Best 3rd down Test batsman of all time

[Howe_zat]

Prince I've started using your point when discussing ESPN's AT XI with a mate, i.e. assume they a playing a Martian XI. A team from another planet.

So you have to put your overall best team. That means there is an occasion where Bradman will fail, or you'll need to rely on your fourth bowler because Marshall and Lillee have copped a pounding.

I gather this, but the Gilchrist/Knott debate isn't usually to do with the opposition, it's the old argument of whether to have the better batsman or the better 'keeper.

So, yeah, there could be days when Bradman, Sobers et. al get out and you need Gilly for a last-ditch 7th-wicket partnership. And there could be days when you really need wickets off a flat deck and getting Knott to work with Warne and Barnes is your best bet.

I personally make it a rule not to compile this sort of thing, so if you think Gilly is more often a better pick than Knott, go ahead. But raising the standard of the hypothetical opposition doesn't mean you need to pick a better batsman over the better keeper, I don't follow that logic.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Ian Chappell was on the radio the other day here discussing just that WRT ESPN's all time XI.

He made the point with the keeper, as an example, that he'd have Knott there and not Gilchrist, simply because "when you've got a bloke called Bradman at number three, runs are not your concern. But if you're captain you've got to explain to a Dennis Lillee or a Tiger O'Reilly why the keeper just dropped a catch, and when you say he's there for his batting, it won't go over too well with them".

Wouldn't have a problem with that sort of thing,the fact that Gilly was a good gloveman anyway was a massive bonus.Obviously not in the class of a Knott or Taylor but not many have been,you could argue that his complete package of runs and good glove skills could just get him the nod.Would all depend on the make up of your team i guess.

 

[Jono]

so if you think Gilly is more often a better pick than Knott, go ahead. But raising the standard of the hypothetical opposition doesn't mean you need to pick a better batsman over the better keeper, I don't follow that logic.

Agree. But Ian Chappell saying you don't need batsmen at 7 when you have Bradman is stupid. If Chappell said that Knott's keeping was more valuable than Gilchrist's batting, than that's a different point.

 

[Teja.]

Agree. But Ian Chappell saying you don't need batsmen at 7 when you have Bradman is stupid. if Bradman said that Knott's keeping was more valuable than Gilchrist's batting, than that's a different point.

You quoted the wrong person, Jono.

IMHO, Picking Knott over Gilchrist is not very smart.

 

[Jono]

Whoops, fixed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree. But Ian Chappell saying you don't need batsmen at 7 when you have Bradman is stupid. If Chappell said that Knott's keeping was more valuable than Gilchrist's batting, than that's a different point.

Yep AWTA totally.

I have no problem with people picking Knott over Gilchrist as long as they don't use the dire logic Chappell did.

 

[Teja.]

Yep AWTA totally.

I have no problem with people picking Knott over Gilchrist as long as they don't use the dire logic Chappell did.

Chappell's cricketing philosophy is dire tbh.

 

[Jono]

In answer to the poll, as much as I love Laxman, what justification can anyone give for not answering Steve Waugh?

He played the most games in the position, scored the most runs, hit the most centuries and almost had the highest average.

And we all know how many clutch knocks he hit.

Surely it's Waugh hands down.

WAG.

 

[Jarquis]

So Kallis is the best #4 ever? Yeah?

 

[bagapath]

I don't have any problem with him valuing wicket keeping highly, but that wasn't entirely his point. His point about the strength the batting and bowling annoys me because strength is relative to the unknown opposition.

no dude. had chappell felt that gilchrist and knott were equals in terms of wicket keeping ability then he would have chosen gilly, too. it is simply that, in his opinion, knott was so far ahead as a wicket keeper that the extra runs gilchrist would make don't mean much to him, especially with a top 6 like the one they have selected.

a similar logic has been applied in selecting akram over imran or hadlee where most of judges have gone with the opinion that the variety akram would bring in with his left arm pace bowling is more valuable than the extra runs imran or hadlee would score while providing similar quality of bowling.

it is clear that chappell believes knott to be the superior keeper of the two and he is just underlining it by saying the few runs the team would lose by not selecting gilly wont matter compared to what you gain in knott's keeping. you should just argue whether knott was that far ahead of gilly or not as a keeper; because no one, chappell included, wants to deliberately choose a weaker batsman.

