He's not under-rated.
i'd say other great players during the decade like the Waugh's, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gillespie have had a fair say too.Originally Posted by PhoenixFire
Originally Posted by PhoenixFire
No, but if someone had the S/R of Gilchrist and the average/conversion rate of Bradman, then you would call him better.
If averages are similar, the next thing I look for is S/R. It gives you an idea if the player is the type of person who'll get on top of you vs. someone who will take what you give. There are times where you need both, but overall I'll take the guy who will dishearten the side and make them give up every time.
I know C_C doesn't place much faith in S/R, and normally I agree with him, but here I can't disagree more.
The difference of 5-10 S/R may not be very much, but Dravid bats at an S/R of 42 and Gilchrist at 81, thats such a huge difference.....
Easily worth his place in an all time XI. He has kept well for arguably the greatest paceman and spinner of all time, in addition to his batting. After Bradman and Sobers, I'd pencil him in next (followed by McGrath, Tendulkar, Imran Khan...Sobers wouldn't bowl all that much in an all time side though he could be a nice change of pace if something isn't working, so Imran would be the all rounder there.).
Last edited by silentstriker; 09-09-2006 at 04:06 PM.
I don't think his Test batting is overrated. He does pretty damn well considering he comes in at 7. Personally, however, I've always considered his ODI batting overrated. He simply gets too many starts and then throws it away. He should have more hundreds and a higher average. But, in saying that, that's the way he plays.
Actually, does anyone else get annoyed when Gilchrist gets dropped and all the Aussie commentators have to say is "Aww, that's the way he plays, Gilchrist, what a batsman"?
Was Mark Waugh really a great Test player?Originally Posted by aussie
Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."
I for one, consider Andy Flower a better batsman than Gilly, who IMO isnt in the alltime great (read: Dravid-Ponting or above) category but is most certainly a worldclass batsman.
He has played some brilliant knocks in his time but he does come in an awful lot with the team sitting pretty and him having the luxury to throw his bat around.
He'd probably make it to my alltime XI (since he is a better keeper than Flower was) but i dont think Gilly's batting would be that much focussed on in an alltime XI populated with 6 of the greatest batsmen the world has ever seen. I can equally see someone picking a keeper like Alan Knott-not a shabby batsman at all but who's keeping was significantly better than Gilly's.
Yet again though, many people thought Bob Taylors keeping was better then Knotts.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
Oh no doubt but i wouldnt want someone TOTALLY inept with the bat ala Bob Taylor/Waseem Bari etc etc.Originally Posted by grecian
How easily have the three W's been forgotten.
Originally Posted by Beleg
Everyone fades in memory. Grace is rarely brought up in alltime discussions, even though he was bigger in his era than even Bradman was in his. He isnt covered that much either except for in articles. Same will happen to Lara and Tendulkar one day.....
That's just false. Cricinfo did an article last year (I'll try to find a link) and they showed that he averages about the same even when he comes in when Aussies are in trouble.Originally Posted by C_C
That's why he is so good. He's the biggest reason the Aussie batting lineup doesn't crumble often. He saves them more often than you give him credit for.
That's a different point. He does tend to come in when there are runs already on the board - giving him freedom to play however he likes.Originally Posted by silentstriker
Originally Posted by Dasa
But that point is moot - because when he does come in where there aren't as many runs on the board - he still scores a lot of runs.
Yeah, somebody posted this in a thread here last year. I don't know that he bails the team out as often as he comes in with runs on the board (it's a strong batting lineup, after all), but he certainly does it often enough to avoid being knocked for not doing it when the chips are down.Originally Posted by silentstriker
As you say, he doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for turning precarious matches into winning ones.
"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
Originally Posted by silentstriker
There sure is a difference between comming in regularly at 10/2 than once-in-a-lifetime-innings spot of '100/5' or 'once in-fifteen-innings' at 200/5 (or below) and most of the time at 300/5 or so....
Gillchrist would be in the 'very good worldclass' batsmen - alongside the Cowdreys and Doug Walters or Saleem Maliks and Azharuddins of this world. Not Dravid-Ponting class or above.
In ODIs though, he is a monster batsman and combined with his strike rate (in a format where strike rates actually matter unless the difference is >25-30 or so on a consistent basis in near-identical scenarios) he is easily a shoo-in for ODI batsmanship.
'Great' to me is someone who makes the top 20 list of batsmen. Ie, a list where the likes of Dravid and Ponting have either gotten in or will get in shortly.So yes, if you see Gillchrist as on-par with Punters or Dravids of the world (let alone Tendys and Laras) then he is overrated. Otherwise, he is not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)