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

[Richard]

It must be tough being a pioneer of brilliant thought.

Pioneer of deliberately stupid patronising statements to match stupid patronising statements more like TBH.

 

[Richard]

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.

As I say, the fact that I wasn't born close to his career doesn't matter, you can read about stuff that happened before you watched.

Marsh's batting undoubtedly played a part in his being picked, I've honestly never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

 

[Richard]

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?

Eh? What's the SA Motera game got to do with anything?

It was clearly stated by the chairman of the VCA in 2004/05 that he was deliberately attempting to sabotage India's prospects, to order the preparation of a pitch that helped Australia. He did not get on with Jagmohan Dalmiya and decided that an appropriate thing to do was to try to lose India a Test because of this. And he succeeded.

His exact words: "I have had no instruction from the BCCI. Even if I do, I'm not going to oblige them."

There was no such statement from anyone (groundsman or local association chairman) in the series against SA in 2007/08, they were just trying to ensure a result after the farce of the opening Test. In 2004/05, however, the pitch was prepared deliberately to suit Australia.

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

OK, so Gilchrist faced situations in 2003/04, 2004 and 2004/05 that he'd never faced before?

No, he didn't. He'd had all of this before, and the result was an average of 59. Now, it resulted in an average of 28. Why? Because Gilchrist wasn't as good as he had once been. He briefly managed to recollect his old self against NZ and Pakistan, but it was never going to last, and from 2005 onwards he was back to things being exactly the same as in 2003/04, 2004 and early 2004/05. He wasn't as good as he had been, and he'd been worked-out to no little degree as well.

 

[Precambrian]

Almost all the series against India, Gilly struggled. I don't know whether it has to do with spin or some other stuff. No wonder, India managed to hold Aus off to some degree.

But Gilly's big slump definitely started during Ashes. He was quite never the same force he used to be with the bat,

However with the gloves, as reliable as ever.

 

[Top_Cat]

Almost all the series against India, Gilly struggled. I don't know whether it has to do with spin or some other stuff. No wonder, India managed to hold Aus off to some degree.

Did belt a couple of early hundreds in both away series he played and copped a couple of rough decisions in 2001. But, truth is, he wasn't too far away from getting out anyway and definitely a better player of pace than spin. On his day, though, he could make any spinner look like a part-timer, even on spinning decks. Just needed to get that start and he was generally alright.

 

[Burgey]

No, he didn't. He'd had all of this before, and the result was an average of 59. Now, it resulted in an average of 28. Why? Because Gilchrist wasn't as good as he had once been. He briefly managed to recollect his old self against NZ and Pakistan, but it was never going to last, and from 2005 onwards he was back to things being exactly the same as in 2003/04, 2004 and early 2004/05. He wasn't as good as he had been, and he'd been worked-out to no little degree as well.

I'm reading Gilchrist's book ATM and he acknowledges he had a different mindset by that stage of his career, and that by then he wasn't performing as well. I think he sums it up as saying "By that time [around the 2003-04 series v India at home] I wasn't setting records any more, I was defending my record" or some such thing.

OT as well, the crap written in those articles in the papers which had extracts from his book took pplenty of them out of context (hardly surprising I know).

 

[Precambrian]

Did belt a couple of early hundreds in both away series he played and copped a couple of rough decisions in 2001. But, truth is, he wasn't too far away from getting out anyway and definitely a better player of pace than spin. On his day, though, he could make any spinner look like a part-timer, even on spinning decks. Just needed to get that start and he was generally alright.

But the fact remains despite that his both home and away record against India is significantly worse than his overall figures.

 

[Richard]

Only in 2000/01.

From 2003/04 onwards he also failed against most other teams, he only scored anything much against Pakistan and New Zealand.

 

[Precambrian]

Only in 2000/01.

From 2003/04 onwards he also failed against most other teams, he only scored anything much against Pakistan and New Zealand.

No, only from 2005, his form weakened. T

 

[Richard]

It weakened in 2003/04. As I've said several times this thread.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As I say, the fact that I wasn't born close to his career doesn't matter, you can read about stuff that happened before you watched.

Marsh's batting undoubtedly played a part in his being picked, I've honestly never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

So you don't think he was picked because he was a fantastic keeper...his batting helped? He would have been in batting or otherwise as he was by far and away the best keeper we had at that stage I think.

You can read stuff, but whether or not it's completely accurate is up for speculation.

 

[Ikki]

But the fact remains despite that his both home and away record against India is significantly worse than his overall figures.

LOL, cut your losses now mate. Come hell or high water; Richard is going to drill his head into the same wall.

 

[Precambrian]

It weakened in 2003/04. As I've said several times this thread.

Isnt true just because you've repeated it. The records speak for themselves. He had the ocassional bad series against India mostly, before the undeniable decline started post Ashes 05.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Brad Haddin is a talented player.He has been around for a long time..but didn't get much chances .He can definitely match Healy but will have to do a lot for that....and looking at his his age ..he doesn't have much time left to develop a big international career.
He also needs to do some more work on kis keeping......and i think he should bat higher in the batting order......

 

[quick4mindia]

Haddin is my pick over Healy any day as far as batting is concerned.

 

[Richard]

Isnt true just because you've repeated it. The records speak for themselves. He had the ocassional bad series against India mostly, before the undeniable decline started post Ashes 05.

He had one bad series against India in 2000/01, then several from 2003/04 onwards. From 2003/04 onwards, the only good series' he had were against New Zealand and Pakistan, within 5 months of each other. So doing poorly against India was part of a pattern, not an exception to the rule.

 

[Richard]

So you don't think he was picked because he was a fantastic keeper...his batting helped? He would have been in batting or otherwise as he was by far and away the best keeper we had at that stage I think.

You can read stuff, but whether or not it's completely accurate is up for speculation.

I'm sure he was a good wicketkeeper, but his batting was clearly above the norm for a wicketkeeper.

If there'd been someone else who could bat better and also keep wicket well, and Marsh's wicketkeeping was equal and his batting inferior to what it actually was, I don't doubt this someone would've played.

 

[Top_Cat]

But the fact remains despite that his both home and away record against India is significantly worse than his overall figures.

Not disputing that, just saying that when he was hitting them well (a la first Tests of 2001 and 2004) it really didn't matter who he was playing, he was going to score runs that day. Just that when not absolutely at the top of his game, India especially were all over him. Did get a couple of roughies in 2001 but as I said, probably wouldn't have lasted long the way he was playing either.

 

[Precambrian]

He had one bad series against India in 2000/01, then several from 2003/04 onwards. From 2003/04 onwards, the only good series' he had were against New Zealand and Pakistan, within 5 months of each other. So doing poorly against India was part of a pattern, not an exception to the rule.

Let's see the performances since India's tour of Australia - 2003/04

India in Australia - 03/04 - Avg. 16 - Poor, but he struggled against India

Aus in Sri Lanla - 03/04 - 40 (Not poor, esp in SL)

SL in Aus 04 - 28.2 - Poor (Even though he got an 80)

Aus in Ind 04 - 32 (Including a hundred) (again not poor, considering his India struggle)

NZ in Aus 04-05 - 88 (Excellent)

Pak in Aus 04-05 - 77 (Excellent)

Aus in NZ 05 - 177 (Excellent)

Ashes 05 -22

Since then it's downhill all the way. He failed to avg above 50 in any of the 7 series after that, barring Bangladesh. In fact, failed to avg above 40 in all but 2 series. So the decline started only after Ashes 05.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Let it go.