• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Aussie, genuine question. If we assume Gilchrist retired just before the 2005 Ashes (just like you're assuming Knott's non-7 innings aren't relevant), where does Gilly rate?
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Red Hill said:

Certainly struggled with the around the wicket stuff in this test...
Click to expand...
I said he struggled against the best two pace attacks after his PAK 99 - NZ 05 peak, as in Ashes 05 & vs SA home/away 05/06 (11 tests) who successfully exposed is around the wicket weakness. Ashes 06/07 vs a below par England attack does not count, since as a collective bowling unit they didn't replicate the plans of 05.
 
Last edited:
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Dan said:
Aussie, genuine question. If we assume Gilchrist retired just before the 2005 Ashes (just like you're assuming Knott's non-7 innings aren't relevant), where does Gilly rate?
Click to expand...
Interesting hypothetical question. I guess in a way he could have still been rated a ATXI, even though it would still have been argued he cashed in on many poor pace attacks on roads during the PAK 99 - NZ 05 period - because as the story of his career goes before Ashes 05, he was basically invisible and a clear weakness to get him out consistently was not yet discovered.

Also again i never suggested Knott's non # 7 innings are irrelevant. I'm judging him based on his efforts in he peak batting position similar to any great cricket i.e

- Tendular from his 1990 to 2002 first peak as a # 4 batsman

- Ponting from 2001 to 2010 peak as a # 3

- S Waugh from 1992-2001 peak as a # 5

- Botham from 1977-1984 as a all-rounder

- Imran from 1980-1988 as a all-rounder who batted consistently @ 7 & bowling 90 mph

- Brett Lee from 2005-2008 as a new-ball seamer

- Waqar from 1990-1994 as a new ball quick

- Laxman from Kolkotta 2001 onwards as a regular # 5/6 (although had instances @ # 3)

etc etc etc players - hopefully you get the picture
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
aussie said:
Interesting hypothetical question. I guess in a way he could have still been rated a ATXI, even though it would still have been argued he cashed in on many poor pace attacks on roads during the PAK 99 - NZ 05 period - because as the story of his career goes before Ashes 05, he was basically invisible and a clear weakness to get him out consistently was not yet discovered.

Also again i never suggested Knott's non # 7 innings are irrelevant. I'm judging him based on his efforts in he peak batting position similar to any great cricket i.e

- Tendular from his 1990 to 2002 first peak as a # 4 batsman

- Ponting from 2001 to 2010 peak as a # 3

- S Waugh from 1992-2001 peak as a # 5

- Botham from 1977-1984 as a all-rounder

- Imran from 1980-1988 as a all-rounder who batted consistently @ 7 & bowling 90 mph

- Brett Lee from 2005-2008 as a new-ball seamer

- Waqar from 1990-1994 as a new ball quick

- Laxman from Kolkotta 2001 onwards as a regular # 5/6 (although had instances @ # 3)

etc etc etc players - hopefully you get the picture
Click to expand...
Gilchrist's peak was just the same as these guys....
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Saw Zaltzman in a 40 minute stand up routine at Kolkata. Wasn't the best stand up ever but was still super fun.
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
aussie said:
Interesting hypothetical question. I guess in a way he could have still been rated a ATXI, even though it would still have been argued he cashed in on many poor pace attacks on roads during the PAK 99 - NZ 05 period - because as the story of his career goes before Ashes 05, he was basically invisible and a clear weakness to get him out consistently was not yet discovered.

Also again i never suggested Knott's non # 7 innings are irrelevant. I'm judging him based on his efforts in he peak batting position similar to any great cricket i.e

- Tendular from his 1990 to 2002 first peak as a # 4 batsman

- Ponting from 2001 to 2010 peak as a # 3

- S Waugh from 1992-2001 peak as a # 5

- Botham from 1977-1984 as a all-rounder

- Imran from 1980-1988 as a all-rounder who batted consistently @ 7 & bowling 90 mph

- Brett Lee from 2005-2008 as a new-ball seamer

- Waqar from 1990-1994 as a new ball quick

- Laxman from Kolkotta 2001 onwards as a regular # 5/6 (although had instances @ # 3)

etc etc etc players - hopefully you get the picture
Click to expand...
...so shouldn't you then be judging Gilchrist on his 1999-2005 peak too?

If you want to judge Knott with the underlying logic that he was a #7 and deserves to be judged based on his peak years there, that's cool. But you have to do the same with Gilchrist too, otherwise you're going all apples and oranges on it.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Dan said:
...so shouldn't you then be judging Gilchrist on his 1999-2005 peak too?

If you want to judge Knott with the underlying logic that he was a #7 and deserves to be judged based on his peak years there, that's cool. But you have to do the same with Gilchrist too, otherwise you're going all apples and oranges on it.
Click to expand...
I have always judged him at his peak - but of course the reality of his peak has to be placed in proper context because we know that from Ashes 2005 until retirement technical faults were exposed in his game meant his 55+ PAK 99 - NZ 05 peak average was inflated. His career did not end in NZ 2005 as your hypothetical question asked.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
"You can't take Gilly's peak alone in analysis because it doesn't reflect his true ability like his whole career"
"You can't take Knott's whole career in analysis because it doesn't reflect his true ability like his peak"

w0t.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Red Hill said:
Gilchrist's peak was just the same as these guys....
Click to expand...
No those players peak as batsmen & bowlers were made excellent because they did well vs top quality bowling/excelled versus good batsmen or showed general bowling technique improvement from previous career phases.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
***** said:
"You can't take Gilly's peak alone in analysis because it doesn't reflect his true ability like his whole career"
"You can't take Knott's whole career in analysis because it doesn't reflect his true ability like his peak"

w0t.
Click to expand...
Good job missing the point.

While you are it, when you have the time my friend please list for me the amount of runs against very good/excellent series performances during his "peak" that he scored vs good/very good/excellent pace or spin attacks.

And let me when you find some, then compare it with the amount of actual good efforts Knott had in his "whole career" vs the known revered pace/spin attacks he faced. Looking forward to your co-operation.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top