Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[social]

Incorrect..it is a difficult delivery to play but batsmen DO have control over it



Dravid is sheer elegance all around
.

1. If you cant see it, you cant control it.

2. Depends on your definiton of "elegance."

If used in relation to quality, then I agree.

If used as a subjective measure of attractiveness, then I dont. My personal opinion is that he is an extremely efficient run-maker without being particularly good to watch.

I admire his performances but am not drawn to watch them.

 

[C_C]

i disagree with your reasoning...gillchrist is a perfect fit at #7 and i feel that Dravid is irreplaceble at #3...he has the highest average for a #3 since Bradman and his only direct competitor is Ponting and Dravid is arguably a better batsman....
But where you bat (unless it is a specialist position like opening) is largely about team setup and chemistry rather than a direct reflection of your abilities......
As per watchability...i find Dravid extremely pleasant to watch due to his technical correctness...he isnt an ungainly scorer like Waugh or Border but is a crisp and classic player....as per cant see cant control..its not like you dont spot the yorker at all..it just momentarily disappears from your line of vision and reappears again.... its more of a reflexive shot but most class batsmen can control it or atleast do helluva lot better against it than Kallis does.

 

[social]

Put it this way, if you're selecting the best players in each position, over the course of their careers it would not matter whether you select Dravid or Ponting as the difference between them in tests is negligible (ODIs are a different matter ).

However, when it comes to Gilchrist, it is him first and daylight second for his position in the batting order.

Hence, your ability to select him is of more value than your ability to select Dravid.

On yorkers, we'll agree to disagree.

BTW, Kallis happened to get bowled by 2 near perfect yorkers in SA and people assume he has a weakness against them. It's my contention that those deliveries would have gotten most batsmen out.

 

[C_C]

well i've seen him miss yorkers too frequently for a supposedly great batsman....Akhtar had a dozen or so shouts against him with yorkers in PAK.....i dont think Kallis is technically perfect because he reaches for the ball against the spinners and against really fast bowlers, he is clumsy....

 

[aussie]

aussie

hayden has made runs against all bowlers ? dude he got humbled by Ambrose and Walsh, Donald, Pollock etc and did jack diddly squat against excellent bowling till his monumental series against RSA in 2001...and since then he has faced only the two Ws way way past their best once in terms of good bowling...you forget - hayden got dropped because he couldnt play quality pace bowling in the first place and still cant- struggled mightily against Akhtar in the recent series.

I know he was humbled by walsh and ambrose but he did manage to score a test hundred againts them in the 96 series, and dont think Ambrose or Walsh were past their best then at all, they were excellent up to their final test series respectively. I Dunno about Pollock and Donald humbling hayden, when south afrcia were in australia in 2001 it was hayden who did the humbling scoring 429 runs including 3 centuries at an average of over 100 while in the return series he scored 309 runs at an average of 61, he failed on the SA tour in 97 barely scoring 64 runs in the 3 test so u cant say Donald & Pollock humbled him. I know he struggled againts Akhtar recently but has i said he has gone off the boil a bit in the last 6 months when australia played pakistan in 2002 he made runs againts Akhtar and in Shane Bond's debut series in 2001 when he suprised with his pace Hayden made runs, i wont say he struggles againts those type of bowlers i'd put it on 50/50 if hayden is in good form those bowlers would suffer has was shown in past series, but if not the opposite would happen has was shown recently

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I was not commenting upon the relative merits of Gilchrist as a batsman vis-a-vis Dravid or anyone else other than his direct competitors i.e. no. 6 or 7 batsmen.

Is Dravid a better no. 3 batsman than Gilchrist? Definitely.

Is Dravid irreplaceable at no.3? No

Is Gilchrist irreplaceable at no. 7? Definitely.

Therefore, IMO, Gilchrist is a more "valuable", but not necessarily "better", batsman.

Dravid is irrreplaceable at # 3 as well.

 

[Deja moo]

Put it this way, if you're selecting the best players in each position, over the course of their careers it would not matter whether you select Dravid or Ponting as the difference between them in tests is negligible (ODIs are a different matter ).

However, when it comes to Gilchrist, it is him first and daylight second for his position in the batting order.

Hence, your ability to select him is of more value than your ability to select Dravid.

No. If youre selecting the best in each position (ie; essentially an all time 11), Gilchrist would struggle to make it to the 3rd eleven perhaps because a number 7 is chosen first and foremost for his glove work, and secondly ( if at all) for his batting.

 

[social]

No. If youre selecting the best in each position (ie; essentially an all time 11), Gilchrist would struggle to make it to the 3rd eleven perhaps because a number 7 is chosen first and foremost for his glove work, and secondly ( if at all) for his batting.

Yeah, right.