 

[Jono]

What do you mean especially with that top 6?

You're missing Prince's point. His point is you can't choose an all-time world XI assuming they'll be playing an inferior team.

The All-Time Great Mars XI will have their own Malcolm Marshall-esque and Shane Warne-esque bowlers, who may dismiss Hutton, Hobbs and Bradman early. They'll also have a Bradman-esque batsman who demolishes Imran, Lillee etc. etc.

Every run will count.

If he said "Knott will be more valuable as a keeper to the team than Gilly's runs" then fine. But he didn't. He said "Gilly's runs won't matter considering we have Bradman" as if Bradman is guaranteed to not go out because he'll be smashing the players he always smashed. He won't, he'll be having to face this opening bowler:

Bowls a mean outswinger ftr.

 

[bagapath]

we have the right man to deal with him

 

[Prince EWS]

no dude. had chappell felt that gilchrist and knott were equals in terms of wicket keeping ability then he would have chosen gilly, too. it is simply that, in his opinion, knott was so far ahead as a wicket keeper that the extra runs gilchrist would make don't mean much to him, especially with a top 6 like the one they have selected.

 

[Prince EWS]

What do you mean especially with that top 6?

You're missing Prince's point. His point is you can't choose an all-time world XI assuming they'll be playing an inferior team.

The All-Time Great Mars XI will have their own Malcolm Marshall-esque and Shane Warne-esque bowlers, who may dismiss Hutton, Hobbs and Bradman early. They'll also have a Bradman-esque batsman who demolishes Imran, Lillee etc. etc.

Every run will count.

If he said "Knott will be more valuable as a keeper to the team than Gilly's runs" then fine. But he didn't. He said "Gilly's runs won't matter considering we have Bradman" as if Bradman is guaranteed to not go out because he'll be smashing the players he always smashed. He won't, he'll be having to face this opening bowler:

Bowls a mean outswinger ftr.

 

[Ikki]

TBH, I think the point that Knott is less likely to drop a catch is exaggerated. I'd say the difference between Gilchrist and someone like Knott is negligible. Although I am not sure how one would gauge that difference other than pure subjective analysis?

Even as flawed measures you could look at catches and stumpings made by the two.

Gilchrist: 379 catches and 37 stumpings in 191 innings.
Knott: 250 catches and 19 stumpings in 174 innings.

Can you put that large difference down to the bowlers - although IIRC Knott played with some excellent bowlers?

 

[bagapath]

come on man..... you cant highlight that line and bang your head... does chappell think knott and gilly are equal as keepers? no! he makes it very clear that he believes knott is the better technician behind the wickets. so, he is willing to trade off the additional few runs from gilly's bat for knott's superior skills. that is the clincher.

 

[Spark]

No, that's not the logic Chappell used at all...

Read Jono's post.

 

[bagapath]

No, that's not the logic Chappell used at all...

Read Jono's post.

dude... i saw chappell's interview!

 

[Prince EWS]

come on man..... you cant highlight that line and bang your head... does chappell think knott and gilly are equal as keepers? no! he makes it very clear that he believes knott is the better technician behind the wickets. so, he is willing to trade off the additional few runs from gilly's bat for knott's superior skills. that is the clincher.

I have no problem with that. The problem I have is with the assertion that he can do that because the batting lineup is supposedly so good - that just assumes that the opposition will be weaker. It's something that really annoys me when people pick all-time teams.

 

[bagapath]

with hobbs, hutton, tendulkar, richards and sobers making it to the top six, very few teams can hope to match them. in addition to them bradman is batting at no.3, which means no team can even dream of matching them. so it makes sense to go for the best keeper and the best bowling combination possible for the rest of the line up and not worry about the batting any more. in chappell's books knott is the best keeper. so he is choosing him. sound cricketing logic, if you ask me.

i dont think gilly is that far behind knott, or anyone else, as a keeper. so i back his selection in the team. but that doesnt make ian chappell's opinion idiotic.