How good could Gilly have been if he never kept

[flibbertyjibber]

Serious point in a stupid argument, given the fact such a good player in Stuart Law was basically ignored would Gilchrist the batsman have even got a look in in that side? It was pretty bloody formidable.

 

[stephen]

The nonsense I'm reading in this thread is ridiculous.

a) Gilchrist was never and could never be considered as good with the bat as Viv.
b) Downplaying Wasim in 1999, a year in which he averaged 26 (followed by 2000, a year in which he averaged 24 and took half his wickets on dead Sri Lankan tracks) is completely and utterly nonsense.
c) Demolishing an attack on multiple occasions that has Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain and Shoaib is a ridiculous feat, even if Wasim and Waqar weren't at their peaks.
d) Warne did well enough in the 2004 India tour. Just because he didn't run through India doesn't mean he was a "clear and total failure" against them. Unless you also consider Kumble in Australia a year earlier a "clear and total failure".
e) I honestly can't believe that people are trying to talk down Gilchrist's batting against one of the best pace attacks Pakistan has ever fielded because they're afraid it somehow diminishes Viv (it doesn't).

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think you're mostly right but the difference between peak Waqar and post peak Waqar is absolutely massive. I do think however that Wasim was still class. Not only did he do great in India in the test series+ Asian championship, he also had tours of WI and SL around that time where he was world class.

 

[sledger]

I suspect that even if Sanga had never kept he still would not have been as good with the bat as Gilly.

 

[honestbharani]

Two hatricks in SL series
In next series against Aus gets carted by Gilly for 81 and 149*

Its all too easy to say he was past it before the series began instead of after it

Who's to say Wasim and Waqar were ever any good then? Didn't they have their best success against subpar English batting sides?

Wanna quote where the hattricks were taken and against whom? Which batsmen? Wasim was still a very good bowler, just not a great one post 1997, that is just fact. If you wanna know who said he was past it, refer to newspaper columns from that time. Having followed cricket all through the 90s, I can say that he was EASILY past his best by the time 1999 rolled around.

 

[honestbharani]

This is just such a short-sighted and dumb argument. That was such a great innings and any attempt like this to try and talk it down just comes across really lame. Tbf not just you and probably more the fault of the guy that originally advertised it as "against Wasim and Waqar" which is barely scratching the surface. Shoaib was better than both that series, and the other bowler that bowled far more overs than W + W combined that innings was Saqlain who was a bigger threat than all 3 on a day 4 and 5 wicket.

It's, as Teja put it, "playing 'the game' to big up one of the candidates" (or in this case big down) at it's worst.

edit: from memory I'm not sure that Gilchrist even faced that much of either Wasim or Waqar in that innings, but looking at the scorecard he barely would have. So just a really dumb line of discussion all around.

Actually, Razzaq was mroe of a threat most of that series than W & W were. And that is not a knock on them either. Razzaq was really good as a bowler at that point and he seemed to pose mroe questions than those two did to the Aussie batsmen.

 

[honestbharani]

Who knows? He might have been at 4 and had his toe broken by one of Waqar's yorkers before being replaced by ATG batting allrounder Michael Bevan who finished with career test averages of 45 (bat) and 25 (ball) as well as captaining Australia on the successful 2005 and 2009 Ashes tours. Bevan then groomed Shane Watson to become Australia's greatest captain and most reliable opening batsman.

Agree with all, except it would be Katich, not Watson. And that would be my top 3 in every draft here ever.

 

[honestbharani]

I think you're mostly right but the difference between peak Waqar and post peak Waqar is absolutely massive. I do think however that Wasim was still class. Not only did he do great in India in the test series+ Asian championship, he also had tours of WI and SL around that time where he was world class.

It is possible to be world class and still not be as good as he was till 1997 though. And FTR, I dont think he was world class at that time, but definitely a very good test bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually, Razzaq was mroe of a threat most of that series than W & W were. And that is not a knock on them either. Razzaq was really good as a bowler at that point and he seemed to pose mroe questions than those two did to the Aussie batsmen.