Do yuo really think that Gilchrist would be the present Australian wk if he wasnt any good - they'd simply bat him at 6 and select someone else. If anything, his wk is incredibly underrated because his batting is so phenomenal.

He has revolutionised the role of a wicketkeeper and is so far in front of anybody else in history it's not funny - 14 teast centuries and barely a meaningful keeping mistake are statistics that dont lie.

 

[Deja moo]

Yeah, right.

Do yuo really think that Gilchrist would be the present Australian wk if he wasnt any good - they'd simply bat him at 6 and select someone else. If anything, his wk is incredibly underrated because his batting is so phenomenal.

He has revolutionised the role of a wicketkeeper and is so far in front of anybody else in history it's not funny - 14 teast centuries and barely a meaningful keeping mistake are statistics that dont lie.

The difference is that any all time team would invariably be much stronger than this Aussie team and hence would prefer a better gloveman than Gilchrist. Gilchrist is a batsman-keeper. An all time team would ideally have a keeper-batsman.

 

[Eclipse]

The difference is that any all time team would invariably be much stronger than this Aussie team and hence would prefer a better gloveman than Gilchrist. Gilchrist is a batsman-keeper. An all time team would ideally have a keeper-batsman.

Gilly is picked in basicly EVERYONE's all time team..

so your opinion is a bit odd..

 

[social]

The difference is that any all time team would invariably be much stronger than this Aussie team and hence would prefer a better gloveman than Gilchrist. Gilchrist is a batsman-keeper. An all time team would ideally have a keeper-batsman.

The trouble being, that before Gilchrist, a keeper of any consequence that had a batting average of over 30 in tests was regarded as phenomenal.

His is mid-50s at a strike rate of nearly 90.

He is one of the best batsmen in the world yet remains an accomplished wicket-keeper.

Selecting a Knott, Taylor, Evans, whoever in front of him merely concedes 20-30 runs per innings without gaining much in keeping ability. I call that substantially weakening the team.

Back to the point, someone made the statement that Dravid is the most "valuable" batsman in world cricket. Whilst he may be the most prolific (and even then he's challenged by a few), he's hardly the most valuable when others could step into his position without there being a discernible weakening of a team's position whilst Gilchrist is unchallenged as history's (i.e. not just present) most valuable no. 7.

 

[SJS]

Back to the point, someone made the statement that Dravid is the most "valuable" batsman in world cricket. Whilst he may be the most prolific (and even then he's challenged by a few), he's hardly the most valuable when others could step into his position without there being a discernible weakening of a team's position whilst Gilchrist is unchallenged as history's (i.e. not just present) most valuable no. 7.

One could change that by having Sobers at number seven !!

Just pulling your leg.

 

[social]

One could change that by having Sobers at number seven !!

Just pulling your leg.

He started his test career as a spinner batting at no. 8 - now that's depth.

 

[SJS]

He started his test career as a spinner batting at no. 8 - now that's depth.

Actually he went at number 9 in both innings of his first test !! He scored 40 runs in the test for once out.

Next test they sent him at six. He did better getting 47 and 8 not out Lindwall and Miller.

By the 4th test they sent him to open against the powerful Aussies. He got 43 and 11.

This was a very powerful West indian batting side with Holt and Stollmeyer as openers, OG Smith, Worrell, Weekes and Walcott and a young Rohan Kanhai whoo by the way also kept wickets !!!

Even someone as talented as the great Sobers kept shuffling up and down the order in such fantastic company

 

[marc71178]

Therefore, IMO, Gilchrist is a more "valuable", but not necessarily "better", batsman.

So you're saying that he's only irreplaceable because he bats at 7?

 

[marc71178]

Gilly is picked in basicly EVERYONE's all time team..

Basically every Australian's you mean.

 

[SJS]

So you're saying that he's only irreplaceable because he bats at 7?

Just imagine how "irreplaceable" Tatenda Taibu would be if he batted at number 11

 

[marc71178]

Just imagine how "irreplaceable" Tatenda Taibu would be if he batted at number 11

I was thinking along those lines as well!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Basically every Australian's you mean.

Practically every all-time XI I've seen on this forum, as well as those presented by former players and experts and so on, include Gilchrist in the keeper position. Whatever relative weaknesses he might have in his keeping compared to Healy or Tayor or whatever are more than made up by his awesome batting ability. I don't think it has anything to do with being Australian.

 

[SJS]

Practically every all-time XI I've seen on this forum, as well as those presented by former players and experts and so on, include Gilchrist in the keeper position. Whatever relative weaknesses he might have in his keeping compared to Healy or Tayor or whatever are more than made up by his awesome batting ability. I don't think it has anything to do with being Australian.

It may be true for many but certainly not all the "All Time XI's" posted here for test matches.