Adam Gilchrist v Nick Knight OD batting

[Burgey]

Knight wasn't a bad player, but in the fair dinkum department, this is like comparing a 1963 VW Beetle with a 2007 Bentley Continental GT, and Nick Knight aint the Bentley.

Both those vehicles can get you around town from A to B, but when you want big-time performance, they don't compare.

1999 WC final - a previously somnambulent Gilchrist makes a quick fire 54 to snuff out any faint hopes of a Pakistan victory.

2003 WC final - Gilchrist plunders 57 from 48 balls to set up an impregnable Aussie total.

2007 WC final - Gilchrist smashes one of the great ODI innings on the biggest stage of all, against the team who many rated as having the best bowling attack at the WC. In doing so, he frankly rendered obsolete the concept of the final as a contest within 14 overs.

So statistically, they may not be far apart and Knight wasn't a bad player at all with a better average. But if you have to choose between them on the basis of scoring them when it counts most, on the biggest stage against the best opponents, it's frankly no contest.

 

[Burgey]

I have a problem with the two even being compared, TBH, IMO they played totally different games, but let's not go there this time.

Why? They played the same role in their respective batting line ups, namely opening.

 

[Perm]

Why? They played the same role in their respective batting line ups, namely opening.

Gilchrist played an aggressive style because of the team he was playing for, whereas Knight was relied upon to score a lot of runs as opposed to getting the team off to a flying start.

 

[Sanz]

So first Hayden <<<<<<<<<<<<, Hussain
Now Gilchrist <<<Knight.

What Next Mcgrath <<<<Gough and Waugh <<< Vaughan ?

 

[Fiery]

Is pretty weak to say "crap" without saying why, TBH.

Sure is, at least go about disagreeing with a bit more grace.

I thought what Richard said about strike rates was crap so I said it was crap...live with it. Why should I have to go into detail about something so obvious. I thought my reply was the most appropriate so I'll stick with it thanks

 

[Fiery]

Madness. I suppose you don't mind that Muralitharan is ranked above Hadlee then?

Couldn't give a rat's tbh

 

[Fiery]

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, you would argue with me if I told you the grass was green...

 

[adharcric]

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.

SR is still very important in ODI cricket. Are you seriously arguing, "as long as his SR is 70+, it doesn't matter what it is"? ****.

 

[adharcric]

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

40 is much more than "slightly better" than 36. Of course, same goes with 97 to 71.

 

[Fiery]

40 is much more than "slightly better" than 36. Of course, same goes with 97 to 71.

Yeah, I knew that was a bit cheeky

 

[Jono]

I don't really believe that Hussain comes anywhere near Hayden, but this is a much closer battle than Fiery is implying.

Assuming we are judging the players on batting only (and not importance to the team as a keeper), its almost even for me. Knight has 5 centuries after 100 matches, while Gilly has 15 after almost 275. So about even there.
But the amazing thing is that Knight has 25 fifties in 100 matches, while Gilchrist only has 50 fifties in 275 matches. So Knight was obviously the more consistent scorer.

Knight also has the higher overall average, 36 vs 40...which is pretty significant (an average of 40 is what guys like Lara have BTW). The only real advantage Gilly has is the superior rate of scoring, 70 vs 96. Thats a pretty significant difference, and I am a bit surprised that Richard places a lot of importance on a bowler's economy rate, but not as much on a batsman's strike rate in ODIs?

Perhaps its my bias towards Tests thats speaking, or my mentality as an Indian, but I'll go for Nick Knight, as he will provide more consistent scoring, albeit at a slower pace (even though his team was different than Gillys, and thus his lower rate of scoring could have a bit to do with the team situation too).

So Nick Knight it is, and the question isn't as ridiculous as Fiery thinks it is IMO.

What mentality, and how is it relevant to this debate?

 

[Burgey]

Gilchrist played an aggressive style because of the team he was playing for, whereas Knight was relied upon to score a lot of runs as opposed to getting the team off to a flying start.

Yeah but the object of the ODI opener's role since 1996 WC has been to score as quickly as possible early doors.

 

[Days of Grace]

Jeez, Richard, how did you manage to be able to vote for Knight 12 times!? I thought we were only allowed one vote.

 

[Fiery]

Jeez, Richard, how did you manage to be able to vote for Knight 12 times!? I thought we were only allowed one vote.

Good question. There are 11 others just as deluded obviously.

 

[Fiery]

Knight wasn't a bad player, but in the fair dinkum department, this is like comparing a 1963 VW Beetle with a 2007 Bentley Continental GT, and Nick Knight aint the Bentley.

Both those vehicles can get you around town from A to B, but when you want big-time performance, they don't compare.

1999 WC final - a previously somnambulent Gilchrist makes a quick fire 54 to snuff out any faint hopes of a Pakistan victory.

2003 WC final - Gilchrist plunders 57 from 48 balls to set up an impregnable Aussie total.

2007 WC final - Gilchrist smashes one of the great ODI innings on the biggest stage of all, against the team who many rated as having the best bowling attack at the WC. In doing so, he frankly rendered obsolete the concept of the final as a contest within 14 overs.

So statistically, they may not be far apart and Knight wasn't a bad player at all with a better average. But if you have to choose between them on the basis of scoring them when it counts most, on the biggest stage against the best opponents, it's frankly no contest.

Well said sir

 

[Burgey]

Well said sir

Why thank you.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Who vs Gilchrist?

 

[Burgey]

Who vs Gilchrist?

 

[social]

Knight wasn't a bad player, but in the fair dinkum department, this is like comparing a 1963 VW Beetle with a 2007 Bentley Continental GT, and Nick Knight aint the Bentley.

Both those vehicles can get you around town from A to B, but when you want big-time performance, they don't compare.

1999 WC final - a previously somnambulent Gilchrist makes a quick fire 54 to snuff out any faint hopes of a Pakistan victory.

2003 WC final - Gilchrist plunders 57 from 48 balls to set up an impregnable Aussie total.

2007 WC final - Gilchrist smashes one of the great ODI innings on the biggest stage of all, against the team who many rated as having the best bowling attack at the WC. In doing so, he frankly rendered obsolete the concept of the final as a contest within 14 overs.

So statistically, they may not be far apart and Knight wasn't a bad player at all with a better average. But if you have to choose between them on the basis of scoring them when it counts most, on the biggest stage against the best opponents, it's frankly no contest.

Thank you, saved me typing

 

[age_master]

Knight was a very good OD opener, but really, he's not as good as Gilchrist.

Knight couldn't quite destroy attacks with the regularity that Gilchrist does either. I think Knight could quite possibly better compared to Hayden.