Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist

[PhoenixFire]

I've been meaning to make this thread for a long while now, and I have got a bit annoyed over it recentley, so here's what I have to say.

If you went round and asked 1000 real cricket fans (I say real, when I mean people who watch and enjoy tests and so on), and I guess around 95% would say that they would rather have Adam Gilchrist in any team over Kumar Sangakkara. Personally, I would choose Sangakkara, because I believe him to be a better batsman and keeper to Gilchrist, here's why. I am going to argue why he is a better batsman, rather than keeper than Gulchrist, becuase that is what all the hype is about at the moment.


Forget Gilchrist being a keeper at the moment, I'm talking about him purely as a batsman. I have just watched Gilchrist bludgeon a very, very good innings, just now, as I'm sure quite a lot of you just have. On a pretty flat pitch, with a soft ball, this was an exceptional display of hitting a cricket ball. My thing is, is that he just very rarely does this, no matter how great an innings it is. Put this into cotntext of facts. Sangakkara averages more runs per innings, he averages less matches per hundred, averages a fair but more runs per match, plays in a far weaker team, has to (unlike Gilchrist) play against Australia), has a higher highest score and contributed to the highest ever FC and Test Partnership of all time. On Gilchrist's sides, he has a much higher strike rate and has hit more 6s.

I'm not really expecting many (if any) people to agree with me, but I'd like your views on this.

 

[silentstriker]

Gilly is way better. Also, you should compare Gilly's stats until 2005. Sangakarra is in his prime and Gilly is not. Its unfair to compare them right now.

As of this moment, Sanga is better, but in an all time side I wouldn't even think about the two...Gilly all the way IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I was sort of expecting a 'because' rather than "Gilly's just better"

 

[aussie]

Yea i guess both Sangakkara & Andy Flower were slightly better batsmen that Gilchrist overall at test level. But Gilly's glovework is superior especially over the past year or so where his glovework has really never been better.

 

[aussie tragic]

Not even close.

If you just count Sangakkara's record when he played as a wicketkeeper, he only averages 41 (which is great, but Gilly's is around 49 and at a much faster rate)

 

[PhoenixFire]

You really think that Gilchrist is a better glovesman than Sanga? I'd say it's more difficult keeping to Muralitharan than to Warne, and he seems to cope ok.

 

[aussie]

You really can't say its more difficult keeping to Murali or visa versa, both a equally hard jobs that both Gilly & Sanga have done very well at.

 

[adharcric]

Gilchrist > Sangakarra, but it isn't "not even close" as some here would like to believe. In fact, Sangakarra could stake a claim to being the greatest ever batsman-keeper if he keeps it up for five more years and continues to keep (at a high standard). Definitely Gilly right now though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I don't know, Murali spins it both ways, and generaly gets it to skid off the surface more than Warne. I used to keep a fair bit, and it is certainly more difficult keeping to Off-Spinners than Leg-Spinners.

 

[adharcric]

You really can't say its more difficult keeping to Murali or visa versa, both a equally hard jobs that both Gilly & Sanga have done very well at.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's harder to keep to Murali than Warne.

 

[Dravid]

Not even close.

If you just count Sangakkara's record when he played as a wicketkeeper, he only averages 41 (which is great, but Gilly's is around 49 and at a much faster rate)

Well said.















That's how far apart they are from each other. Gilly is the best wicket keeping batsman in the history of history.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Gilchrist > Sangakarra, but it isn't "not even close" as some here would like to believe. In fact, Sangakarra could stake a claim to being the greatest ever batsman-keeper if he keeps it up for five more years and continues to keep (at a high standard).

Although I rate Les Ames as the best (don't want another argument about him), I don't think it's out of the question, he was imperious against NZ.

 

[silentstriker]

Although I rate Les Ames as the best (don't want another argument about him), I don't think it's out of the question, he was imperious against NZ.

You have a thing for overrated old farts, don't you?

 

[PhoenixFire]

You have a thing for medium pace stodge merchants don't you

 

[silentstriker]

You have a thing for medium pace stodge merchants don't you

Absolutely!

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well then I have a thing for old time players.

 

[silentstriker]

Well then I have a thing for old time players.

Difference is they stink.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Could we keep to topic please, I'm sure that other members get a bit annoyed when every single thread that you and I are involved in, turns into a war of the ages.

 

[Jono]

Difference is they stink.

And you'd know because you watched them?
Or because of all the cricket literature youv'e read?

Oh yeah that's right, that Cricinfo 1 paragraph summary is all you need to know.

Gilchrist has obviously had the better career so far, but right now you'd take Sanga every single time. He's the better player at the moment, just like Ponting is the better player than Tendulkar.

Fair knock by both players this past couple of days though. Sanga was backs to the wall stuff which is likely to turn out match-winning, whilst Gilly's was just pure entertainment.

 

[silentstriker]

Could we keep to topic please, I'm sure that other members get a bit annoyed when every single thread that you and I are involved in, turns into a war of the ages.

All right, well as someone mentioned, Sangakarra averages 41 as a keeper, so that automatically makes him inferior.