Do you think Brad Haddin will be as a good a Test batsman as Ian Healy?

[Richard]

No, it begun in December 2003. The unwary might miss that though, as might those who blindly defend every Australian player to the hilt. Gilchrist was quite clearly not the same batsman in the year between December 2003 and November 2004 that he had been previously - he'd never had 13 games in a row that were anywhere near that bad before.

The next 8 games were merely a short-term washback against that, and from 2005 onwards the non-scoring started again.

 

[Ikki]

. Nonsense, we had this argument before and as i told you & i'm sure everyone else on CW & beyond who has seen Gilly's career, his decline as test batsman began in the 2005 Ashes & not a moment sooner.

Agreed. He didn't start looking fallible until the Ashes loss.

 

[Richard]

He did actually - for a batsman who was averaging 59, with rarely more than one or two low-scoring innings' at a time, a whole year, encompassing 13 Tests and 24 innings', of averaging 28 (and this time featured 3 notable knocks in 22 innings', which shows his struggles far more starkly) is one massive comedown. It was pretty obvious to me that he'd been worked-out to some degree in that time, and even though NZ and Pak weren't good enough to keep-up the trend, pretty much everyone else from 2005 onwards was.

Gilchrist, of course, was still good enough in the time in question to play the odd sensational innings, but his previous astonishing consistency ended with the 2003 series in West Indies.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry Richie, just can't agree with you at all. Whilst he wasn't the same as his first few years, in between 03 and 05 he was averaging 47, and frankly, having watched him in that time he didn't look off-form at all. It would have been impossible to have kept that level of scoring up. From about Ashes beyond is when he really started to drop off from what he was initially recognised as. You simply aren't going to change most minds about this fact.

 

[Richard]

Oh, for sure, but that just makes most minds wrong. Gilchrist was poor Dec03 to Nov04, briefly recaptured his former glory Nov04 to Mar05, and then returned to relatively poor performance Jul05 onwards.

It's all very well to say "he couldn't average 59 forever" - well, he did it for 43 Tests. That's almost half his career. Once you do that, that makes a time when you average 28 one hell of a comedown. You set your own standards, you live and die by them.

 

[Top_Cat]

To be honest, I saw the decline in Gilchrist's game before 2005 myself. That series just laid it bare. He was good enough to keep his numbers in the black but I saw changes in the way he played and figured it was just form-related.

 

[Ikki]

Oh, for sure, but that just makes most minds wrong. Gilchrist was poor Dec03 to Nov04, briefly recaptured his former glory Nov04 to Mar05, and then returned to relatively poor performance Jul05 onwards.

So once again, a player stops being good in one short period and then good again in the consequent period on your say-so. LOL

It's all very well to say "he couldn't average 59 forever" - well, he did it for 43 Tests. That's almost half his career. Once you do that, that makes a time when you average 28 one hell of a comedown. You set your own standards, you live and die by them.

No, that's not the point. The point is he was bound to have a couple poor series after pretty much bludgeoning all sides in his first 40 or so tests. To see a player drop a gear after such a fantastic start is not unusual. I consider it expected. Indeed, watching him smash NZ for 162 down under I had no such doubts as you did that he was past it. It was only after the Ashes that I view the start of his demise - with the help of hindsight.

To be honest, I saw the decline in Gilchrist's game before 2005 myself. That series just laid it bare. He was good enough to keep his numbers in the black but I saw changes in the way he played and figured it was just form-related.

Well, that's strange TC. I don't think doubt even registered for me before that series. I saw his eventual downturn in form as an inevitability. Someone striking the ball so cleanly was unreal. Had he continued he'd have had a case for being one of the top few batsmen of all-time IMO. (For me, he is one of them, but I mean in the general consensus).

 

[Richard]

So once again, a player stops being good in one short period and then good again in the consequent period on your say-so. LOL

No, not on my say-so, on what happened.

No, that's not the point. The point is he was bound to have a couple poor series after pretty much bludgeoning all sides in his first 40 or so tests. To see a player drop a gear after such a fantastic start is not unusual. I consider it expected. Indeed, watching him smash NZ for 162 down under I had no such doubts as you did that he was past it. It was only after the Ashes that I view the start of his demise - with the help of hindsight.

