Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

[Francis]

Threre's only three Australian cricketers I enjoy watching - Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist. So I was interested to read here yesterday that some of you rate him as one of the greats. Some of you ranked him as one of Australia's five best players ever (ludacris but interesting), and some of you made one excellent point. That point was that Gilchrist is so far ahead of his wicket-keeping peers in impacting games that it makes him a great. And I have to agree. His average below 50 runs is worth 55-60 for me because he changes games so quickly when he gets going. To be honest I expected more people to put Ponting ahead of him since Ponting, in terms of numerics, will be most likely equivelant to say... Lara and Tendulkar. One person, I think it was C_C, ranked Gilchrist the best batsman of the last 15 years. That covers a lot of ground (Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh etc.).

However, ever since Andrew Flintoff had his way with him in the Ashes, I think the shine of his career has been taken off a little. My question is, how highly do you rank Gilchrist?
And you can rank him on any scale:

Top five Aussie ever
Top 20 best ever
Best w/k ever
Top five most impacting ever etc.

Make one up if you want. How great is he?

[GIMH]

Without doubt the best keeper-bastman of all-time

[Richard]

IMO not even the best batsman-'keeper of the current time.
Sangakkara is far better.
Gilchrist a) has been a pretty lucky batsman
b) has almost always come in behind a formidable battery of run-getters, so has either come in at 300 for 5 with nothing to lose or come in at 120 for 5 with nothing to lose.
I'd rank Alec Stewart none too far behind him.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Richard

IMO not even the best batsman-'keeper of the current time.
Sangakkara is far better.
Gilchrist a) has been a pretty lucky batsman
b) has almost always come in behind a formidable battery of run-getters, so has either come in at 300 for 5 with nothing to lose or come in at 120 for 5 with nothing to lose.
I'd rank Alec Stewart none too far behind him.

The only keeper-batsman to rival Gilchrist is Flower, in my opinion.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by andyc

The only keeper-batsman to rival Gilchrist is Flower, in my opinion.

I've always rated Flower higher.

[Jono]

Alec Stewart close behind Adam Gilchrist? Oh really Richard, sometimes...

Rescuing your team at 5-120 shouldn't not be rated highly simply because Gilly has 'nothing to lose'. That's such a stupid statement.

He's awesome, and I'm trying to value every moment I see of him before he retires. The same goes for Lara, Warne and McGrath currently

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

IMO not even the best batsman-'keeper of the current time.
Sangakkara is far better.
Gilchrist a) has been a pretty lucky batsman
b) has almost always come in behind a formidable battery of run-getters, so has either come in at 300 for 5 with nothing to lose or come in at 120 for 5 with nothing to lose.
I'd rank Alec Stewart none too far behind him.

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?

Plus i cant see how Sangakkara is far better at all, Gilly is a better bat plus his glovework is better. Has Andyc just said only Flower could seriously rival since Flower was definately a better batsman, while who is the better glovesman is debatable since i haven't seen enough of Flower's glovework to be sure.

[Chubb]

Originally Posted by aussie

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?

Plus i cant see how Sangakkara is far better at all, Gilly is a better bat plus his glovework is better. Has Andyc just said only Flower could seriously rival since Flower was definately a better batsman, while who is the better glovesman is debatable since i haven't seen enough of Flower's glovework to be sure.

Flower was not a good wicketkeeper. There wasn't really anyone else to do it until Tatenda came along, and it also helped the balance of the side to have him keep.

[Barney Rubble]

Flower > Gilchrist >>>>>> every other keeper-batsman in history, as far as I'm concerned.

Gilchrist's style of play and its effectiveness have gone a long way towards increasing scoring-rates worldwide - I actually think it's not too much of a stretch to say that a lot of what we've seen in the last few of years (an entire Ashes series with a run rate of about 3.85, two 400+ scores in ODIs, etc etc) would have been far less likely had Gilchrist not broken down a lot of barriers in terms of aggression. Sending in a guy at number seven who was capable of smashing 80-ball hundreds in a Test (or, for that matter, run-a-ball 150s) was previously unheard of.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Adam Gilchrist is comfortably the best keeper-batsman of all-time, in my opinion. So comfortably that he's a no contest pick in an all-time XI, alongside Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers.

I don't necessarily think he's one of the best players ever, but in his position he is incomparable. To begin with, Gilchrist is a severely underrated keeper. He might not be in the top eschelon of specialist keepers, but he is significantly above average, and for most of his career was the best in the world, and certainly better than someone like Sangakkara, and miles better than Flower. Keeping to spin is obviously the biggest test for a keeper, and his keeping to Warne and MacGill is top class, and his keeping to pace is perhaps not in the same class as a Healy (for example), but it's not poor either.

As a batsman, he is simply one of the most devastating of all time. The only batsman to ever combine such an ability to massacre bowling attacks with supreme consistency is Viv Richards, and while Gilchrist isn't quite in his class, he is certainly one of the most feared batsmen ever, and his strike rate is well clear of any other player in test history. He has had some problems against left-armers who can swing it away from him, but he is a good player of spin and a brilliant player of pace bowling at his best, and is equally adept at pushing Australia to massive scores or rescuing them from bad situations.

Beyond anything else, Gilchrist is the one thing that took Australia in the 99-2004 period from being the best team in the world to being near unstoppable, and one of the best of all time. No other team in history can boast such an accomplished and dangerous batsman coming in so low in the order after so many other quality players, and it was his all-round capabilities that gave a team without a traditional all-rounder such incredible depth.

I'd rate him very close to Australia's top 5 of all time, and while he's probably not in the top 20 of all time accross all players, he's well clear in his own position. His legacy might be tarnished by a decline as he gets older, but judging him through the bulk of his career shows his quality.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

IMO not even the best batsman-'keeper of the current time.
Sangakkara is far better.
Gilchrist a) has been a pretty lucky batsman
b) has almost always come in behind a formidable battery of run-getters, so has either come in at 300 for 5 with nothing to lose or come in at 120 for 5 with nothing to lose.
I'd rank Alec Stewart none too far behind him.

Maybe if you watch him, you'll see how many times he's saved our asses. In fact, his game is the same regardless whether risk is on his side or not. I find that statement really bordering on illogical.

[Goughy]

He will be remembered as an alltime great. A revolutionary who combined this with remarkable success.

IMO the biggest compliment I can give him is that he is the only current player who would walk into my alltime XI without any thought.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Chubb

Flower was not a good wicketkeeper. There wasn't really anyone else to do it until Tatenda came along, and it also helped the balance of the side to have him keep.

well its clear then, Flower probably the more compact batsman, Gilly more devastating & the better keeper.

[GotSpin]

He can be a bit of a loose cannon at times, but thats just his style i suppose. Worked alright so far.

[Beleg]

And you can rank him on any scale:

Top five Aussie ever
Top 20 best ever
Best w/k ever
Top five most impacting ever etc.

Make one up if you want. How great is he?

1. Nope
2. Certainly.
3. Not by a long shot.
4. Nope.


If it weren't for Gilchrist Pakistan's record would not be so dismal against Australia in the last 8 years. After McGrath and Warne he is the most dangerous player in the aussie line-up.