• 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.

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

Do you think Brad Haddin will be a better Test batsman than Ian Healy? Post a Poll


  • Total voters
    66

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
they didn't call him 'iron gloves' for nothing, but he did improve, that's the beauty of the sport, now only if timmy z was given the same chance, but i think his mouth and knocking off someone elses missus went against him
As was pointed out before, he was called 'Irongloves' because of a nervous first test not because he wasn't a good keeper. He proved this firstly to get into the team, and then by being pretty brilliant afterwards. Marsh was a better keeper than Zoehrer.
 

luffy

International Captain
Once Brad Haddin gets used to batting under the test match pressure, he will be a very good batter, I believe.

Not the same wavelength of Gilchrist, but still very good.

His record playing for NSW is very positive and he for sure has the ability to be not only a geat keeper, but a very good batter.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
As was pointed out before, he was called 'Irongloves' because of a nervous first test not because he wasn't a good keeper. He proved this firstly to get into the team, and then by being pretty brilliant afterwards. Marsh was a better keeper than Zoehrer.
neither of them were really tested keeping up much though, which makes it all the more freakish that gilchrist was so adept at it, being from WA i mean

and before you say anything yes i know gilly is from bellingen, but he started as a keeper at FC level in WA
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Once you don't have the belief that such a sabotage was the difference in Australia winning that series this mini debate can end.
It was important, there's no disputing that. Whether India would've won the series had they had better compliance is a different question and one that there's no way to know the answer to. But on the two occasions they got a turning pitch that series they dominated and were denied when the last day was washed-out and won respectively.
Please give your actual match proof of this by referring to a specific innings or instances where any bowler had the wood on Gilchrist then?.

If you can't you are just further solidifying my point this this is a STATS argument.
You know, scoring runs or not scoring runs - which is stats - is the job of a batsman.
How could it be nonsense, you have listed 3 series where bowlers bowled well times when overall they were poor & that disapproves the FACT that between PAK 99 to ZIM that generally he faced poor attacks on flat decks?. Please..
He faced poor attacks on flat decks often from 2001/02 onwards, like pretty much everyone. However, things weren't that much different in 2003/04, 2004 and 2004/05 either.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Once Brad Haddin gets used to batting under the test match pressure, he will be a very good batter, I believe.

Not the same wavelength of Gilchrist, but still very good.

His record playing for NSW is very positive and he for sure has the ability to be not only a geat keeper, but a very good batter.
I hope he hurries up, for his sake.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
neither of them were really tested keeping up much though, which makes it all the more freakish that gilchrist was so adept at it, being from WA i mean

and before you say anything yes i know gilly is from bellingen, but he started as a keeper at FC level in WA
Doesn't stop Marsh from being a great keeper though, you can only keep to what's in your team. Given Australia's spinning stocks at the time I reckon he'd have been pretty good up to the stumps :happy: It doesn't stop me being bewildered at the number of people who have broken out the 'they didn't call him Irongloves for nothing' call as if he couldn't keep either...it's only two, but you're grouped with Richard which is not good :sleep:
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah getting out to Jesse Ryder won't do him many favours.
To be fair to Haddin though, with that coming at you you'd be half thinking about whether he's going to be able to stop before crashing through you at the striker's end. Haddin was probably looking to take cover.
 

Precambrian

Banned
Even if that were the case, the players didn't make it out to be a massive as Richard is trying to make it out. I remember Dravid after day 1 of the test with in an interview saying how he would like to see more pitches like that in India.
What else the guy could say? India didn't have enough power in their pace battery to utilise the pitch, and Ganguly's 11-th hour absence from the match is still an unresolved mystery.

One thing's clear, majority of Indians (incl players) regarded the match as lost the moment they saw the pitch,
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
Doesn't stop Marsh from being a great keeper though, you can only keep to what's in your team. Given Australia's spinning stocks at the time I reckon he'd have been pretty good up to the stumps :happy: It doesn't stop me being bewildered at the number of people who have broken out the 'they didn't call him Irongloves for nothing' call as if he couldn't keep either...it's only two, but you're grouped with Richard which is not good :sleep:
cheers

but i didnt make up the nickname
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
Yeah getting out to Jesse Ryder won't do him many favours.
he surprises me, he waddles in and rips it down at the same speed at southee, rare talent that one, like unzud's mark cosgrove. imagine those two in a pie eating/beer drinking contest
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
It was important, there's no disputing that. Whether India would've won the series had they had better compliance is a different question and one that there's no way to know the answer to.
But on the two occasions they got a turning pitch that series they dominated and were denied when the last day was washed-out and won respectively.
India didn't dominate in Chennai, going into the last day Australia had brought the match back to 50/50. It would be naive for anyone to say what could have happend in Chennai on the final day, but given the way Australia had owned India's batting during that series i'd say Australia may have won on that final day.