I'd say it was, while not inevitable, quite possible, that he'd have a downright poor spell - of equal length - after his surreal good spell. And so he did. It wasn't like he entered Test cricket as a youngster - he'd been playing for a long while and if he was going to have an average of 60 long-term he'd have done one hell of a lot better domestically than he actually did - IIRR his average for WA was little more than mid-40s. Perfectly good, but not the sort of thing that screams one of the best Test batsmen in history in the making.

So I'd say his decline of 2003/04 onwards was something I was expecting, rather as everyone keeps expecting it with Michael Hussey. Those 8 Tests in 2004/05 didn't stop me expecting it.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry. If you are going to talk about a decline, at least put it into two parts where from 03-05 (35 tests) he wasn't as good but still averaging a healthy 47 and from 05 to the end where he was averagng 31 (22 tests) he was overstaying his welcome. But to say he should have retired in 03 is laughable. Uptil Nov 2005 he was averaging 52.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, that's strange TC. I don't think doubt even registered for me before that series. I saw his eventual downturn in form as an inevitability. Someone striking the ball so cleanly was unreal. Had he continued he'd have had a case for being one of the top few batsmen of all-time IMO. (For me, he is one of them, but I mean in the general consensus).

Oh yeah, it didn't really register with me at the time, either. I just thought about it after 2005. I do remember Richie Benaud saying in commentary that there were really two Adam Gilchrists; the short-arm version and the free-flowing one. You can see the transition from one to the other in footage of his 152 in England 2001 where he went from playing correct shots to a one-man wrecking ball as every ball he faced just about landed over the fence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm92dfbyVj8

As time went on, he would just take longer to move from one to other which, obviously, lessens the number of occasions where he actually gets there. For me, after he scored that awesome ton in Sydney in 2003 against England, that's where it started.

 

[Richard]

Sorry. If you are going to talk about a decline, at least put it into two parts where from 03-05 (35 tests) he wasn't as good but still averaging a healthy 47 and from 05 to the end where he was averagng 31 (22 tests) he was overstaying his welcome. But to say he should have retired in 03 is laughable. Uptil Nov 2005 he was averaging 52.

I never said "he should have retired in 2003", if you actually read the post. I said "What really drags Gilchrist's average down is that he didn't retire after the West Indies tour of 2003". A couple of things: 1, there was no reason to presume his decline would start the following season, if you're aged 31 with 43 Tests behind you you'd assume you'd be able to keep-up the sort of scoring you've been doing if those 43 Tests have all followed the same pattern; 2, even with his decline as of that point he was almost certainly still the best man for the wicketkeeper-batsman's job. Brad Haddin could perfectly possibly have done better than him, but equally he could have not done. Even throughout most of the time 2003/04-2007/08, I'd not describe him as outstaying his welcome at all - he still struck fear into opposition bowlers, for he still played the odd sensational innings, even though these innings were pretty few and far between (apart from those 8 Tests in 2004/05). To suggest that Haddin would have done better is a guess and no more than that.

Gilchrist had 13 poor games starting from December 2003, had 8 good ones between November 2004 and March 2005, and then another 25 poor ones from July 2005 to the end of his career. That's 37 poor games out of 45. However, as I say above, in spite of this the first time I'd have said I'd have maybe countenanced retiring from Tests had I been him was the end of the 2006/07 home summer, and that was purely because it'd have been wonderful to see him exit alongside Langer, McGrath and Warne. Because even in this time he was mostly poor (his average excluding those 8 games was 27) he still played 4 sensational innings'. Normally, 4 sensational innings' in 37 games and not all that much besides wouldn't be much, but Gilchrist was and remained special, because the threat was always there, and bowlers knew the threat was always there. He was almost worth his place ahead of another batsman, even one like Haddin who might well have performed better, purely because of that.

 

[Ikki]

I said that what drags his record down a lot are his performances against India. You said that continuing to play from 2003 is what did it. Then I showed you from 03 to 05 his average was perfectly fine and it didn't kill his average at all. It would have been 52 with 80 odd tests played. That is probably when he should have retired.

To mention that his average started faltering from 03 beyond is not my concern. Averages are bound to falter. But when they falter to the extent where that player is clearly not the same and SHOULD retire...that is the point where you could say "from x point on he should have retired as it dragged his average down".

