• 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.

Gilchrist in the Ashes.

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Slow Love™ said:
:laugh: Actually Roebuck's really something of a prick, isn't he though? At times he writes well (though less and less as the years go by, I find), but he does launch into some really vitriolic attacks out of the blue occasionally. Coincidentally, I was just reading the Kenneth Williams diaries, and Roebuck shares more than a few traits.
Extremely bitter man. Somehow blames England for his public disgrace I think.

& yes, I could imagine him going to Morocco with Stanley Baxter & not letting other people use his loo, now you mention it.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Personally, at 29, Haddin shouldn't be considered anything more than a back-up for Gilchrist. Once they decide to get rid of Gilchrist, the selectors should be looking for the next generation, I reckon.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Top_Cat said:
Personally, at 29, Haddin shouldn't be considered anything more than a back-up for Gilchrist. Once they decide to get rid of Gilchrist, the selectors should be looking for the next generation, I reckon.
If he was 32 or something I'd agree, but 29 isn't old. Gilchrist was around 29 when he made his test debut, and he's closing in on 100 tests, and Clark and Hussey have just debuted at 30+ recently and had tremendous success. Haddin should definitely be in the test side when Gilchrist retires, unless he plays on for much longer than expected. Haddin's the best keeper-batsman in the country by a pretty massive distance really. I'd much rather have a 30 year old who is a capable keeper and can average 40 odd with the bat than some unproven youngster like Hartley or Ronchi.
 

howardj

International Coach
Gilly, increasingly, is becoming more like Lara with the bat. Capable of one or two amazing performances during a Test Series, which tend to mask an otherwise below-par overall contribution with the blade.
 

pskov

International 12th Man
howardj said:
Gilly, increasingly, is becoming more like Lara with the bat. Capable of one or two amazing performances during a Test Series, which tend to mask an otherwise below-par overall contribution with the blade.
Eh? In Lara's most recent series he made scores of 61, 122, 216, 0 and 49.

Pretty decent I'd say. I do think that Gilchrist has lost something though, although I'm not really sure what it is exactly. His recent run of form has been pretty poor. Series averages of 22.62 in England, 17.33 home to WI, 27.60 home to SA, 10.00 away to SA 78.00 in Bangladesh (144 in one innings) and now averages just over 41 in the current Ashes series.
 

howardj

International Coach
pskov said:
Eh? In Lara's most recent series he made scores of 61, 122, 216, 0 and 49.

.
In his three or four series before that though, I think you'll find that he only had a decent impact in one or so innings during the series. I guess my view of things is also coloured by his efforts against Australia, in Australia - where he always pulls out a massive innings (usually when the series is dead) which bolsters an otherwise poor series.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Pretty much what you mentioned only happened with Lara vs. Australia, and let's be fair, he copped some horrific umpiring decisions in that series.

Lara has been brilliant with the bat in tests since 2002, and that includes his last 2 years which have been very good. He's not as consistent as Ponting, Kallis or Dravid, but he's definitely been one of the top 5-7 test batsman around in the last 2-3 years. Lara's anyway always been known throughout his career to be a player who is vulnerable early on, but if you don't get him he goes on to make big hundreds. That's always been the contrasting factor vs. Sachin, the consistent player vs. the man that can make big scores.

Scores in 2005:
Series vs. SA: 196, 4, 176, 13, 4
Series vs. Pak: 130, 48, 153, 0
Series vs. Aus (including Super Series): 5, 36, 30, 14, 13, 45, 226, 17

Scores in 2006:
Series vs. NZ: 5, 0, 1, 1, 83
Series vs. Ind: 18, 0, 7, 120, 10, 19 (actually had a bad series against India, as he normally does for some reason.)
Series vs. Pak: 61, 122, 216, 0, 49
 
Last edited:

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah those are pretty nice scores, and the main thing is, most of the time he comes big in crucial situations.
 

howardj

International Coach
Jono said:
Pretty much what you mentioned only happened with Lara vs. Australia,
...and NZ and India.

I'm not saying he's not a great player, just that for someone with a good average (like Gilchrist) he's not the most consistent player going around.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
howardj said:
...and NZ and India.

I'm not saying he's not a great player, just that for someone with a good average (like Gilchrist) he's not the most consistent player going around.
Haha yeah you got me there in terms of "scoring low and then one big score."

What I was mainly referring to was whether those series, his big score didn't actually cover up his bad series. In most people's views who followed the series, those knocks didn't "mask" his ordinary series, because the simple fact is he batted poorly for the most part in the NZ and India series. Against Aus IMO he was just plain unlucky, because he barely got going and would be given out LBW with Lee bowling around the wicket and the ball missing another set of stumps down leg.

I think we're arguing a petty argument anyway, because I understood exactly what you meant with Gilly when you said it, because Lara does have that reputation :p
 
Last edited:

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
burr said:
Did anyone else notice Roebuck was really scathing about Gilchrist today on the radio; saying apart from one innings his Ashes series has been terrible and the wrong men were leaving or something to that effect - insinuating it should be Lee and Gilly instead of Warne and McGrath. What has everyone else thought of Gilchrist's series - may his time be up sooner that we, and he, all think? Personally I'd say Roebuck's comments on the one innings were been pretty fair and he has hardly redeemed himself from the last Ashes.
I would have thought Roebuck had other things to be concerned with.
 

Top