Adam Gilchrist

[age_master]

let me put this to you in simple terms, when a player is dropped he is not out, if he is caught he is out. simple as that, if you are dropped, so what, you continue with your innings, it doesn't change your skill and make you worse.

you batting skill remains the same wether you are caught first time, or dropped 3932809273 times an innings.


it doesn't matter how many chances you give, its the runs on the board that count

 

[krkode]

It's annoying when people say that so and so's innings was not good because he was dropped on X. If he had been caught on X, he wouldn't have scored Y.

Jee. Want me to give you some "ifs??"

If Zaheer Khan had been playing he would've gotten a hattrick in the first 3 balls of the game getting Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist (because Ponting and Gilly would change sides as the ball went up in the air).

Want an even more extreme one? If India and Pakistan hadn't separated so many years ago, Wasim Akram would have played for India.

You can't prove otherwise. Because it didn't happen!!

God, how I hate ifs and post-match speculation.:rolleyes:

 

[raw]

Gilchrist's score was big, the s/r was big, but it was still pretty cheap overall. Zimbabwe is at best second or third rate - a state team would have been more competition. All the perma-dick riders are out saying 'Gilli's a champ!'...yeah, where's his big ton against India?

The only form batsman is Hayden. You could take out Gilchrist, Ponting and Martyn and put in any number of players from state level and tell them to go play some shots and we'd see the same results.

That's not to say I think Hayden's anything special. Far from it - he just knows how to beat spin: be big, get forward, and learn how to sweep. Forget genuine stroke play that only gets you out against spin.

 

[Eclipse]

Gilchrist's score was big, the s/r was big, but it was still pretty cheap overall. Zimbabwe is at best second or third rate - a state team would have been more competition. All the perma-dick riders are out saying 'Gilli's a champ!'...yeah, where's his big ton against India?

The only form batsman is Hayden. You could take out Gilchrist, Ponting and Martyn and put in any number of players from state level and tell them to go play some shots and we'd see the same results.

That's not to say I think Hayden's anything special. Far from it - he just knows how to beat spin: be big, get forward, and learn how to sweep. Forget genuine stroke play that only gets you out against spin.

Ponting, Martyn have not been in fantastic form so far this series but that just mean's a big score is around the corner for both of them IMO.

And Gilly made a fantastic 100 against India not long ago have you forgoten his 100 in the TVS cup??

 

[Craig]

Gilchrist made a ton n the TVS Cup?

 

[Dick Rockett]

I know he's a great player because I hate the sight of him when he's playing my guys!!

I rate the man, especially his sportsmanship. Any batsman prepared to walk when he knows he's out in the modern game deserves a medal. In fact, Gilchrist deserves two because it was against the wishes of the tosser captaining the team...

All that aside, he still can't handle a Shane Bond inswinging yorker! But then who can? :P

 

[Eclipse]

Gilchrist made a ton n the TVS Cup?

Show's how much attention you pay.

he also made an 80 odd against India as well.

 

[Thelwell]

All that aside, he still can't handle a Shane Bond inswinging yorker! But then who can? :P

The question should be; who CAN face a bond inswinger? The guy's permanently injured.

 

[Mister Wright]

Gilchrist made a ton n the TVS Cup?

So did Martyn.

 

[Bazza]

I think 'raw' was referring to the test series. In other words, Gilchrist is overrated - where was he when Australia needed him?

Of course he's not the only one, and I did enjoy following that innings, I was convinced he was going to beat Mark Waugh's 173 and maybe push 194?

Also looked like he might lead Australia past their 359 at one point but when he got out they crumbled.

 

[Dick Rockett]

The question should be; who CAN face a bond inswinger? The guy's permanently injured.

Sad but true....

 

[Thelwell]

Gilchrist's score was big, the s/r was big, but it was still pretty cheap overall. Zimbabwe is at best second or third rate - a state team would have been more competition.

So you dont rate Hayden's 380 just cos it was against Zim?

I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day you've still got put the balls aways to get the runs, even if it is abit easier than it normally would be.

 

[marc71178]

The result is irrelevant to the judgement of a player's ability.

So player abilities are more important than the result?

 

[Richard]

Thats cos your talking rubbish

Yes, that's a common response.
Attempting to gloss over their lack of a valid argument with insults.

 

[Richard]

No need for the exasperation. My point is simply that Ponting's innings was under different circumstances. Who knows how many runs Tendulkar would have scored against the Indian attack. :P

Probably quite a lot - but equally he could have been run-out before he'd faced a ball.
You can only go on what has happened and IMO Ponting played better in his circumstances than Tendulkar did in his.