 

[Richard]

Occasionally, you get players whose worth in the team extends beyond their mere run-scoring. Gilchrist was one such player. Even though someone else might be able to perform better, Gilchrist's retention in the team (through his own choice and the selectors') had merit because his presence brought more than just his own performance - the mere threat of his performance was considerable, even if you knew the likelihood of it actually happening was pretty slim.

In any case, there is absolutely no way Gilchrist was ever going to retire either pre-Ashes 2005 or at any time in the next summer. He was never going to leave before 2006/07, especially after Australia lost in 2005.

And yes, continuing to play after 2003 did drag his record down, there's absolutely no disputing that. His average dropped like a stone starting from the 2003/04 home summer, having virtually never done such a thing before, at least for more than a couple of innings' at a time. However, as I say, whether a player would do best to look at retirement is not purely about how to get his highest average but what he offers to the team. Most players would need to still be averaging, say, 40-odd to justify staying in the side, which Gilchrist from 2003/04 onwards didn't. But Gilchrist (in addition to being a wicketkeeper) also offered something quite out of the ordinary, which meant that even if Brad Haddin could have outperformed him for most of the time from 2003/04 onwards (which is perfectly conceivable) Haddin would not neccessarily have been the better option.

 

[aussie]

No, it begun in December 2003. The unwary might miss that though, as might those who blindly defend every Australian player to the hilt. Gilchrist was quite clearly not the same batsman in the year between December 2003 and November 2004 that he had been previously - he'd never had 13 games in a row that were anywhere near that bad before.

The next 8 games were merely a short-term washback against that, and from 2005 onwards the non-scoring started again.

Ignorance. This is simply one of your dull statistical arguments where you have found an run scoring standard not up to your criteria and now you want to foolishly ridicule Gilly's record on it without possibly even watching those test matches.

Come on man, based on your this foolish judging of stats arguments Gilchrist so called "form slump" before the should have begun in the Gabba test in 03. But somehow you chose to start it from the MCG test for some reason.

Look son, end this crap Gilchrist showed no form slump nor was exposed technically between IND 03 to NZ 05. Him ham averaging big in India/SRI 04 is simply because he was an average player of spin throughout his career & he played in those conditions how Gilchrist plays i.e he either attacks & scores big or not much at all.

Again, Gilchrist's form slump or technical exposure began in the 2005 Ashes, not a moment sooner.

 

[Richard]

Ignorance. This is simply one of your dull statistical arguments where you have found an run scoring standard not up to your criteria and now you want to foolishly ridicule Gilly's record on it without possibly even watching those test matches.

No, I've seen pretty well every dismissal in the year in question.

Come on man, based on your this foolish judging of stats arguments Gilchrist so called "form slump" before the should have begun in the Gabba test in 03. But somehow you chose to start it from the MCG test for some reason.

Eh? I've always said beginning at the Test at The 'Gabba in 2003/04, where on Earth did you get the idea of it being the game at The MCG?

Look son, end this crap Gilchrist showed no form slump nor was exposed technically between IND 03 to NZ 05. Him ham averaging big in India/SRI 04 is simply because he was an average player of spin throughout his career & he played in those conditions how Gilchrist plays i.e he either attacks & scores big or not much at all.

That's actually far more assumption-based than anything. Out of the 13 games against both opposition, 6 were in Australia, and 2 of the ones in India were played on pitches which offered precisely nothing to spin (the Nagpur game the pitch was obviously prepared deliberately to help Australia). So while Gilchrist was never the best against the turning ball, only 5 games could really be put down to that weakness in the 13-match run of poor scores. In other words, there's no way you can say he hadn't declined as a batsman at the time.

 

[aussie]

No, I've seen pretty well every dismissal in the year in question.

Ha, well then your judgement of this performaces then is worse than i thought.

Eh? I've always said beginning at the Test at The 'Gabba in 2003/04, where on Earth did you get the idea of it being the game at The MCG?

Oh yes, the Gabba test began in December. But either way its still a foolish criteria.

