The man they call Gilchrist

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I was wondering the other day. We all know that Gilchrist has been amazing in Test cricket over the past few years but what if he hadn't made it.

Honestly, if Gilchrist wasn't a wicketkeeper, would he have made the Test team? In other words, was he a good enough batsman at the time to demand the selection as he did and does? IMO he wouldn't and it would have been a shame in retrospect.

 

[Top_Cat]

Surely he would have. I mean, he certainly wouldn't have made the NSW team by himself but he would have made the WA team on his batting merits at the time he moved there and I think he certainly would have, based on his Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup record alone.

If anything it was his batting ability which got him into the one-day and Test teams in the first place. His keeping is very solid but there were better 'keepers' around at the time he made his debut (he and Wade Seccombe are the same age, for example), yet his batting pushed him over the line.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed that his batting got an ODI spot with his keeping secondary but my point is, would he have made the Test team on batting merits alone? Consider that the Aussie team at the time was rather set for batting with the Waughs, Slater and company going well. Would he have demanded a spot in such a circumstance? Australia needed a replacement for Healy and thus, he was immediately selected.

 

[masterblaster]

I suppose they would drop Langer or Martyn and Keep Gilchrist, as he has the ability to turn the game on its head, rather than Langer or Martyn who are more 'solid' type players.

 

[age_master]

he might not have made the test side as early as he did jut on batting but he would these days

 

[marc71178]

he might not have made the test side as early as he did jut on batting but he would these days

But would he though?

His notable performances have been in Tests, but if you take the Tests out, there's no knowing what he would have done in Tests!

I mean his FC average is good, but not brilliant, and not enough to demand a Test spot as a specialist batsman.

In FC Cricket (ignoring the Tests, which for the sake of this discussion he hasn't played in) he has 4559 runs at 41.45!

 

[Cloete]

yeah bu remember he's barely played n e FC cricket l8ly. b-coz of all his tests an ODI's. his ability would PROBABLY still be roughly the same which means he would have been selected for tests and ODI's and his average would have improven. but all of this is PROBABLE. just like marc saying he doesn't think gilly would have been in the side which could have also been quie probable. all theories r quite probable really. i mean good chance he did crap in state cricket, good chance he did awesome. it really comes down to 1's personal opinion.

 

[Rik]

Well really Gilchrist has only started batting like he has since he started playing Tests, his batting average when he was selected for his debut was 40 or there abouts. He hasn't really set the state game on fire and there are so many other players with better records like Lehmann, Elliot, Bevan...

Frankly no I don't think he would have made it, and I don't think he would have turned into the player he is now as if he was selected as a specialist batsman then he wouldn't be batting at 7 or have such a lisence to play his shots...he would have been told to slow down and play more correctly.

 

[Eclipse]

Well really Gilchrist has only started batting like he has since he started playing Tests, his batting average when he was selected for his debut was 40 or there abouts. He hasn't really set the state game on fire and there are so many other players with better records like Lehmann, Elliot, Bevan...

Frankly no I don't think he would have made it, and I don't think he would have turned into the player he is now as if he was selected as a specialist batsman then he wouldn't be batting at 7 or have such a lisence to play his shots...he would have been told to slow down and play more correctly.

No Rik Gillchrist would still bat exactly the same way no matter were he was batting.

Even when he opens for WA or bats in his usualy number 4 position he still bats exectly the same way.

Australia would not have told him to tone it down thats his natrual game and to tell him to bat diffrently would be stupid.

Basicly all our batsman in test cricket are given the licence to play there shots remember this year when Langer and Hayden put on 82 in 11 overs after the lunch session at the MCG were hayden was sloging Craig White crossbated over long off and langer was swinging Dawson over midwicket from 3 feet outside offstump.

Ponting is also very agressive his test strike rate this year was 69 and last year it was 74.

This year gilly's test strike rate was over 90 Langers 68 Ponting 69 hayden 64 etc... Australian players are all natrualy aggresive.