 

[Richard]

let me put this to you in simple terms, when a player is dropped he is not out, if he is caught he is out. simple as that, if you are dropped, so what, you continue with your innings, it doesn't change your skill and make you worse.

you batting skill remains the same wether you are caught first time, or dropped 3932809273 times an innings.


it doesn't matter how many chances you give, its the runs on the board that count

This is about the worst response I've ever seen.
You have proceeded to state the facts that runs count towards the scorebook, and reiterated that many people don't realise this:
Your batting skill is not altered by runs you score, it's just summed-up by it.
Runs you have against your name, however, don't neccesarily say a thing about it. If you have a 381 against your name, where you have been let-off 3932809273 times, it's clearly pretty meaningless. I would, beyond all question, score 381 and many more (if the innings lasted sufficiently) in such circumstances against the best attack ever.
You have failed, of course, as everyone has done before you, to answer the fact that a batsman's ability is not altered by the lack of fieldsman's ability. Because you have again simply attempted to use the notion that missed chances make the batsman worse. No, you've got it the wrong way around. A batsman is judged as good because he scores runs - if he always needs dropped catches to get runs against his name, he won't get any runs against his name if there aren't any dropped catches.
Hence the judgement is made after the innings - if no runs are earnt by the batsman, he hasn't played well.
And the old "it's the scorebook that counts" excuse for an argument I've disproven countless times; the scorebook is concerned with results; judgement of ability concerns far, far more important things.

 

[Richard]

It's annoying when people say that so and so's innings was not good because he was dropped on X. If he had been caught on X, he wouldn't have scored Y.

Jee. Want me to give you some "ifs??"

If Zaheer Khan had been playing he would've gotten a hattrick in the first 3 balls of the game getting Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist (because Ponting and Gilly would change sides as the ball went up in the air).

Want an even more extreme one? If India and Pakistan hadn't separated so many years ago, Wasim Akram would have played for India.

You can't prove otherwise. Because it didn't happen!!

God, how I hate ifs and post-match speculation.:rolleyes:

This is another worthless argument.
"If"s are no use to anyone. But a dropped catch is not an if. It is a certain. It is a basic cricketing fact that Tendulkar was dropped by Razzaq in his 98; that Gilchrist was dropped on 32 in his 200*.
It is not "if he had been caught he wouldn't have those runs against his name" - it is "he did something that would normally have resulted in his dismissal - hence he would have been out had circumstances outside his control not conspired in his favour".
So-and-so's innings would have been terminated at X if he got a let-off there. That is a fact. There is very, very rarely any dispute over it.

 

[Richard]

I rate the man, especially his sportsmanship. Any batsman prepared to walk when he knows he's out in the modern game deserves a medal. In fact, Gilchrist deserves two because it was against the wishes of the tosser captaining the team...

Whatever I may think about the fact that Gilchrist is overrated, I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on walking - it is a credit to the game.
Not walking when you know you're out is cheating every bit as much as claiming a catch you know hasn't carried.
Anyone who encourages cheating, while it is irrelevant to whether they're a tosser or not, is rather a disappointment to the game.
He is quite right when he said "I think it's time for cricketers to start being honest with each other"; the game is more important than any team.

 

[Richard]

So player abilities are more important than the result?

No, but in the judgement of a player's ability there are more important things than something which describes the result, and, indeed, more important things than the result.

 

[krkode]

This is another worthless argument.
"If"s are no use to anyone. But a dropped catch is not an if. It is a certain. It is a basic cricketing fact that Tendulkar was dropped by Razzaq in his 98; that Gilchrist was dropped on 32 in his 200*.
It is not "if he had been caught he wouldn't have those runs against his name" - it is "he did something that would normally have resulted in his dismissal - hence he would have been out had circumstances outside his control not conspired in his favour".
So-and-so's innings would have been terminated at X if he got a let-off there. That is a fact. There is very, very rarely any dispute over it.

For that matter, India and Pakistan separating is a basic historical fact. If it didn't separate all their cricket talent would be combined. Do you dispute that?

Y'know, the bottom line is, nobody cares who was dropped when. Except you, of course. Don't even try to tell us (me) that somebody's innings isn't great because he was dropped a couple of times. That's part of a great innings - going past your mistakes and finishing the job.

If a soldier who later wins the Medal of Honor was missed by an enemy soldier on his first day at battle, is our Medal of Honor-winning soldier any less of a great soldier?

Oh no...he would have died on day 1. He didn't deserve to do all those great things.

Extreme example, but it sounds like what you're saying.