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
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.
You know, scoring runs or not scoring runs - which is stats - is the job of a batsman.
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.
I hope he hurries up, for his sake.
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
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 
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.
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.
cheersDoesn'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
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
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.
Ha, you know when you are losing an argument.
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..
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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
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??????
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.
Nonsense. How ofter between PAK 99 TO ZIM 03 was Gilchrist tested againts quality spin?
India were considerable favourites. 200 is not a particularly tough chase. Even if Sehwag had been out cheaply, India were the likely victors.
Haha, "such trivial things". No, sorry, the pitch in a Test in India isn't trivial, it's vital.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You forget the 2001 India series?
Wrong. Tendulkar is 35, and Gilchrist is 37.
Eh? The 2000/01 series came before Ponting's insane scoring spree.
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.
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.
