• 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.

Adam Gilchrist

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I agree - I've said this before that Gilchrist has a lot of limitations as a player and if you can hit the right length coming around the wicket to him, he will fail more often than not.

I'd be suprised if Zaheer doesn't go around the wicket to Gilchrist this summer,....especially since he showed he can swing the ball away from the leftie in England from around the wicket.
That should be over the wicket in Zaheer's case.
:laugh: A freudien slip by your standards, Salam!
 

tooextracool

International Coach
I think part of the problem might be that Gilchrist also likes anything angled into him that isn't a very good delivery. Martin bowled an excellent ball to dismiss him off the no ball, and then Gilchrist threw his wicket away when he eventually got out. It's also possible that some bowlers aren't comfortable coming around the wicket.
I think that is definetly the case with Kyle Mills who prefers bowling over the wicket and getting the ball to swing into the pads. But i fear too many bowlers simply dont try to bowl around the wicket to Gilchrist even when the ball isnt swinging and they are getting the daylights beat out of them.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
only reason to go around the wicket to a left hander is to angle it in and swing it away.

If you go around the wicket and dont swing it, you negate your natural advantage of the angle across him, so you're unlikely to get an edge.
I do not think too many quality batsmen are going to struggle by angling the ball away from them. IMO, they have been playing those sorts of deliveries since they were knee high probably. Langer and Jayasuriya are two other players that love the width that they get from over the wicket and have struggled a bit when bowlers have cut that down by going around the wicket. Another player who had some issues with that was Gary Kirsten. You dont really need to swing it away, sometimes its just best to stifle them by not giving them scoring opportunities. The majority of left handers thrive on cuts and cover drives and if you can go around the wicket and angle it into them to negate their main scoring opportunities, they usually struggle.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
It's worked fairly well against him, true (especially if you're an English fast bowler) but there have also been a bunch of times it hasn't worked and he's mercilessly used the angle coming back into him. It seems to depend on the team/bowler too; Chaminda Vaas, prima facie, would be a bowler you'd ordinarily expect to trouble him but Gilchrist generally belts the daylights out of SL. So I guess the trick is, unless you're Freddie Flintoff, to use the tactic only often enough so that he doesn't get used to it. :D
Unfortunately, I do not think Chaminda Vaas has the pace to work players out in international cricket. Nor really has Chaminda successfully managed to constantly swing the ball outside of the subcontinent. I feel Zaheer Khan might have a better opportunity, though as has been said, those who possess a potent inswinger(or outswinger to the left hander), Shane Bond, Flintoff, Nel, are most likely to trouble him if they hit the right lengths. I think pitching the ball up to Gilchrist is a recipe for disaster, so its also necessary that you hit the perfect length just short of a good length outside the off stump.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
You need some pace behind the ball as well. Vaas' pededstrain pace is not the answer. We can see the results very well if a bowler like Shane Bond decides to use it. I am waiting to see Dale Steyn vs Gilchrist battle. Akthar has done it in the past and got Gilchrist with searing yorkers round the wicket.
Tbh i dont really think that the Yorkers are the answer against Gilchrist. Hes a very good player of the full ball.
 

Julian87

State Captain
Yeah this has puzzled me for a few years now. Gilchrist was found out in this fashion a few years back in the CUB series when Sri Lanka and England were the opponents. Vaas and Mullally troubled him angling it in and then the likes of Darren Gough started going around the wicket and troubling him as well.

It has been obvious since then that that is how right handers should bowl to Gilchrist.
 

bond21

Banned
I do not think too many quality batsmen are going to struggle by angling the ball away from them. IMO, they have been playing those sorts of deliveries since they were knee high probably. Langer and Jayasuriya are two other players that love the width that they get from over the wicket and have struggled a bit when bowlers have cut that down by going around the wicket. Another player who had some issues with that was Gary Kirsten. You dont really need to swing it away, sometimes its just best to stifle them by not giving them scoring opportunities. The majority of left handers thrive on cuts and cover drives and if you can go around the wicket and angle it into them to negate their main scoring opportunities, they usually struggle.
going around the wicket to a left hander if you're not swinging it is basically stupid.

Its a lot easier to stray onto the pads from around the wicket, and you would have negated your only advantage which was the natural angle away.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
I agree - I've said this before that Gilchrist has a lot of limitations as a player and if you can hit the right length coming around the wicket to him, he will fail more often than not.

I'd be suprised if Zaheer doesn't go around the wicket to Gilchrist this summer,....especially since he showed he can swing the ball away from the leftie in England from around the wicket.
If you can hit the right length to any player they'll fail more often than not. I think you have to be a very good bowler to exploit Gilchrist's weaknesses usually. I'm not sure I'd agree that he 'has a lot of limitations', unless a massive percentage of current bowlers are crap and simply can't exploit them. He has some limitations, as do all batsmen...otherwise you'd never get them out.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
going around the wicket to a left hander if you're not swinging it is basically stupid.

Its a lot easier to stray onto the pads from around the wicket, and you would have negated your only advantage which was the natural angle away.
I don't swing it and I love going around the wicket to left handers (or 'bunnies' as they're otherwise known :happy: ). You see all the stumps and you can basically bowl straight down the wicket from where you hit the crease. I do seam it away from the left hander though, so that kind of helps.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
going around the wicket to a left hander if you're not swinging it is basically stupid.

