Looks to me like the only exceptions to the poor rule (truth is he played 1 good innings in 6 in SL in 2003/04 - that's poor to me) is the games against New Zealand and Pakistan.
You couldn't have watched that this or else you wouldn't have come up with this Nonsense, even if you had link to it this it is utter foolishness to suggest that the Indian groundsman prepared a pitch "deliberately" to suite Australia in the Nagpur test match.
Nonsense as usual. Him not facing quality spin between PAK 99/00 to IND 2003/04 was simply due to AUSTRALIA'S FIXTURES. If he debuted in SRI 99 he would have failed & if AUS had toured PAK in 2002/03 instead of neutral ground & Saqlain & Musthtaq weren't passed his best (although this is debatable but the point still stands) we would seen similar performances to IND & SRI 04. Simple.
Had to highlight that, it sounded funny.
Given Marsh's keeping there wasn't going to be someone who was the equal.
It's true. The pitch was deliberately prepared to piss off the BCCI by the local state board.
No, I'm not. Read Wisden, and it's probably somewhere online too. I cannot believe someone is so ignorant as to not know what's well-established fact in cricket circles. Shashank Manohar, the head of the VCA (the body which owns the ground in Nagpur), had a massive vendetta against Jagmohan Dalmiya (he wasn't the only one BTW). Therefore, he ordered his groundsman to prepare a green pitch to suit Australia and sabotage India's prospects. His groundsman did as groundsmen are supposed to, obeyed his employer's orders, and prepared the green pitch.You couldn't have watched that this or else you wouldn't have come up with this Nonsense, even if you had link to it this it is utter foolishness to suggest that the Indian groundsman prepared a pitch "deliberately" to suite Australia in the Nagpur test match.
It was an unsual Indian deck yea, but Australia just adapated to the conditions better than India, simple.
You basically trying to start of a new controversy here, based on your corrupted interpretation, that a groundsman countered the final frontier for Australia.
able that someone is trying to deny this. EVERYONE knows about it. Ignorance of the highest order. Even more able that someone's trying the usual bluff-through of "you couldn't have watched blah blah blah" to cover their ignorance.Quality spin was not the only thing that troubled Gilchrist in the 13 Tests in 2003/04, 2004 and 2004/05 in which he averaged 28. His play against ALL forms of bowling had declined. Hence he averaged 28 against what he had previously averaged 59 against.
Funny = true.
The point is that if Marsh's wicketkeeping had been slightly less and there'd been someone else better, Marsh would still have got the nod because of his considerable batting prowess.
Ajay Ratra imho.
agreed, but he did have to wait a while for healy to pass on the baton, and a 75% gilchrist is still better than anyone else around the country at the time, i can forgive him for the tour of india when he captained for 3 tests though, he admitted the triple gig was tough especially in india, all the more reason to watch with anticipation how dhoni goes.
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
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.
Ha, to avoid repeating myself, see what i just told Precambrian..No, I'm not. Read Wisden, and it's probably somewhere online too. I cannot believe someone is so ignorant as to not know what's well-established fact in cricket circles. Shashank Manohar, the head of the VCA (the body which owns the ground in Nagpur), had a massive vendetta against Jagmohan Dalmiya (he wasn't the only one BTW). Therefore, he ordered his groundsman to prepare a green pitch to suit Australia and sabotage India's prospects. His groundsman did as groundsmen are supposed to, obeyed his employer's orders, and prepared the green pitch.
It's pretty
Australia didn't need to adapt to the conditions, they were perfect for them. India were never remotely likely to adapt to them to better Australia, because they played perfectly to the Australians' strengths, as they were designed to do.
Well please give me specific references to any test matches during this period where other than "Quality spin" affected Gilly's batting during that period then?
No, funny because it was nonsense yo..
Sleeping with the wives of fellow players (or similar) is never exactly a good idea. You'd generally expect that to count against anyone, given it's a pretty ****ish thing to do.
I don't really care whether the players made it out to be a massive issue or not. The players could make as big or small a deal of it as they want - it makes not one iyota of difference to what happened between Dalmiya and Manohar. And what happened was Manohar ordered the green pitch to sabotage India's prospects. If you know your Indian cricket history, you'd know that it's something that's happened a few times down the years when local boards have been headed by characters who haven't got-on with the head of the national board. Preparing a green pitch for a home Test is the easiest way of getting one back, and it's been tried - and worked - a fair few times. Nagpur 2004/05 was one such case.
Which one, 1999/2000-2003? Or 2003/04-2004/05? If the latter, you yourself just went through Gilchrist's dismissals. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest he played exactly the same in all those Tests (more than half of which saw pitches which offered nothing to spin) and came out with an average of 28 as he had done previously and come out with an average of 59.
It wasn't, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.
I sense you are over-exaggerating the circumstances of the nagpur test. Especially the bolded part. But if you correct i was never aware that such things happen in test in India that often.
It has be IND 03 to IND 04 since that was the only period before his "FIRST ACTUAL CAREER FORM DIP" that his averaged dropped.
Well it would be ridiculous to you because this is a stupid stats argument. You watched him play during that period & it very obvious that Gilchrist's was in no career slump nor did any bowler work him technically like Flintoff in 05.
The bolded part was about historical general, not that Test specifically. And no, there's no exaggeration. Manohar didn't get on with Dalmiya. Manohar wanted to spite Dalmiya. Manohar knew the best way to spite Dalmiya was to order a green pitch and try to make sure India lost the Test. Manohar ordered a green pitch. The groundsman did his job, and obeyed Manohar's orders. The tactic worked, and India were hammered. There's nothing there that can really even be exaggerated.
They haven't happened often as such, but they have happened enough to see a pattern. Preparing a green pitch for a Test is the favoured tactic of a local board head when he doesn't get on with the national board head, and for good reason too, as a green pitch almost always disadvantages India considerably.
No, they didn't. Gilchrist just didn't bat as well. Anywhere near as well.
That's nonsense as well, Gilchrist faced some good and some decent attacks in that time and played them well. Pakistan in 1999/2000 was certainly reasonable; New Zealand the same season wasn't the worst; and West Indies in 2000/01, while far from outstanding, had its moments and he batted pretty decently in the series. Of course there would've been England in 2001 too, but England gave him 7 let-offs in 2 Tests, from which obviously anyone is going to make runs.
Once you don't have the belief that such a sabotage was the difference in Australia winning that series this mini debate can end.
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?.
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..