Purely as a batsman in ODIs, who would you rather have, Gilchrist or Ganguly?
Ganguly: 286 ODI, average of 41.22, 22 centuries, HS: 183
Gilchrist: 257 ODI, average of 35.62, 14 centuries, HS: 172
Ganguly for me. Obviously, Gilchrist would make my all time team due to the keeping but purely as a batsman, I have to go with Ganguly and its not awfully close.
Also, in Tests, Gilchrist is better as both a batsman and an all time team pick. But not in ODI.
Last edited by silentstriker; 01-03-2007 at 12:49 PM.
I didn't feel the need to reply when I voted because SS sumed up my thoughts really, but I'd like to hear from one of the guys who voted for Gilchrist.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
A question for those knowledge of Indian cricket than me - has Ganguly ever performed under pressure?
Ganguly is a guy I havent taken much notice of for a no. of years (admittedly, the down side of his career) because he always seemed to fail when it mattered
His century in Brisbane is a classic example. His 124 in Dhaka was another.
100 against OZ at melbourne.
183 against SL at Taunton.
He is a better batsman in ODIs than Gillchrist..though not by that much - Gilly's phenomenal strike rate makes up a bit for his not-so-great average.
In anycase, if the opening two slots in an ODI were exclusively based on batting skill alone, it'd be a Tendulkar-Haynes lock, no questions asked.
However, my abiding memory of him is constantly fending at rising deliveries outside off-stump to give slips catching practice - probably a measure of his talent that he has such a fine record despite the whole world knowing how to get him out
looked at the stats and went for Ganguly.
I have to go GIlchrist here, though no doubt Ganguly is a quality player.
Firstly a strike rate of 96.29 compared to 73.94 counts for a lot. Especially when Gilchrist can combine that strike rate with a good average and the ability to score big hundreds. Gilchrist has the ability to regularly take games away from the oppostion before the shine is even off the ball.
Also, Ganguly has battered the small nations and failed against Australia. He has played 59 ODIs against Zim, Bang, Kenya and the Associates (close to double the number Gilchrist has) and averages over 50 agaisnt them and has 8 tons. This does not compare favourably with his average of 22 in 30 games against Australia.
If I want to win games against good opposition, Id take Gilchrist.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Ironically, I think there is a good argument for Gilchrist (ironic, since for my entire time at CW I have been bagging Gilchrist and saying how underrated Ganguly is).
That S/R difference is MASSIVELY significant, and Ganguly has made a lot of his centuries and runs against minnows, bringing the averages closer.
So ? Gillchrist has never even PLAYED vs Australia !Also, Ganguly has battered the small nations and failed against Australia.
One can also say that Gillchrist, especially in Tests has had the luxury to simply go hammer and tongs because of the huge scores posted regularly by the batting side. He knows that even if he fails in each and every test, Australia would still win the series in 9 outta 10 times.
And if batting ability is in question, Gillchrist is more aggresive, thats a given. But for all the talk of Ganguly's vulnerability to the short one, i find it interesting that nobody comments about the fact that Gillchrist's playin of spin is significantly more inept than Ganguly's playing of pace.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)