galore.
I can assure you, there are plenty and plenty of jobs in cricket more difficult than wicketkeeping.
Bowlers bowl - batsmen bat. Batsmen-wicketkeepers bat and keep wicket. Both bowlers and batsmen field.

As I said, I dont know about their keeping, but if they were better Keepers than Stewart, I would pick them as WK for NZ.

How crazy you are, then...
Batting is clearly far more important for wicketkeepers as good as Stewart.

BS, If he had the skills, he wouldn't have gone 50+ tests as a pure batsman. As I said, it is admirable that Stewart learnt to keep wickets and did a good job, but he is no Gilchrist, Period.

No, he's not, I didn't say he was.
You don't really understand - he didn't have the skills when he played most of those Tests as a batsman. Once he got the skills, he was pretty much exclusively used as a batsman-wicketkeeper. This formed the greater part of his career than the specialist-batting part.

 

[Richard]

Yeah Right !!1 That's why Gilly has better stats than Stewart in almost every category. Guess what those countries were resting their main bowlers every time Gilly came into bat.

Err, no, the bowlers just weren't anywhere near as good for most of Gilchrist's career than they were for Stewart's.
You really don't have much of a clue if you think battering the likes of Chris Martin, James Franklin, Paul Wiseman, Iain O'Brien, Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan, Mohammad Sami, Mohammad Asif of 2004\05, Mohammad Khalil, Shahid Afridi, Abdur Razzaq, Jacob Oram, Kyle Mills, Scott Styris, Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan, Lasith Malinga, Jermaine Lawson, Tino Best, Vasbert Drakes, Omari Banks, Mervyn Dillon, Pedro Collins of 2003, Stephen Harmison, Matthew Hoggard of 2002\03, Richard Dawson, Ashley Giles, Makhaya Ntini, Andrew Hall, Paul Adams, Dewald Pretorious, Jacques Kallis, Andre Nel of 2001\02, Nico Boje, a past-it Allan Donald, Rahul Sanghvi, Ajit Agarkar, Colin Stuart, Nixon McLean, Mahendra Nagamootoo, Marlon Black, Daryl Tuffey, and suchlike is the same as facing down the like of Donald\Pollock\de Villiers\Matthews, McGrath\Fleming\Gillespie\Reiffel\Warne, Waqar\Wasim\Mushtaq\Saqlain, Srinath\Kumble, Doull\Cairns, Vaas\Murali, Ambrose\Walsh\Bishop and Streak\Olonga\Strang?
If so, I find you are out of your mind.
Stewart clearly had an infinately tougher job than Gilchrist as far as batting in Test-cricket is concerned.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist is easily the best keeper-batsmen to grace both the ODI and Test game. Should be a certain selection for any all time XI in either form of the game.

There's absolutely no way you can say such a thing for certain about him even in his own era (which, of course, is the richest for batsmen-'keepers).

 

[Richard]

I watched Stewart since he first made the England side in 1990 and kept regularly and early-on, before he was a regular 'keeper, he wasn't a great 'keeper at all. Very ordinary but that's to be expected since he was expected to score runs. Once he kept regularly, though, he turned into a serviceable 'keeper but, in my opinion, was never spectacular. I'm also of the opinion that he was such a good batsman, he should never have been made the regular 'keeper, especially since there were a few in England who were far better with the gloves (Jack Russell, for example).

It'd have been so much better to have Russell (who was often a liability with the bat) in the side when you could have Stewart who was far, far more than a "serviceable 'keeper" - he missed little between 1996 and 2003. He certainly wasn't spectacular - that was what made him so good. Good wicketkeepers are those that are noticed least.

 

[Richard]

So ignore part of the career because it suits you - never seen that one before.

No, don't ignore it - point-out, with good reasoning, why it's not really that important.
Which, astoundingly enough, is what I've done.
You, of course, have to try to denounce it because it doesn't suit what you like to think.

 

[marc71178]

Really?
Care to respond to some of them and point-out what rubbish is contained?
As I have done.

What would the point be, you never acknowledge it, but just argue back.

I'm just glad we have the official threads.

 

[marc71178]

No, don't ignore it - point-out, with good reasoning, why it's not really that important.

He was still keeping wicket wasn't he?

So how can it not be important? Oh yes, because it suits you that way.

 

[Richard]

What would the point be, you never acknowledge it, but just argue back.

There sure as is more point than just sitting there.
Silence is assent.
The fact that I argue back, incidentally, suggests that I can continue to back my claims.

 

[Richard]

He was still keeping wicket wasn't he?

So how can it not be important? Oh yes, because it suits you that way.

Err, no, that's just the point. It suits you to suggest that 1990-1995 all fit into the same category.
It suits me that they don't.
And I think any fool could see that they don't. There is, after all, rather a difference between 25 (Stewart's average as a batsman-'keeper 1990\91-1995) and 38 (his average 1996-2002\03).
Same way any fool can see that the 1998-2002 Flintoff was rubbish and the 2003\04-2006 Flintoff has been rather good.

 

[marc71178]

And I think any fool could see that they don't. There is, after all, rather a difference between 25 (Stewart's average as a batsman-'keeper 1990\91-1995) and 38 (his average 1996-2002\03).

So how on earth did he justify his selection over Russell then?

Averaging less than him and a far worse keeper.

 

[Richard]

Of course it couldn't be that he improved both his wicketkeeping and his ability to compartmentalise both departments?
The fact that his average went up by 13 and that he barely missed a thing behind the stumps suggests that, actually, he did.

 

[marc71178]

And between 1990/1 and 95?

Scoring fewer runs and a much worse keeper.

How does he justify his selection?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

He justified it because Richard liked Stewart and is therefore invulnerable and of total class.

 

[Richard]

And between 1990/1 and 95?

Scoring fewer runs and a much worse keeper.

How does he justify his selection?

He doesn't - because he wasn't selected much in that period. Only 16 Tests out of 57 as wicketkeeper.
After that, though, he scored plenty of runs as a batsman-wicketkeeper and kept wicket expertly, hence more than justifying being easily the first choice.

 

[Richard]

He justified it because Richard liked Stewart and is therefore invulnerable and of total class.

Rubbish, Stewart 1996-2002\03 had his faults like anyone else. But he did a pretty damn good job and one that few have ever done as well.