Razzaq didn't even play that game.

In fact he only played 1 Test that series and didn't take a wicket, or even look like taking one. I can only assume that you're confused or thinking of an entirely different series.

 

[h_hurricane]

Akram from 1999 australian series onwards was taking 2-2.5 wickets per match for the next 2-3 years until 2002. While he could occasionally take 2-3 wickets in a jiffy, he had ceased to be the bowler he once was, still a very good one though. Being a diabetic probably lead to a reduced workload as a bowler. Possibly one of the reasons he bowled less to Gilchrist in that 149* innings.

Waqar had declined far more sharply and was nowhere near the potent force of early-mid 90s.

That leaves us with Shoaib and Saqlain. Gilchrist certainly deserves credit for doing well against those two at their peak and an overall very good attack. That attack was still a weaker representation of a bowling line up which said 4 bowlers averaging 23,23,25 and 29.

 

[stephen]

Akram from 1999 australian series onwards was taking 2-2.5 wickets per match for the next 2-3 years until 2002. While he could occasionally take 2-3 wickets in a jiffy, he had ceased to be the bowler he once was, still a very good one though. Being a diabetic probably lead to a reduced workload as a bowler. Possibly one of the reasons he bowled less to Gilchrist in that 149* innings.

Waqar had declined far more sharply and was nowhere near the potent force of early-mid 90s.

That leaves us with Shoaib and Saqlain. Gilchrist certainly deserves credit for doing well against those two at their peak and an overall very good attack. That attack was still a weaker representation of a bowling line up which said 4 bowlers averaging 23,23,25 and 29.

Wasim took his wickets at an average of 26 in 1999 and 24 in 2000. Even with a reduced bowling workload he was still gun.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jfc how tf are we still talking about this

 

[mr_mister]

Fwiw two hat tricks in one series is low key one of the most impressive feats you can do as a bowler. I don't think it's ever been done again?

And he did that in the previous series before aus/pak

Sure he wasnt 92 Wasim but he wasnt 92 Botham either

 

[mr_mister]

All this talk made me revisit it.

I assume Waqar was doing pretty average before this match, but going by the highlights of this match he was bowling pretty damn good. The commentators literally say he's back to his best during a spell in the 1st innings. The balls to get Junior and Punter are pretty sick

 

[stephen]

All this talk made me revisit it.

I assume Waqar was doing pretty average before this match, but going by the highlights of this match he was bowling pretty damn good. The commentators literally say he's back to his best during a spell in the 1st innings. The balls to get Junior and Punter are pretty sick

Yeah I watched the whole highlights. A few things struck me.

a) Waqar bowled extremely well.
b) Saqlain looked lethal.
c) There was something odd about Warne's bowling. He picked up 9 wickets but he was clearly not at his best. He was bowling very round arm and not getting lots of turn, except that one ball.
d) Getting hit on the hand by a 154kph full toss would hurt like hell.
e) That Pakistani bowling attack was exceptional.

 

[Teja.]

I think it was a fine attack and think the nitpicking of bowlers can be done for every single great innings.

Having said that, there's no doubt that Waqar was never the same after 1994. He went from being a level above ATG to Zaheer Khan good on an overnight switch. He was still pretty solid but not the reason why he had the reputation he did.

 

[mr_mister]

I remember thinking he was a gun as a kid for getting that ODI 7fer in 01

Was that pretty much his only ATG spell after 94?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I remember thinking he was a gun as a kid for getting that ODI 7fer in 01

Was that pretty much his only ATG spell after 94?

He took a 6 for in the same tournament

 

[mr_mister]

well there you go.

 

[Starfighter]

There weren't many in tests though, only three of his 22 five fors were taken after 1994, and the best was against Bangladesh. He was a bit more prolific in ODIs.

Though I wonder if the oft observed phenomenon of Wasim keeping the spells at the tail for himself was an influencing factor.