That's actually far more assumption-based than anything. Out of the 13 games against both opposition, 6 were in Australia, and 2 of the ones in India were played on pitches which offered precisely nothing to spin (the Nagpur game the pitch was obviously prepared deliberately to help Australia).

So while Gilchrist was never the best against the turning ball, only 5 games could really be put down to that weakness in the 13-match run of poor scores. In other words, there's no way you can say he hadn't declined as a batsman at the time.

My god where to start.

Firstly, Nagpur wasn't delberately prepared to help Australia yo. Thats crap. By that same reasoning you could say Ahmedabad earlier this year was "deliberately" set-up to help South Africa then?

I clearly have to go through every test innings between Gabba 03 to NZ O5 series to clear those cob webs in your brain. Since no one in there right mind could have watched Gilchrist then i found any fault:

Brisbane 03 - got to top ball from Zaheer on the second day when Conditions began very bowled friendly. Sings of form slump = 0.

Adelaide 03 - typical Gilchrist batting just didn't get a big score. Biggest memory of this test was him charging Kumble wildly in the second innings when he with a bit more circumspect batting (something that he never did really except for Chennai 04 or Fattullah 06) could have possibly given India close to 300 to chase. Sings of form slump = 0

MCG 03 - Think he came in early after that huge Ponting/Hayden partnership & didn't get hold of India, thats all really. Signs of form slump =0

SCG 03 - Remember Pathan bowling him with a superb yorker in the first innings & playing & getting out stump on a very tense last session then. Signs of form slump = 0

So whatever form slump you saw differently in that series would be fairly dumb.

SRI LANKA & INDIA 04

To make this short, as i said playing spin was Gilly's achillies heel & he basically hit & miss, but he played them to the best of his ability. Again no signs of form slumps.

SRI LANKA IN AUSTRALIA

Made a brilliant 80 on a very bowler friendly deck in the Darwin test, can't remember his other dismissals in the series. But as usual no signs of form slumps.

Then NZ & PAK were well smoked until Gilchrist came to England to face the beginning of his FIRST CAREER FORM SLUMP. Counter this

 

[Son Of Coco]

I obviously didn't watch Marsh's career as I wasn't born, but I've read plenty about him and know more than enough about him.

As I say, he's far from the only example - Wayne Phillips is an even more extreme one. He was certainly far from a natural or good wicketkeeper, yet he was given the gloves in Tests because the importance of the wicketkeeper being able to bat was realised, even back then.

I don't think the likes of Hartley and Crosthwaite are any better than most wicketkeeper-batsmen you'd see around domestic scenes in the 1980s. Even people like Alec Stewart, Brad Haddin and (later in his career) Ian Healy aren't players you're going to have every day.

Mostly the best you can expect is someone like Mark Boucher, Ridley Jacobs or Prasanna Jayawardene. And these are international wicketkeeper-batsmen. The best their country has.

Gilchrists certainly are going to occur no more than once every few generations, on average.

There you go again...he's not an example at all and the fact you didn't see him play and weren't born even close to his career has you making silly statements again. He was picked because he was an outstanding keeper...that's all there was to it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh, for sure, but that just makes most minds wrong. Gilchrist was poor Dec03 to Nov04, briefly recaptured his former glory Nov04 to Mar05, and then returned to relatively poor performance Jul05 onwards.

It's all very well to say "he couldn't average 59 forever" - well, he did it for 43 Tests. That's almost half his career. Once you do that, that makes a time when you average 28 one hell of a comedown. You set your own standards, you live and die by them.

It must be tough being a pioneer of brilliant thought.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh yeah, it didn't really register with me at the time, either. I just thought about it after 2005. I do remember Richie Benaud saying in commentary that there were really two Adam Gilchrists; the short-arm version and the free-flowing one. You can see the transition from one to the other in footage of his 152 in England 2001 where he went from playing correct shots to a one-man wrecking ball as every ball he faced just about landed over the fence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm92dfbyVj8

As time went on, he would just take longer to move from one to other which, obviously, lessens the number of occasions where he actually gets there. For me, after he scored that awesome ton in Sydney in 2003 against England, that's where it started.

Great to see him spoon Caddick over the keeper for his hundred too...the icing on the cake!

 

[jondavluc]

As a batsman yes as a wicket keeper GOD NO!!!!.