• 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 .

Fiery

Banned
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.
So Strike Rates and Number of Runs are irrelevant then...only averages matter? Riiight
 

Fiery

Banned
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.
I have no problem with Pollock being compared to Hadlee actually
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So Strike Rates and Number of Runs are irrelevant then...only averages matter? Riiight
Number of runs are, SRs aren't.

But batting-average is far more important than SR, as bowling ER is more important than SR.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Even if Knight had a great batting lineup coming in after him, IMO he still wouldn't be as fast a scorer as Gilchrist was. Gilly can hit sixes almost at will when he's in form. I remember Knight as a great timer of the ball and a gap finder. He dealt in fours. Gilchrist dealt in powerful strikes for four and six. Which is more psychologically draining for the fielding side?
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It should surprise me that you are arguing this with me despite the fact you have in your avatar...but it doesn't
I am of the opinion that Adam Gilchrist is better than Nick Knight, yes, but I don't think you are arguing the point very well.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Number of runs are, SRs aren't.

But batting-average is far more important than SR, as bowling ER is more important than SR.
But surely if you are going to face 100 deliviries it would be better for your team if you scored 97 runs as opposed to 72?
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Number of runs are, SRs aren't.

But batting-average is far more important than SR, as bowling ER is more important than SR.

Mate it's only 50 overs. If we are talking about teams like Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, England then yeah sure batting average is important, but for the dominant sides having a good average isn't enough to hold your place. Example - Simon Katich.

Richard what would you rather? 4/262 off 50 overs or 9/263?

I would take 263 for sure..
 

Top