Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[TheJediBrah]

TLDR?

Your comprehension and interpretation skills are plummeting in every post - where did i ever say the bold.

And say Gilchrist had a "natural decline" over and over doesn't make it true. He got exposed technically during his peak & this was why his run scoring in tests declined. In fact I'm not even sure if Gilchrist's general batting had skills from his traditional style of playing had deteriorated much in his final days, his keeping did however & he stated that was more why he retired

The trailblazer completes his last act | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

saying something completely and idiotically false over and over doesn't make it true

It's honestly getting embarassing

 

[Contra]

Yes slight mistake there, not sure why I mentioned his name. Gambhir was more a FTB in the 2007-2010 period when he was recalled and used to be charging fast bowlers and stuff. Then as soon as ran into first good pace attack in S Africa 2010, when Morkel found his weakness to his around the wicket angle, his career completely fell away.

Like that one time where he toured SA and average a pathetic 60, I mean seriously, who scores only 3 half centuries in 4 innings against Steyn and Morkel?

 

[cnerd123]

Like that one time where he toured SA and average a pathetic 60, I mean seriously, who scores only 3 half centuries in 4 innings against Steyn and Morkel?

You obviously didn't watch the series. Steyn and Morkel were out of form and not bowling well, and the pitches were clearly roads. All the other batsmen who didn't do as well as him were just out of touch as well. Not to mention the glaring flaw in his technique hadn't been figured out yet.

It's so simple. I can't believe I need to even point this out to you. There is no way guys like Gambhir and Gilchrist ever scored runs in challenging conditions. Just all FTBs and minnow bashers and downhill skiers. You want real batsmen, then look at Knott and Stewart. No easy runs for them. They only scored when it mattered. That's why their averages are so low.

/s

 

[aussie]

Like that one time where he toured SA and average a pathetic 60, I mean seriously, who scores only 3 half centuries in 4 innings against Steyn and Morkel?

That was his only decent series after 2010, so what are you t saying that one good series over-rides his other struggles and failures during that post SA 2010 period which eventually led to him being dropped?

 

[cnerd123]

That was his only decent series after 2010, so what are you t saying that one good series over-rides his other struggles and failures during that post SA 2010 period which eventually led to him being dropped?

Changing goalposts, "if you ignore the time he scored runs, he didn't score any runs", etc etc

Such basic fallacies. C'mon Aussie, you can do better than that.

 

[Contra]

That was his only decent series after 2010, so what are you t saying that one good series over-rides his other struggles and failures during that post SA 2010 period which eventually led to him being dropped?

No, it means that Morkel wasn't good enough to exploit this so called "flaw". See the thing with you is that despite what actually takes place, you keep relating it to one specific point you've come up in your head.

Gambhir could have smashed short wide ones straight to cover for the rest of his career for what it's worth but you would still only just argue "Gambhir's technical flaw around the wicket was found out and that's why he failed". Your points have very little correlation between one another, that's why everyone else is just chuckling to themselves when they read your posts. If you simply just argued something like Gambhir was a quality spin player and with some good innings against pace/swing bowling who had a short but productive peak during the 2008-2010 period then most would probably agree with you, but instead you make up some over the time point about something or the other and then try to argue it. It's just sad..

 

[aussie]

1. Yes. Waugh's top score is 156, without looking it up? Sure, he might have been pretty to watch, but he was rarely a batsman who put the opposition to the sword. Most batsmen who fit that description tend to average early 40s.

This is one of the great misconceptions of junior's career IMO.

You might also want to consider that M Waugh unlike many of the FTB of the 2000s played in an era with so much good bowling, he had limited opportunity for easy runs. Averaging 50 was unique then & his 41 in the 1990s just shows that in the context of facing such a high standard of bowing in general - his ability was tested to max & 41 was his output for that era.

But he was definitely a 45+ average batsman ability wise.

2. Yes. Klusener wasn't a particularly brilliant bowler in either format.

Nobody ever referred to Klusener as a brilliant bowler. He was a good bowler in all formats - certainly a more dangerous wicket-taking bowler at his best from 1996-2001 to his fellow country man/all-rounder Brian McMillan who averaged 33 with the ball for eg, which was fairly accurate reflection on his bowling.