They certainly didn't dominate in Mumbai, Australia were clearly in control of that test up until the 4th innings collapse.

You know, scoring runs or not scoring runs - which is stats - is the job of a batsman.
Ha, you know when you are losing an argument.

I asked you for ACTUAL MATCH PROOF OR SPECIFIC INNINGS WHERE ANY BOWLER HAD THE WOOD ON GILCHRIST THAT YOU SAWWWWWWWW, between IND 03 to IND 04 where his average was 28 that you claim that he was showing signs that he was in decline.

Not your dull interpredation of what STATS and how it is interpreted.

He faced poor attacks on flat decks often from 2001/02 onwards, like pretty much everyone.
Ok so does that change the fact vs PAK/IND 99/00, NZ 2000, WI 2000/01, IND & ENG 2001 (give or take a few matches when bowlers bowled well & conditions where helpul) that he GENERALLY played on flat pitches againts poor bowlers then.

However, things weren't that much different in 2003/04, 2004 and 2004/05 either.
Lord, you stubborn yo. One last time i shall go over this..

IND 03/04 pitches where flat yea (expect for a period @ the Gabba when Khan exploited the condtions), but as i clearly showed you a few pages back no time in that series DID GILCHRIST LOOK OUT OF FORM OR SHOW ANY SIGNS OF A FATEFUL CAREER SLUMP. Something which would be OBVIOUS if you actually watched that series, which you clearly didn't or this argument would not have existed.

IN SRI & IND 04, again he was poor player of spin & he played them to the best of his abilities.

Plus vs SRI in the Darwin test he faced the most seamer friendly pitch before the Ashes & scored a brilliant 80. So much for a man in CAREER FOR SLUMP 8-)
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
What else the guy could say? India didn't have enough power in their pace battery to utilise the pitch, and Ganguly's 11-th hour absence from the match is still an unresolved mystery.

One thing's clear, majority of Indians (incl players) regarded the match as lost the moment they saw the pitch,
Ok, but unlike Richard once you don't believe such a sabotage was the difference in Australia winning that series or not. We can move on from that topic.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
India didn't dominate in Chennai, going into the last day Australia had brought the match back to 50/50. It would be naive for anyone to say what could have happend in Chennai on the final day, but given the way Australia had owned India's batting during that series i'd say Australia may have won on that final day.

They certainly didn't dominate in Mumbai, Australia were clearly in control of that test up until the 4th innings collapse.
I know that, but India still won. They did dominate in Chennai, and were certainly the more likely victors had the game been finished, there's no way it was 50\50.

Australia were clearly the better side in that series but that could perfectly possibly have been different had there been more cooperation between those at the VCA and the BCCI. On the other hand, it might not. No-one is saying Australia weren't the better side that series, but you'd be outright foolish to deny that such deliberate sabotage for one Test out of four had no impact on the series.
Ha, you know when you are losing an argument.

I asked you for ACTUAL MATCH PROOF OR SPECIFIC INNINGS WHERE ANY BOWLER HAD THE WOOD ON GILCHRIST THAT YOU SAWWWWWWWW, between IND 03 to IND 04 where his average was 28 that you claim that he was showing signs that he was in decline.

Not your dull interpredation of what STATS and how it is interpreted.

Ok so does that change the fact vs PAK/IND 99/00, NZ 2000, WI 2000/01, IND & ENG 2001 (give or take a few matches when bowlers bowled well & conditions where helpul) that he GENERALLY played on flat pitches againts poor bowlers then.

Lord, you stubborn yo. One last time i shall go over this..

IND 03/04 pitches where flat yea (expect for a period @ the Gabba when Khan exploited the condtions), but as i clearly showed you a few pages back no time in that series DID GILCHRIST LOOK OUT OF FORM OR SHOW ANY SIGNS OF A FATEFUL CAREER SLUMP. Something which would be OBVIOUS if you actually watched that series, which you clearly didn't or this argument would not have existed.

IN SRI & IND 04, again he was poor player of spin & he played them to the best of his abilities.

