Choose opening batsmen for all-time ODI XI

[neville cardus]

Point is, you could have graciousness and hard-hitting with Mark Waugh and Jayasuriya, too, and it'd probably be equally effective.

How on Earth is "graciousness" a quality which makes for a good opening batsman?

 

[neville cardus]

oh no...not another Hussain > Hayden argument. To suggest Nick Knight is/was > Gilchrist is itstl

Agreed.

 

[Anil]

I'd have to agree with Anil here, but in the end you have to look at overall balance of the team and with Gilchrist being the opener/keeper, this leaves alot of room to create the perfetly balanced team.

gilly has done a lot of damage to so many bowlers in the first 15 overs with field restrictions in place. he is the ideal one day opener for me. average above 35. strike rate above 90. lefty, complimenting the right handed sachin at the other end.

nothing will happen to the overall balance of the team with two exceptional openers and gilchrist in the middle, in fact i would argue that it would make such a team an even scarier proposition...and bagapath, i never said gilly hadn't done any damage as an opener, but there are so many other players with similar credentials who are so much more consistent...even if you need to necessarily have a left-right combination which i don't believe is as much of a requirement as the quality and the reliability of the players involved....

 

[Richard]

How on Earth is "graciousness" a quality which makes for a good opening batsman?

It's not, it's just a bonus. Effectiveness, clearly, is all that matters.

 

[Fiery]

Knight's simplistic career record is better than Gilchrist's FFS... this doesn't even remotely resemble the Hussain-Hayden case.

Hussain's record is better than Hayden's if you look beyond the obvious, but with Knight and Gilchrist you don't even need to do that!

Absolute crap post on many levels. The only thing Knight has over Gilchrist is a slightly better average. Gilchrist's SR of 97 compared to Knight's 71 more than makes up for that, not to mention 10 more centuries and nearly 6000 more runs. Take your blinkers off Rich

 

[Richard]

I couldn't care less if the strike-rate's a bit higher. The difference in average more than makes-up for that. And I care even less about the difference in runs and centuries, Gilchrist played nearly 3 times the number of matches.

It's the "the more dominant player must be the better" stuff coming-out again - but in fact Knight could and did play every single shot in the Gilchrist locker, too.

 

[Swervy]

How on Earth is "graciousness" a quality which makes for a good opening batsman?

does he mean 'gracefulness'...he sometimes has a problem with definitions within the usual boundaries of the English language!!!

 

[Swervy]

I couldn't care less if the strike-rate's a bit higher. The difference in average more than makes-up for that.

a bit higher...quite a lot higher in fact

 

[Jamee999]

On average, Knight scores 4 more runs in 20 more balls, I think.

 

[Days of Grace]

Richard is still living in the 1970s. When a score of 180/2 after 60 overs was very acceptable. We are now in the 21st century lad. A score of 300/9 is very good these days.

Pull your barkin' 'ed in there lad.

 

[Richard]

Err, what? Knight and Gilchrist were exact contemporaries, the 1970s has no relevance to either's careers.

 

[Fiery]

Err, what? Knight and Gilchrist were exact contemoraries, the 1970s has no relevance to either's careers.

I think that's the point he's trying to make

 

[Days of Grace]

I'm trying to say that your mindset seems to be that of a 1970s Boycott-type batsman.

Tell me, what is more beneficial for a team (in terms of an opening batsman starting the innings off): 60 off 65 balls (Gilchrist), or 70 off 100 balls (Knight)???

 

[adharcric]

I couldn't care less if the strike-rate's a bit higher.

Don't you always say that economy rate is the most important thing for a bowler in one-day cricket?

 

[Richard]

Yes, and hence, if a bowler can bowl economically, a batsman's strike-rate will be lower.

 

[Richard]

I'm trying to say that your mindset seems to be that of a 1970s Boycott-type batsman.

Not really, SRs of those type of batsmen tended to be in the 50s. Anything over 70 is the stapletype for the modern era.

Tell me, what is more beneficial for a team (in terms of an opening batsman starting the innings off): 60 off 65 balls (Gilchrist), or 70 off 100 balls (Knight)???

Err, those offer absolutely no comparison to the situation in question. It's much more like 35 off 40 balls or 70 off 95, and if so I'd take the latter, no question.

 

[Perm]

Err, those offer absolutely no comparison to the situation in question. It's much more like 35 off 40 balls or 70 off 95, and if so I'd take the latter, no question.

If we're talking from a purely numerical point of view then Nick Knight isn't going to score twice as many runs as Gilchrist, on average.

 

[Richard]

No, of course not. But averages don't work that way. Knight played more large innings than Gilchrist. Gilchrist played more cameos than Knight.

Gilchrist also played one hell of a lot more games, too, and also didn't have to open on seam-friendly wickets especially often.

 

[neville cardus]

does he mean 'gracefulness'...he sometimes has a problem with definitions within the usual boundaries of the English language!!!

That must be it. He evidently doesn't know the difference, though.

 

[Raghav]

Mark Waugh and Saeed Anwar