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.