Plus vs SRI in the Darwin test he faced the most seamer friendly pitch before the Ashes & scored a brilliant 80. So much for a man in CAREER FOR SLUMP 8-)
He played several brilliant innings from 2005 onwards as well. He always retained the ability to do that, that's why he was still worth a place over someone who'd probably have scored runs more often.

Let's go through this nice'n'simple: Gilchrist's obvious signs of a slump starting in 2003/04 was very, very straightforward. He wasn't scoring anywhear near so many runs as he had been. Despite the fact that not all that much had changed in terms of what was bowled at him, his average was less than half what it had been. This cannot happen without someone's play deteriorating. Which, very clearly, had happened. By December 2003, Gilchrist was no longer as good as he had been between November 1999 and June 2003. There was no one obvious recurring thing - he just got out very quickly when facing-up to stuff that he'd previously been batting for ages against. Instead of playing brilliantly, he was now playing very moderately. That's all that had changed.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I know that, but India still won. They did dominate in Chennai, and were certainly the more likely victors had the game been finished, there's no way it was 50\50.
No. It was definately 50/50 going into that last day, given that Sehwag was the KEY, if Australia had gotten him early it would have made it, advantage Australia given how the likes of Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj & Ganguly were continously being owed by that legendary bowling attack throughout that series.

Australia were clearly the better side in that series but that could perfectly possibly have been different had there been more cooperation between those at the VCA and the BCCI. On the other hand, it might not. No-one is saying Australia weren't the better side that series, but you'd be outright foolish to deny that such deliberate sabotage for one Test out of four had no impact on the series.
It had an impact yea. But such trivial things like that & the probabity of Australia being vulnerable againts spin on a ranging turner is quickly cancelled out by the FACT that India's big 4 was owned out by Australians.

He played several brilliant innings from 2005 onwards as well. He always retained the ability to do that, that's why he was still worth a place over someone who'd probably have scored runs more often.
But the HUGE difference between Gilchrist from the 05 Ashes & the IND 03 TO IND 04, that you CLAIM he was having a "Career form slump" is that no one had worked him out technically like Flintoff did nor DID he look out of form. Why can't you get that??????

Let's go through this nice'n'simple: Gilchrist's obvious signs of a slump starting in 2003/04 was very, very straightforward. He wasn't scoring anywhear near so many runs as he had been.
Ha, nonsense again. Just because a player isn't piling up big scores consistently doesn't mean he was in a career form slump. Based on your reasoning Ponting was in a form slump in 04 & Martyn was in a form slump in the 05 Ashes then?. But of course they CLEARLY weren't.

They need to be worked out technically after a big run scoring period a la Vino Kambli/Michael Bevan or if its a great player like Tendulkar or Richards as age catches up with them consistency is less, but you still see flashes of their greatness.

Despite the fact that not all that much had changed in terms of what was bowled at him, his average was less than half what it had been. This cannot happen without someone's play deteriorating. Which, very clearly, had happened.

By December 2003, Gilchrist was no longer as good as he had been between November 1999 and June 2003. There was no one obvious recurring thing - he just got out very quickly when facing-up to stuff that he'd previously been batting for ages against.

Instead of playing brilliantly, he was now playing very moderately. That's all that had changed
Nonsense. How ofter between PAK 99 TO ZIM 03 was Gilchrist tested againts quality spin?

Which test match during that period had more difficult batting conditions than Darwin?

Just because he didn't take India part in the 03/04 series doesn't mean his play againts any type of bowling became in your words "Mediocre, Moderate or Deteriorated. See dismissals below AGAIN:

