• 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.

Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

open365

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Err - because there are better batsmen in his own team?
Most influential I wouldn't argue with, but greatest? No way.
GIlchrist would kick everyones *** no matter who he played for.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sanz said:
For most of his career, Gilchrist could walk into most teams on his batting alone, same couldn't be said about any other wicketkeeper or allrounder.
Flower? Sangakkara?
Stewart? I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
RolledOver said:
Gilli will remain the top keeper bats untill Dhoni emerges as a succesful keeper bats in the longer format of the game.I will give Gilly a year time to remain the top Keeper bat, after that Dhoni will be the king!
Not if he keeps playing the shocking strokes he played several times in the recent series, he won't.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Gilchrist is IMO only about 10th in the list of best batsmen of his time.
But look at what Gilchrist has done to cricket, he's completely changed the way we think about wicket keepers, much like Shane Warne and leg spin.

Yes, there are other great keeper batsmen around, but Gilchrist is tha daddy, he is a devastating batsman in test matches and in ranked 2nd? in the ODI rankings, plus, he was the first to really take the attack to the bowlers in test matches.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
wpdavid said:
OK, just for the heck of it ..

Gilchrist vs Walcott vs Ames ?
TBF Leslie Ames isn't quite as good as he's made-out to be - average (40) goes down to 38 if you remove the substandard New Zealand side. Even then, averages in the high 40s against South Africa, India and West Indies and just 27 against Australia.
The Mohammad Yousuf of his day.
As for Clyde Walcott - does he really count? 15 Tests as 'keeper (in which he averages just 40.36, BTW) compared to 29 as non-'keeper (in which he averages 64.66).
Walcott was, beyond all question, a fantastic batsman (behind only Headley, Weekes and Sobers in West Indian quarters IMO) but I'm never totally sure whether or not he counts as a true batsman-wicketkeeper.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
open365 said:
But look at what Gilchrist has done to cricket, he's completely changed the way we think about wicket keepers, much like Shane Warne and leg spin.

Yes, there are other great keeper batsmen around, but Gilchrist is tha daddy, he is a devastating batsman in test matches and in ranked 2nd? in the ODI rankings, plus, he was the first to really take the attack to the bowlers in test matches.
Gilchrist certainly hasn't changed the way we think about wicketkeepers - the trend for wicketkeepers to be aggressive batsmen was already well established by the time he arrived. What Gilchrist has changed IMO is the style of Test batting - turning it from aggressive to very aggressive. He certainly wasn't, though, the first to really take the attack to the bowlers - that was probably someone in the 1880s or so.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
TBF Leslie Ames isn't quite as good as he's made-out to be - average (40) goes down to 38 if you remove the substandard New Zealand side. Even then, averages in the high 40s against South Africa, India and West Indies and just 27 against Australia.
The Mohammad Yousuf of his day.
As for Clyde Walcott - does he really count? 15 Tests as 'keeper (in which he averages just 40.36, BTW) compared to 29 as non-'keeper (in which he averages 64.66).
Walcott was, beyond all question, a fantastic batsman (behind only Headley, Weekes and Sobers in West Indian quarters IMO) but I'm never totally sure whether or not he counts as a true batsman-wicketkeeper.
Fair points all of them, and thanks for the info.
 

greg

International Debutant
Flower is the best keeper player of spin. His record is seriously skewed by playing so many tests against Asian sides.

Gilchrist today has become a caricature of himself. A myth has built up of him coming to the wicket with Aus in trouble and turning the game around in 20 minutes. And he has bought into it and no longer bothers to play himself in before trying to hit every ball for four. Unsurprisingly his average has dropped from alltime great levels towards what his average is in one day games.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Gilchrist certainly hasn't changed the way we think about wicketkeepers - the trend for wicketkeepers to be aggressive batsmen was already well established by the time he arrived. What Gilchrist has changed IMO is the style of Test batting - turning it from aggressive to very aggressive. He certainly wasn't, though, the first to really take the attack to the bowlers - that was probably someone in the 1880s or so.
prove it
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Flower? Sangakkara?
Stewart? I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day.
Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.
 

greg

International Debutant
Sanz said:
Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.
Rubbish.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
i dont get you on this idea of `luck` at all. You say McGrath has been a lucky bowler over a certain period which doesn't make sense at all. Why has Gilchrist been a luck batsman tell us?
Because if all else fails when it comes to being able to construct an argument that anyone in their right mind would believe, there's always good old witchcraft and superstition to fall back on.

There's no answer to 'he was lucky', therefore Richard wins by default.
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
Sanz said:
Yeah Stewart would have walked into Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on his batting skills, On his keeping skills, his best chance would have been playing for Ireland. On his keeping alone he wouldn't have made to England Z side.

And that is the English team of 90s I am talking about.
Balderdash. Piffle too I'd venture.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
greg said:
If he was so good a wicket-keeper batsman why did he play 55 tests purely as a batsman ?

some of you totally ignore the fact that when Stewart played as the designated wicket-keeper of England, he averaged 33 Now compare that with Gilchrist's average of 50.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Pedro Delgado said:
How does that pertain to his 'keeping skills?
Okay as Richard said that on his Batting/Keeping skills he would have walked into many side of his days. Now who were the wicket Keepers of his days

Australia - Healy/Gilchrist - NOWAY
Pakistan - Latif/Moin - NOWAY
India - Mongia/More - NO WAY
Zimbabwe - Flower - NO Way
SA - Boucher/Richardson - NO WAY
WI - Jacobs/ ?? - Jacobs was a better WK than Stewart, dont remember RJ's batting
NZ - Lee Germon/ ?? - Maybe
SL - Kaluwitharna/Sangakkara - NO WAY

I dont remember how good Germon was as a wicketkeeper and apart from Germon I dont see Stewart being able to replace any one else on his wicket keeping skills alone or even on his combined skills. He may be better batsman than some of those e.g. Kalu, Mongia, Latif etc but he is a much inferior wicketkeeper than them.

Do you still think Richard's statement "I can assure you Stewart would've walked into far more teams than not of his day" is justified ?
 
Last edited:

greg

International Debutant
Sanz said:
Okay as Richard said that on his Batting/Keeping skills he would have walked into many side of his days. Now who were the wicket Keepers of his days

Australia - Healy/Gilchrist - NOWAY
Pakistan - Latif/Moin - NOWAY
India - Mongia/More - NO WAY
Zimbabwe - Flower - NO Way
SA - Boucher/Richardson - NO WAY
WI - Jacobs/ ?? - Jacobs was a better WK than Stewart, dont remember RJ's batting
NZ - Lee Germon/ ?? - Maybe
SL - Kaluwitharna/Sangakkara - NO WAY

I
Is this some sort of a joke? Jacobs is probably the worst wicketkeeper to have played for any test nation, ever. Stewart at his peak was probably one of the top 3 wicketkeepers in England.
 
Last edited:

Top