Its a lot easier to stray onto the pads from around the wicket, and you would have negated your only advantage which was the natural angle away.
You do realise that going around the wicket to a left hander is almost equivalent in terms of angle and direction as going over the wicket to a right hander dont you? If going around the wicket makes it easier to stray onto a left hander's pads then it should be the same thing when you bowl over the wicket to a right hander. Which would negate the point of any right hand bowler bowling over the wicket to right handers because they dont have the 'angle' to work with.

I think there is very limited margin for error when going over the wicket to a left hander and the ball is not swinging. Anything pitched on middle-leg stump will be flicked onto the leg side and anything marginally outside of off stump, going wider, makes it very easy to play the cut or the cover drive depending on the length. Meanwhile, bowling from around gives you the option of bowling on off stump or just outside. I am not sure if you are a batsman or not, but I have always found that it is significantly, and i mean significantly, easier to cut a ball going away from you then it is to cut a ball from around the wicket pitched on the same spot but directed into you. Its what results in inside edges because batsmen are cramped for room.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
If you can hit the right length to any player they'll fail more often than not. I think you have to be a very good bowler to exploit Gilchrist's weaknesses usually. I'm not sure I'd agree that he 'has a lot of limitations', unless a massive percentage of current bowlers are crap and simply can't exploit them. He has some limitations, as do all batsmen...otherwise you'd never get them out.
I do not think that 'hitting the right length' will terminate almost any player timeline at the crease. If that were the case, line and length merchants like Mark Ealham and Chaminda Vaas would be able to work many batsmen out. The problem i have with Gilchrist at the moment is that bowlers seem to bowl to his strengths rather than his weaknesses. It is the same case with any Strauss innings pre-2005 which resulted in a gluttonous spell for him in international cricket. I think every away swing bowler with some pace and accuracy behind him will be good enough for Gilchrist and anyone else who can bowl accurately will significantly stifle his scoring. In fact i know so, because the Gilchrist post Ashes 2005 has been accumulating runs at a lower average per series than the one before then which suggests that bowlers are starting to figure it out in test match cricket.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Gilchrist does not have may limitations to be exploited. That is the main problem. He may not be the best starting agisnt spin, but that option is not the most likable one for catains in ODIs.

He has a problem with the pull, becuse he can pull balls that are too full to pull for a ordinary player, some times misreads the length or the pace. I've seen Zaheer Khan and Harmison getting him with short of length balls.

If you have a very good spinner, like Murali or Harbhajan, captains should take the gable of opening with a spinner against Hayden and Gilcghist, both of who are bit laid back against quality spin.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Has always baffled me that more people haven't used the around-the-wicket ploy to Gilchrist, more than most left-handers. It's not even as if it's a new thing that he has problems with it - Darren Gough was bowling around-the-wicket and having great success (along with the left-arm-over of Alan Mullally) back in 1998\99, and Gough never bowled round-the-wicket at anyone else.
Yeah this has puzzled me for a few years now. Gilchrist was found out in this fashion a few years back in the CUB series when Sri Lanka and England were the opponents. Vaas and Mullally troubled him angling it in and then the likes of Darren Gough started going around the wicket and troubling him as well.

It has been obvious since then that that is how right handers should bowl to Gilchrist.
Ahem... royalties please.
 

bond21

Banned
You do realise that going around the wicket to a left hander is almost equivalent in terms of angle and direction as going over the wicket to a right hander dont you? If going around the wicket makes it easier to stray onto a left hander's pads then it should be the same thing when you bowl over the wicket to a right hander. Which would negate the point of any right hand bowler bowling over the wicket to right handers because they dont have the 'angle' to work with.

I think there is very limited margin for error when going over the wicket to a left hander and the ball is not swinging. Anything pitched on middle-leg stump will be flicked onto the leg side and anything marginally outside of off stump, going wider, makes it very easy to play the cut or the cover drive depending on the length. Meanwhile, bowling from around gives you the option of bowling on off stump or just outside. I am not sure if you are a batsman or not, but I have always found that it is significantly, and i mean significantly, easier to cut a ball going away from you then it is to cut a ball from around the wicket pitched on the same spot but directed into you. Its what results in inside edges because batsmen are cramped for room.

Absolutely untrue.

If you go close to the stumps from over the wicket, you are basically bowling off stump to off stump.

If you go around the wicket close to the stumps, your bowling arm is nowhere near the stumps.

Also Im not talking about bowlers going wide of the crease and hitting off stump line so it goes way wide of off stump, if I were you would be correct as that is easy.

The ball shouldnt be away from the body to a left hander, McGrath does this the best. He goes in close to the stumps and just has the slightest angle so when it pitches on around middle stump it moves slightly away which gets the edge. And if the ball seams the batsman will probably fish at it if you've been bowling at him previously.

But maybe you are better around the wicket, im just saying generally. A lot of coaches tell you you should be bowling over the wicket nearly all the time especially to a right hander as it gives you the best chance of a wicket. Going around to a left hander seems the same, but it is not because if you pitch it straighter, like going over to a right hander, it will go down leg side because your bowling arm is further away from the stumps.
 

Top