kingkallis
International Coach
Hmmmm true! I dont need Goddard the batsman since I have a stunning line up so I guess TG will have to sit out and I will replace him with my fav. lefty bowler, Brett Schultz
Strike Rate of 47, that'll do it.Hmmmm true! I dont need Goddard the batsman since I have a stunning line up so I guess TG will have to sit out and I will replace him with my fav. lefty bowler, Brett Schultz
But isn't Sanga only a better bat when he's not 'keeping? Off the top of my head, Sanga's batting average as a wicketkeeper is lower than Gilly's - so when they've got the gloves Gilchrist is both a better batsman and a better 'keeper.On the points you have mentioned, Gilchrist may be better than Sanga with gloves, but that is offset with his significant superior batting abilities than Gilchrist. And It's not Knott aor Ames that challenges him, Sanga and Flower as batsmen wicketkeepers.
#2, Average do matter, otherwise people would claim Ramiz Raja was better than Sachin Tendulkar. Average of 65+ with the bat is too significant to be left out, especially when comparing with Border and Harvey. And on Barrington, he was a bloody good player, ATG for sure if not fore his health issues later in his career.
In before Migara suggests that means Sangakkara is the best batsman of the last 50 years because his average is so high when he doesn't keep. So many times, this same thing.But isn't Sanga only a better bat when he's not 'keeping? Off the top of my head, Sanga's batting average as a wicketkeeper is lower than Gilly's - so when they've got the gloves Gilchrist is both a better batsman and a better 'keeper.
Ha ha, Goddard was a consistent Test runscorer despite the lack of tons, though yes he did have a conversion rate that would make Stephen Fleming blush! As a bowler I daresay he was a product of his time - the era Goddard played in was one of generally defensive cricket, epitomised by poor strike rates and great economy rates - and his economy rate (1.6 runs/over) was astoundingly good.Should we be concerned about a singular Test match century and a bowling Strike Rate of 95.4 ?
Or is Goddard a classic case where the sum of the parts is way greater than the whole?
In other words, he's a ***y cricketer, end of story.
AWTA.I hereby predict that when this thread s bumped 2 years down the line this guy will be in it Irfan Karim | Kenya Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
+1in before migara suggests that means sangakkara is the best batsman of the last 50 years because his average is so high when he doesn't keep. So many times, this same thing.
Yeah, an absolutely crazy argument. Not sure how he could have written that post with a straight face.But isn't Sanga only a better bat when he's not 'keeping? Off the top of my head, Sanga's batting average as a wicketkeeper is lower than Gilly's - so when they've got the gloves Gilchrist is both a better batsman and a better 'keeper.
He's made the argument about 1,000 times before, and it's an absolute set-up every time. He does it so whoever he's talking to will make the post The Sean made, and he can then use the same argument to 'prove' that Sanga is in fact the greatest batsman since Bradman*, for he averages about 70 as a specialist bat.Yeah, an absolutely crazy argument. Not sure how he could have written that post with a straight face.
I only read about 5 people's posts on this site, so it stands to reason that I've missed that argument tbf.He's made the argument about 1,000 times before, and it's an absolute set-up every time. He does it so whoever he's talking to will make the post The Sean made, and he can then use the same argument to 'prove' that Sanga is in fact the greatest batsman since Bradman*, for he averages about 70 as a specialist bat.
*The fact that Migara hates Bradman aside.
Well now I just feel violated.He's made the argument about 1,000 times before, and it's an absolute set-up every time. He does it so whoever he's talking to will make the post The Sean made, and he can then use the same argument to 'prove' that Sanga is in fact the greatest batsman since Bradman*, for he averages about 70 as a specialist bat.
*The fact that Migara hates Bradman aside.
Yeah you are.Well now I just feel violated.
So what would Gilly's average have been if he didn't keep wicket? I reckon 76.
Am I doing it right?
Though I would replace Goddard with perhaps Verity or The Bish, I think the XI as it stands has enough firepower to take 20 wickets, given Sobers and Border would be back-up - Sobers especially, as he routinely bowled first change in the early 60s and did a damn good job of it.Your batting is already choc-a-block all the way down to at least Gilchrist. This makes Goddard's skills with the bat over-kill. So why not choose a bowler with a better Strike Rate than Goddard's 95 balls and give the bowling a boost?
+1At the risk of being a parochial ****, Bill Johnston is criminally underrated as a bowler - probably by being third fiddle to Lindwall and Miller in 1948. Has a better average than Lillee and I dare say his strike rate was gimped a bit by being asked to bowl left-arm orthodox (yes, he could do that) given the next best options for The Don were Colin McCool and Ian Johnson.
If you settle for the average of 40 of wk-bat (of Sanga) ignoring that he was yet to achieve his peak, then the reverse would apply too. As a batsman, we have to settle that he averages 65+, which will easily bring him in to the team over everybody except Sobers.But isn't Sanga only a better bat when he's not 'keeping? Off the top of my head, Sanga's batting average as a wicketkeeper is lower than Gilly's - so when they've got the gloves Gilchrist is both a better batsman and a better 'keeper.