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 04 - 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
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No. It was definately 50/50 going into that last day, given that Sehwag was the KEY, if Australia had gotten him early it would have made it, advantage Australia given how the likes of Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj & Ganguly were continously being owed by that legendary bowling attack throughout that series.
India were considerable favourites. 200 is not a particularly tough chase. Even if Sehwag had been out cheaply, India were the likely victors.
It had an impact yea. But such trivial things like that & the probabity of Australia being vulnerable againts spin on a ranging turner is quickly cancelled out by the FACT that India's big 4 was owned out by Australians.
Haha, "such trivial things". No, sorry, the pitch in a Test in India isn't trivial, it's vital.
But the HUGE difference between Gilchrist from the 05 Ashes & the IND 03 TO IND 04, that you CLAIM he was having a "Career form slump" is that no one had worked him out technically like Flintoff did nor DID he look out of form. Why can't you get that??????
I don't need to get it. It's an irrelevance. I couldn't care less that no-one had worked him out - they didn't need to. Gilchrist was simply not playing very well. You don't seem to understand that being temporarily out-of-form (or having declined perminantly) and being worked-out are actually opposite things. One has to do with the batsman, the other has to do with what's being bowled at him. Gilchrist had declined by the start of the 2003/04 season. He was not the same batsman he had once been. So no-one needed to work him out.
Ha, nonsense again. Just because a player isn't piling up big scores consistently doesn't mean he was in a career form slump. Based on your reasoning Ponting was in a form slump in 04 & Martyn was in a form slump in the 05 Ashes then?. But of course they CLEARLY weren't.
Clearly weren't? Ponting was patently obviously out-of-form, though not horribly so, from the SL series in 2003/04 to the NZ series in 2004/05. He was quite obviously, to anyone, not playing anywhere near as well as he had between Headingley 2001 and MCG 2003/04. Possibly that was due to captaincy, possibly he simply couldn't go on like he had 2001-2003/04 forever. However, just like Gilchrist, he wasn't scoring as well as previously because he wasn't playing as well. He didn't need to have been worked-out for this to happen.

Martyn, though, he had 4 bad Tests - including 2 bad decisions. Any fool can do that, it means very little.
They need to be worked out technically after a big run scoring period a la Vino Kambli/Michael Bevan or if its a great player like Tendulkar or Richards as age catches up with them consistency is less, but you still see flashes of their greatness.
As I've said, you don't seem to understand that being worked-out is completely different to being out-of-form or having declined. Nor do you seem to understand that age isn't the only thing that causes decline (though incidentally, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are the same age and funnily enough their declines started around the same time). However, if someone goes from scoring crazily large amounts of runs to scoring very few, one of the aforementioned three has happened. No two ways about.
Nonsense. How ofter between PAK 99 TO ZIM 03 was Gilchrist tested againts quality spin?

Which test match during that period had more difficult batting conditions than Darwin?

Just because he didn't take India part in the 03/04 series doesn't mean his play againts any type of bowling became in your words "Mediocre, Moderate or Deteriorated.
Yes it does. He'd been taking everyone apart in the previous 4 years, pretty well EVERY series (India in 2000/01 being the only exception). He was no longer able to do this as of 2003/04. Ergo, he wasn't as good as he'd previously been.
 

Precambrian

Banned
Clearly weren't? Ponting was patently obviously out-of-form, though not horribly so, from the SL series in 2003/04 to the NZ series in 2004/05. He was quite obviously, to anyone, not playing anywhere near as well as he had between Headingley 2001 and MCG 2003/04. Possibly that was due to captaincy, possibly he simply couldn't go on like he had 2001-2003/04 forever. However, just like Gilchrist, he wasn't scoring as well as previously because he wasn't playing as well. He didn't need to have been worked-out for this to happen.
You forget the 2001 India series?

As I've said, you don't seem to understand that being worked-out is completely different to being out-of-form or having declined. Nor do you seem to understand that age isn't the only thing that causes decline (though incidentally, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are the same age and funnily enough their declines started around the same time). However, if someone goes from scoring crazily large amounts of runs to scoring very few, one of the aforementioned three has happened. No two ways about.
Wrong. Tendulkar is 35, and Gilchrist is 37.

Plus, Tendulkar's "decline" is nowhere near as drastic as Gillys.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You forget the 2001 India series?
Eh? The 2000/01 series came before Ponting's insane scoring spree.
Wrong. Tendulkar is 35, and Gilchrist is 37.
Well Gilchrist's born November '71 and Tendulkar April '73. When I said the same I didn't mean the same to within the day, just that when one was in his late-20s\early-30s and mid-30s, so was the other. In any case, the fact that Gilchrist is actually a year and a bit older than Tendulkar merely means aussie's point is even more redundant.
Plus, Tendulkar's "decline" is nowhere near as drastic as Gillys.
That's not relevant to the point I was making, Gilchrist at his best (despite a near-identical average - 59 to 61) wasn't anywhere near as good IMO as Tendulkar at his best, and not just because Tendulkar's lasted for 12 years and 90-odd Tests to Gilchrist's 4 years and 40-odd Tests. The point is merely that you can't use Tendulkar's age as an excuse and say that it was different with Gilchrist, because their declines started within a year of one another and their ages are within 18 months of one another. If age could be put down as the reason for Tendulkar's decline (and I'm less than sure about that one myself) then it can also be put down as a reason for Gilchrist's.
 

Top