• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight

  • Gilchrist

    Votes: 39 60.9%
  • Knight

    Votes: 25 39.1%

  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I would pick Gilchrist too, due to the keeping. But as you can probably tell by the results from the polls, the original question is not ridiculous at all.
Exactly, and I'm very interested to know who voted for Knight.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Are you complaining that it's not public? If I could change it I would but don't think I can
Yes I am complaining, you can't change it once the poll has been made, that's why most of the polls are private, because it is the automatic setting.
 

Fiery

Banned
You could compare their ICC ratings to help see the difference. Gilchrist's high point is 820 when he was rated No.1. He's currently 7th in the twilight of his career. Knights high point was 761, highest ever ranking of 5. I shouldn't have to spell out Gilchrist's obvious attributes such as explosiveness at the start of the innings. The difference in Strike Rates only is enough to separate them quite markedly
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes I am complaining, you can't change it once the poll has been made, that's why most of the polls are private, because it is the automatic setting.
Or at least, polls made my those inexperienced in the ways of polling.
 

Fiery

Banned
Yes I am complaining, you can't change it once the poll has been made, that's why most of the polls are private, because it is the automatic setting.
Sorry, I did want it to be public but forgot to set it. Will remember next time
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You could compare their ICC ratings to help see the difference. Gilchrist's high point is 820 when he was rated No.1. He's currently 7th in the twilight of his career. Knights high point was 761, highest ever ranking of 5. I shouldn't have to spell out Gilchrist's obvious attributes such as explosiveness at the start of the innings. The difference in Strike Rates only is enough to separate them quite markedly
No, it's not, because ODI cricket, fortunately, unlike a certain Twenty20 format, doesn't place more importance on SR than average. How many, so long as it's not ridiculously slow, is still more important than how fast.

And I$C$C ratings mean nothing at all to me - Harmison #1 in Tests says it all really.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But that goes against everything you stand for.
No, it doesn't. Indeed, it goes along completely with it.

For a bowler, ER is the most important thing. A good accurate bowler can make it difficult to impossible for a batsman to score seriously quickly. Therefore, I don't trash a batsman just because his SR is a bit less than 95.

For me, a SR of 70 against a good bowling-attack is more than acceptible. Naturally, it goes without saying that an average of 40 is exceptional. Even Mark Waugh - who FTR I do rate better than Knight if only by a relatively small amount - didn't average that.

And I think claiming Gilchrist > Mark Waugh is little short of crazy, too.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Harmison being Number 1 at one stage which is fair enough. He was a very good bowler at the time. I like the rating system
No, he wasn't. In fact, at the time he was #1 he'd just had 3 very poor Tests. In any case, the previous 7 (which had indeed produced superlative figures) were nothing more than 7. If 7 games can get you to #2 in The World (as they did) then 3 poor ones and 1 more good 1 can then get you to #1... there's something very seriously wrong with them.
 

Fiery

Banned
No, he wasn't. In fact, at the time he was #1 he'd just had 3 very poor Tests. In any case, the previous 7 (which had indeed produced superlative figures) were nothing more than 7. If 7 games can get you to #2 in The World (as they did) then 3 poor ones and 1 more good 1 can then get you to #1... there's something very seriously wrong with them.
Form plays a big part in the ratings. If you're on top form like he was the ratings show this...fairly imo. I had no problem with him being No.1 at the time
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Form plays a big part in the ratings. If you're on top form like he was the ratings show this...fairly imo. I had no problem with him being No.1 at the time
They're nothing but form ratings, and I mean nothing but. That's all they are, a form guide.

And hence, I don't really care if Gilchrist had a form peak that was judged to be higher than one Knight did.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The ICC ratings are a load of rubbish really, trying to base your argument around them isn't going to get you very far.
 

Fiery

Banned
The ICC ratings are a load of rubbish really, trying to base your argument around them isn't going to get you very far.
I disagree and I'm not basing my whole argument around them...just using them as part of my argument
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I disagree and I'm not basing my whole argument around them...just using them as part of my argument
A big part of your argument, which is a definite no-no. They should rarely, if ever, be consulted because of the inaccuracies they contain. If you want to use numbers to back up your argument, you'd be better off comparing the players statistics.
 

Fiery

Banned
A big part of your argument, which is a definite no-no. They should rarely, if ever, be consulted because of the inaccuracies they contain. If you want to use numbers to back up your argument, you'd be better off comparing the players statistics.
Which I already did in another post in another thread. Here it is again:

"The only thing Knight has over Gilchrist is a slightly better average. Gilchrist's SR of 97 compared to Knight's 71 more than makes up for that, not to mention 10 more centuries and nearly 6000 more runs"

It should surprise me that you are arguing this with me despite the fact you have in your avatar...but it doesn't
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
You could compare their ICC ratings to help see the difference. Gilchrist's high point is 820 when he was rated No.1. He's currently 7th in the twilight of his career. Knights high point was 761, highest ever ranking of 5. I shouldn't have to spell out Gilchrist's obvious attributes such as explosiveness at the start of the innings. The difference in Strike Rates only is enough to separate them quite markedly
FYI, ICC ratings have Hadlee's highest as a bowler as 909, the same as Shaun Pollock (and there are 25 players between Pollock/Hadlee and Donald). Surely you don't think that this is an accurate reflection of their ability?

The rating measures peaks, not the players overall.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
"The only thing Knight has over Gilchrist is a slightly better average. Gilchrist's SR of 97 compared to Knight's 71 more than makes up for that, not to mention 10 more centuries and nearly 6000 more runs"
As I said there - centuries and runs, totally irrelevant, that's easily explained by the vastly larger number of times Gilchrist has batted.

And no, I don't believe a SR of 97 to 71 is more important than an average

And that's before we even get to the fact that Knight and Gilchrist aren't exact contemporaries. Compare Gilchrist's opening record at the time before Knight's final ODI.

Gilchrist at one point had an average almost 10 lower than Knight.
 

Fiery

Banned
As I said there - centuries and runs, totally irrelevant, that's easily explained by the vastly larger number of times Gilchrist has batted.

And no, I don't believe a SR of 97 to 71 is more important than an average

And that's before we even get to the fact that Knight and Gilchrist aren't exact contemporaries. Compare Gilchrist's opening record at the time before Knight's final ODI.

Gilchrist at one point had an average almost 10 lower than Knight.
We're comparing players careers as a whole, I thought, so of course runs and centuries should be used. Your argument about number of games played is like saying Rodney Redmond is a better player than Tendulkar because he has a better average
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
We're comparing players careers as a whole, I thought, so of course runs and centuries should be used. Your argument is like saying Rodney Redmond is a better player than Tendulkar because he has a better average
Not really, given that Redmund's career is hardly extensive. Knight and Gilchrist's both are, but Gilchrist still played far, far more innings.

As such, average is a perfectly fair way to assess both.
 

Top