 

[Rik]

Well Eclipse...remember Gilchrist on his debut? Yes? He was playing in a side which didn't have such attacking players. So you wouldn't see him uppercutting the ball to the boundary. Also as I said before he would not even have had a look in with Elliot and Bevan and Lehmann available...

 

[Eclipse]

No Trust me Gilly would uppercut to the boundry almost every time If there was no one back at third man. And on debute he made 81 of 90. (including hitting 21 of one over)

Yes he would not have been selected initialy just as a batsman with players like Lhemann, Hussey and Elliot but he would make the team as a batsman alone now.

Remember his match winning 149* at Hobart when the loss of just one wicket would have ment Australia would almost certainly lose he still only took 160 balls for that 149* and his 100 of just 110.

 

[Rik]

Yes of course he would make the team as a batsman now but this is about weather he would have been picked if he was a batsman then and since he was mainly picked because he was a decent keeper who could bat, I doubt he would have made it. Also he's only really come to note as a batsman since he came into the Test side, in Australia in the sheild he scored 171* in 1996 but he was no where near the player he is now. Maybe that was because he had to bat higher? All I know is that every time I've seen him promoted up the order in Tests he's got out for not many. Remember when Lance Klusener had like 400 runs in the WC without getting out? Well he was promoted to 3 and got out for 2 or something. It's the same with Gilly.

 

[Eclipse]

He has not been promoted very often but I have seen him make 3 fiftys when he has been so he has done allright.

In One dayers Gilly does seem to be valnerable against the new ball if the bowling is really good but in test cricket I think he handles the new ball exellently so I cant see why he would not do well batting up the order.

I think the main reason Gilly is souch a good batsman now compaired to what he used to be is just the fact he has worked on his game very hard and for an ultra-aggresive player his shot selection is second to none.

 

[Eclipse]

ohh and I the only times gilly is ever promoted is when he is asked to just slog so its no wonder he gets out sometimes.

 

[Rik]

ohh and I the only times gilly is ever promoted is when he is asked to just slog so its no wonder he gets out sometimes.

Maybe so, but if he was a batsman, and a top order one at that, he wouldn't be asked to slog

 

[Rik]

He has not been promoted very often but I have seen him make 3 fiftys when he has been so he has done allright.

In One dayers Gilly does seem to be valnerable against the new ball if the bowling is really good but in test cricket I think he handles the new ball exellently so I cant see why he would not do well batting up the order.

I think the main reason Gilly is souch a good batsman now compaired to what he used to be is just the fact he has worked on his game very hard and for an ultra-aggresive player his shot selection is second to none.

Yes he has worked hard. I mean look at Vaughan, not a great career average, not a great start to his Test Career and yet he's making 100s for fun now and has turned himself into an attacking opening batsman after starting off as a rather drab middle order Test batsman. Trescothick has also worked hard but he needs to work on those technical flaws. Players who have the talent usually show it off on the International stage rather than in domestic cricket. I mean look at Hayden...I never saw him average 70 odd for Northants...

 

[Eclipse]

I think England are so lucky to have Vaughan and Trescotick I mean with there carear stats it would have been so easy for them to be overlooked but now they are world class players.

And how can you say Gilchrist is not a batsman :rolleyes:

I think Vaughan is bound to slow down soon however I mean he cant keep making 100s like he is some of those should be 50s

I dont think he has made a fifty in between his last 5 100s thats remarkable.

 

[Rik]

And how can you say Gilchrist is not a batsman :rolleyes:

Well I said "TOP ORDER BATSMAN" and since he bats at 7 I don't think that makes him a Top Order Batsman, in fact that makes him a Middle to Lower Order Batsman...

 

[Eclipse]

Maybe so, but if he was a batsman, and a top order one at that, he wouldn't be asked to slog

Well u sort of said "if he were a batsman"

Any way I do know what u mean.

 

[marc71178]

Yes he would not have been selected initialy just as a batsman with players like Lhemann, Hussey and Elliot but he would make the team as a batsman alone now.

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.