Klusner ODI bowling average of 29 was a good reflection of his effectiveness in that format, his test average wasn't. He started to bowl off-cutter from a short run circa 2001, after this his potency with the ball declined until 2004 & I would say the end result average of 37 paints overall test career average in bad light - because at his all-rounder peak from 96-2001 - he was the best in the world.

3. Too short a sample size to fully reflect things. What the average does tell you is that he didn't take many wickets.

Indeed he didn't take wickets, but he was horribly unlucky not to since his bowling and pressure he maintained on SA batters at one end, aided Johnson in taking all those wickets in that series. Hilfenhaus was better rewarded when he came to ENG later in 09 & outbowled Anderson.

4. Lee spent most of that series bowling absolute trash, with the odd decent performance (2nd innings at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge) thrown in. An average of 40 probably flatters him.

Lee didn't bowl trash at Lord's - the only innings I would say he certainly bowled thrash was 1st innings at EDG - otherwise in most spells he had many unlucky moments most notably at the Oval in his final day battle with KP - only if Warne had caught him.

Lee was beginning to peak as a bowler in tests during that series & his post Ashes performances until 2008 pretty much

5. Yes. Average almost certainly flattered by playing a lot of his Test cricket in Asia, however a player is most useful to his side if he's able to bat or bowl best in the conditions he'll face most often. There's also much less of a disparity between his home and away records than several of his Australian contemporaries.

Agreed, but he wasn't a 50 average batsman - only his SRI colleagues Sanga, Mahela & Aravinda had abilities to match averages like that.

6. No idea.

It wasn't although NZ played well especially in riveting final test @ Perth, the first two test had major rain interruption and made the overall series look closer than it actually was.

7. An average is the number of runs scored by a batsman divided by the number of dismissals. So this means that Ganteaume averaged 112 runs before he was dismissed when he played Test cricket.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Better knock up one of your quizzes.

Simply to give small examples to the ***** gentleman of the well known cricket POV, that not all stats in whatever scenario/situation in cricket aren't a accurate reflection on everything.

Surprised you ain't throw a insult whether sly or forceful somewhere in this post by the way...

 

[cnerd123]

that not all stats in whatever scenario/situation in cricket aren't a accurate reflection on everything.

Oh I agree with this, I just think you're using it as a cop-out when the stats go against your argument. Like how all performances that go against your arguments are aberrations. You're just not willing to concede that you are wrong. This isn't a discussion, this is a 'let me tell you what I think and why what I think is right" session for you, complete with logical fallacies, loopholes, distorted facts, and a lack of any concrete analysis or evidence.

Quite a lot of members across this thread have been correcting you and proving you wrong at various junctures, you just don't want to be corrected. This isn't a discussion, this is a battle. In your eyes, last man standing wins, truth be damned. No one else here can be ****ed to put up with you long enough for that though.

That's why all of us are just lol'ing at you instead.

 

[aussie]

No, it means that Morkel wasn't good enough to exploit this so called "flaw". See the thing with you is that despite what actually takes place, you keep relating it to one specific point you've come up in your head.

Gambhir could have smashed short wide ones straight to cover for the rest of his career for what it's worth but you would still only just argue "Gambhir's technical flaw around the wicket was found out and that's why he failed". Your points have very little correlation between one another, that's why everyone else is just chuckling to themselves when they read your posts. If you simply just argued something like Gambhir was a quality spin player and with some good innings against pace/swing bowling who had a short but productive peak during the 2008-2010 period then most would probably agree with you, but instead you make up some over the time point about something or the other and then try to argue it. It's just sad..

Clearly you misinterpreted my point a little. Did I ever say Morkel exposed his flaw?. I said Morkel found it out in that 2010 series, I never said Gambhir failed in SA 2010.

During his excellent 2008-2010 period that you correctly mention, he scored a lot of runs on roads & he developed a style where tended to charge fast bowlers etc. Morkel in 2010 made him adjust his game to be more circumspect after he got out that way in 1st test/1st innings @ Centurion via the around the wicket tactic - for later in that series & he scored good tough runs.

However afterwards other good pace bowling attacks that were now emerging noted that weak point did a better job of exposing it and other issues in his technique and his output never replicated what he did in SA 2010 & he faded away.

 

[cnerd123]

Lol at Gambhir being weak to bang-it-in bowling around the wicket, when the key feature of his slump was just being very poor at leaving the ball and nicking off at full deliveries outside off.

