aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Now that Sangakkara has recently retired, I think this is interesting topic to discuss and in hindsight i believe Sangakkara was better modern keeper/bat since 2000 and if you picked an all-time XI & needed a keeper with strongest batting prowess in test history it has to be Kumar.
GILCHRIST
The thing with Gilchrist as an Australian fan during the glory days is that when he started from like 1999-2005, he really did bring a new dimension to the roll of the keeper making runs consistently although before him you had guys like Les Ames, Alec Stewart, Dennis Lindsay, Jeff Dujon, Andy Flower.
But clearly before Gilly more teams were still of the default view of picking a keeper for his glove-work prowess first & batting second.
Gilchrist at his absolutely best in tests was the aforementioned debut home series vs Pakistan 1999 to the N Zealand tour in 2005. This period his record waS : 68 tests, 4452 runs, 55.65 average, 15 hundreds. - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en... n;template=results;type=batting;view=innings
At this point everyone in world cricket glorified Gilly quite aptly as the role changing cricketer and would always pick him in all time XIs. Fact remains no team since Gilchrist would really pick a keeper if he can't average 35-40+ with the bat.
However things change drastically at the back end of Gilly's career starting with the famous 2005 Ashes. England famous pace attack led by Flintoff found a way to keep him quiet, by bowling around the wicket consistently, tucking him up for room & Gilchrist suddenly looked normal.
For the remaining 3 years of his career many teams tried this tactic (most notably S Africa during 2005/06 home/away tests) & he was never the same again as his average dropped almost 10 points and he only scored 2 more test centuries.
It makes you wonder if teams had formulated that tactic earlier if his career would have been so dominant, especially when you consider in his first test match he was bowled by Shoaib Akhtar via the around the wicket angle tactic:
My suspicion since Gilly's retirement is that he wouldn't have been so dominant if bowlers had homed in on that weakness earlier in the 2000s.
In a lot of ways the 1999-2005 period was the dark ages period of the 2000s when wickets worldwide wide were so flat and many of the 1990s top bowling attacks had either retired of was in decline.
Australia's attack was the only consistently good bowling attack worldwide for a long time & Gilchrist feasted on that.
A clue of how Gilchrist might have performed if he faced better quicks from 1999-2005, lies in his record in Asia during this period. In 10 tests on famous tours to India in 2001 & 2004, Sri Lanka 2004 his record was 543 runs at 31 with 3 hundreds - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5390.html?class=1;continent=2;filter=advanced;host =6;host=8;opposition=6;opposition=8;orderby=start; spanmax1=1+MAY+2005;spanval1=span;template=results ;type=batting;view=innings
Outside of those 3 superb hundreds, he has a lot of low scores & his general play versus the high quality spin of Harbhajan/Kumble/Murali was very much hit or miss - not much of middle ground (except for that 49 he scored in the Chennai 2004 test).
You consider all these factors and I don't think if Gilchrist faced sterner attacks (pace) during his test career he would have averaged 50+ at all. Would have still played destructive game changing innings, but not on the level where he would have been elevated to all-time great status.
Sangakkara:
The basic plain stats of Sangakkara's career says he averaged 40 while keeping and 66 when not keeping - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
This is sort of misleading because the discrepancies between Kumar's batting ability wasn't that big when keeping and not keeping.
I just think Sangakkara suffered a bit with combining the # 3 batting & keeping in tests. Those are two highly important teams roles that one person can't do in the longer format.
After Sanga last kept in test in 2008, he always kept in ODI/T20 until retirement and did the # 3 batting + keeping role excellently. So i reckon if the balance of the SRI team in test could have allowed Sanga to bat @ # 5 (instead of needing him to bat @ # 3) like Andy Flower did for ZIM in the 1990s/early 2000s with great success - Sangakkara could have easily replicated his batting form in that position.
GILCHRIST
The thing with Gilchrist as an Australian fan during the glory days is that when he started from like 1999-2005, he really did bring a new dimension to the roll of the keeper making runs consistently although before him you had guys like Les Ames, Alec Stewart, Dennis Lindsay, Jeff Dujon, Andy Flower.
But clearly before Gilly more teams were still of the default view of picking a keeper for his glove-work prowess first & batting second.
Gilchrist at his absolutely best in tests was the aforementioned debut home series vs Pakistan 1999 to the N Zealand tour in 2005. This period his record waS : 68 tests, 4452 runs, 55.65 average, 15 hundreds. - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en... n;template=results;type=batting;view=innings
At this point everyone in world cricket glorified Gilly quite aptly as the role changing cricketer and would always pick him in all time XIs. Fact remains no team since Gilchrist would really pick a keeper if he can't average 35-40+ with the bat.
However things change drastically at the back end of Gilly's career starting with the famous 2005 Ashes. England famous pace attack led by Flintoff found a way to keep him quiet, by bowling around the wicket consistently, tucking him up for room & Gilchrist suddenly looked normal.
For the remaining 3 years of his career many teams tried this tactic (most notably S Africa during 2005/06 home/away tests) & he was never the same again as his average dropped almost 10 points and he only scored 2 more test centuries.
It makes you wonder if teams had formulated that tactic earlier if his career would have been so dominant, especially when you consider in his first test match he was bowled by Shoaib Akhtar via the around the wicket angle tactic:
My suspicion since Gilly's retirement is that he wouldn't have been so dominant if bowlers had homed in on that weakness earlier in the 2000s.
In a lot of ways the 1999-2005 period was the dark ages period of the 2000s when wickets worldwide wide were so flat and many of the 1990s top bowling attacks had either retired of was in decline.
Australia's attack was the only consistently good bowling attack worldwide for a long time & Gilchrist feasted on that.
A clue of how Gilchrist might have performed if he faced better quicks from 1999-2005, lies in his record in Asia during this period. In 10 tests on famous tours to India in 2001 & 2004, Sri Lanka 2004 his record was 543 runs at 31 with 3 hundreds - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5390.html?class=1;continent=2;filter=advanced;host =6;host=8;opposition=6;opposition=8;orderby=start; spanmax1=1+MAY+2005;spanval1=span;template=results ;type=batting;view=innings
Outside of those 3 superb hundreds, he has a lot of low scores & his general play versus the high quality spin of Harbhajan/Kumble/Murali was very much hit or miss - not much of middle ground (except for that 49 he scored in the Chennai 2004 test).
You consider all these factors and I don't think if Gilchrist faced sterner attacks (pace) during his test career he would have averaged 50+ at all. Would have still played destructive game changing innings, but not on the level where he would have been elevated to all-time great status.
Sangakkara:
The basic plain stats of Sangakkara's career says he averaged 40 while keeping and 66 when not keeping - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
This is sort of misleading because the discrepancies between Kumar's batting ability wasn't that big when keeping and not keeping.
I just think Sangakkara suffered a bit with combining the # 3 batting & keeping in tests. Those are two highly important teams roles that one person can't do in the longer format.
After Sanga last kept in test in 2008, he always kept in ODI/T20 until retirement and did the # 3 batting + keeping role excellently. So i reckon if the balance of the SRI team in test could have allowed Sanga to bat @ # 5 (instead of needing him to bat @ # 3) like Andy Flower did for ZIM in the 1990s/early 2000s with great success - Sangakkara could have easily replicated his batting form in that position.
Last edited:
