The man they call Gilchrist

[Rik]

But on what grounds - looking at his FC record, it's not that special, and without the gloves I'd have been surprised if he'd ever made the side - however, the keeping element got him in the side and now his batting is worthy of a place.

...and Marc summarises exactly what I was saying and takes all the credit...:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

Although I said such thing first... :P

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I honestly think he would have failed to make the side. It's hard for some people to come to that conclusion because they are thinking in retrospect rather than considering the situation of Aussie cricket and Gilchrist's game at the time. It's hard to put his performances in Test cricket out of one's mind, which is what is required to do fairly to this topic.

 

[Top_Cat]

But on what grounds - looking at his FC record, it's not that special, and without the gloves I'd have been surprised if he'd ever made the side - however, the keeping element got him in the side and now his batting is worthy of a place.

If he wasn't wearing the gloves for WA, his average would probably have been higher, though. Plus, if Andrew Symonds', Brad Hogg's, Brad Williams, Nathan Hauritz's and Shane Watson's selections this year are anything to go by, players are rarely picked purely on stats anyway. All of the best state players train with the Aussie squad frequently and so guys who train with him, play with him and coach him would have a better idea of how good he is well before his stats reflect it. His ability with the bat has been on show for all to see for a very long time and he probably would have been picked despite his FC stats.

Others who've been picked for reasons other than stats:

Glenn McGrath - had played only 8 FC matches before being called up. Sure he was bowling BEAUTIFULLY but there certainly would have been a temptation to give him a longer stint in state cricket before picking him. However, his sheer ability forced his way into the side, not to mention (I'm sure) the testimonies of those who had trained and played with him for NSW.

Jason Gillespie was picked after one full season for SA (albeit, a good one where he topped the wicket-takers for all states).

And of course the most obvious example is Warnie, who was averaging around 40-odd for Victoria when he was picked to play against India. Obviously he didn't succeed immediately but people saw beyond the mountains of chips-induced lard and saw a player with a very special talent. When he then picked up 7-52 against the West Indies the very next season, having taken 3/11 against Sri Lanka in the Aussie winter, the rest is history.

I'd venture to say that MOST of the great players are picked with justifications which don't take into account their FC record. It's the ability to see past that and to determine just how good a player is which makes a good selector and good selections. Gilchrist would have been exactly the same, people would have seen his ability and I'm sure he would have been picked, regardless of the fact he was averaging in the high 30's for WA and completely disregarding the idea that he probably would have had a better average if he weren't a 'keeper.

Players are NOT their stats, people.

 

[Bazza]

Gilchrist would have been exactly the same, people would have seen his ability and I'm sure he would have been picked, regardless of the fact he was averaging in the high 30's for WA and completely disregarding the idea that he probably would have had a better average if he weren't a 'keeper.

That's the thing though how can we know whether he has developed into such a player due to his exposure to test/one day international cricket. If he had never experienced that he may have drifted along for a few years not really setting the domestic scene on fire and then end up getting overlooked for Martin Love or something?

 

[Bazza]

look at Hayden...I never saw him average 70 odd for Northants...

No but he did average 57 over the two years he was there, which is hardly poor. Also in 1997 at Hampshire (where I first came to know Hayden - he wasn't too well known then) he averaged 57 also. I was gutted when we replaced him with Nixon McLean the following year!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Due to money issues, or international commitment?

 

[Bazza]

I don't think Hayden was playing for Australia in 1998. I can only assume it was either money or the management decided they needed a decent pace bowler as opposed to a batsman.

 

[marc71178]

the management decided they needed a decent pace bowler .

Still needs to be asked, why Nixon McLean?!

 

[Bazza]

I dunno he was a young upstart back then. The next WI fast bowler. Or something like that. Anyway he was about as good as Benjamin. (And still is).

 

[marc71178]

That's hardly a major complement for him though!

 

[aussie_beater]

I dunno he was a young upstart back then. The next WI fast bowler. Or something like that. Anyway he was about as good as Benjamin. (And still is).

Which Benjamin ??....Winston or Kenny ?

Winston Benjamin was quite a decent bowler and Nixon McLean is nowhere close to him.

 

[Willow Whacker]

Back to Gilchrist please - start a Nixon Mclean Thread elsewhere.

It came as a shock to most that Gilchrist's promotion came so quickly. It was as if one minute we were happy with Heals forever & the next in came this guy with the big ears and started to let loose.

The thing I remember is the way he destoyed a NSW shield team at the time, as if to say, "stick that up ya jumper", for not giving him a go. But we NSW had a decent keeper Phil emery (infamous and never selected again after the catch that wasn't appeal) at the time and the batting line-up was the Australian team anyway.

But really there wasn't another keeper in Australia who could be said to be a suitable replacement for Healy. It would seem for once the selctors got it right for once.

In the end it was his one day efforts batting with the Majestic Mark Waugh that helped decide the issue.

WW

8D 8D 8D