 

[aussie]

Oh I agree with this, I just think you're using it as a cop-out when the stats go against your argument. Like how all performances that go against your arguments are aberrations. You're just not willing to concede that you are wrong. This isn't a discussion, this is a 'let me tell you what I think and why what I think is right" session for you, complete with logical fallacies, loopholes, distorted facts, and a lack of any concrete analysis or evidence.

Quite a lot of members across this thread have been correcting you and proving you wrong at various junctures, you just don't want to be corrected. This isn't a discussion, this is a battle. In your eyes, last man standing wins, truth be damned. No one else here can be ****ed to put up with you long enough for that though.

That's why all of us are just lol'ing at you instead.

Good job wasting a thought as usual & characterizing how what my posting aim's has been in this thread. The only person who actually used stats to back up anything they wish to challenge anything I said was Victor Ian & as I said before for now unless some body checks it themselves - I can't say how totally accurate it is. You however will obviously endorse his stats findings as gospel & say it disapproves whatever I say blah blah because of inherent bias.

I guess you have also conveniently forgotten when I came out and conceded to potential ideological gridlock over any particular point - I'm letting it go? But of course you wouldn't see that - it better to make inaccurate assertions that I'm trying to force my points down to everyone or view this as some battle haha.

Also why do you post of CW on any cricket chat forum online?. I didn't realize there is a onus on me, you or anybody to concede in a discussion. If other posters keep asking me question, I can only respond to them & give my view whether they agree or not. They respond back and the back & forth will go on as long as each person wishes.

 

[Contra]

Did I ever say Morkel exposed his flaw?. I said Morkel found it out in that 2010 series

Ah I see, so exposing his flaw is different from finding it out, makes a lot of sense now...

 

[aussie]

Lol at Gambhir being weak to bang-it-in bowling around the wicket, when the key feature of his slump was just being very poor at leaving the ball and nicking off at full deliveries outside off.

You see I say "bang-it-in bowling" anywhere in that post? haha. I swear you see what you want when I post.

 

[aussie]

Ah I see, so exposing his flaw is different from finding it out, makes a lot of sense now...

Wording a bit off, however general point is just to clarify was Morkel found the chink in his armor in 2010 - that other bowlers later more clinically exposed.

 

[Contra]

Wording a bit off, however general point is just to clarify was Morkel found the chink in his armor in 2010 - that other bowlers later more clinically exposed.

Which is factually incorrect, and proves my earlier point completely. Gambhir didn't get out because everyone simply just started bowling around the wicket and cramping him like Morkel did in 2010 in India, he got out in various manners, but mostly it was just good bowling which angled across to him rather than into him which lead to uncertainty as a batsmen and he mostly just ended up nicking or being trapped lbw as ***** said.

 

[Victor Ian]

...The only person who actually used stats to back up anything they wish to challenge anything I said was Victor Ian .....

To be honest, I think the only reason I took the time to look up stats is because I was the dimmest here to realise that it would be a pointless waste of time. That is the third time you have cast doubt on the stats without taking the time to check them out yourself, as if I'd stoop to your level and sprout falsehoods just to prove a point. I'd suggest, instead of mouthing off and defending every erroneous point you have made, that you take some time and do the check yourself, and then.....I don't know, ... maybe just stop defending that point. You don't have to admit you are wrong publicly. Just go silent about the point. That saves face better than making error upon error.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

<-----------------------The world

Aussie ---------------------------->

 

[91Jmay]

Did aussie genuinely try to claim Lee bowled well in 2005 Ashes? Along with Gillespie arguably cost Australia series by allowing England to score so freely. Couldn't build up pressure.

 

[aussie]

Which is factually incorrect, and proves my earlier point completely. Gambhir didn't get out because everyone simply just started bowling around the wicket and cramping him like Morkel did in 2010 in India, he got out in various manners, but mostly it was just good bowling which angled across to him rather than into him which lead to uncertainty as a batsmen and he mostly just ended up nicking or being trapped lbw as ***** said.

Yes that's totally correct via Gambhir - my intention wasn't to suggest the around the tactic was the sole way bowlers suddenly attempted to get him out, so as to clarify again - Morkel simply exposed a way in 2010 series to get him, other bowers tried it and later the good fast bowlers he faced post 2010 did what you said.

 

[bcetindra]

For me Sangakkara is the best wicket keeper batsman....