-
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 vs Flower as test bats
- Thread starter Bolo.
- Start date
mr_mister
Well-known member
It's bloody close isnt it. The difference in career averages can be made up for by Gilly's strike rate - and they both had terrific away records
I'll give my vote to Flower though. His 00-01 stats are insane, and even expanding it out from 98-01 gives a really crazy return.
I may be overrating him though for being the only thing close to an ATG his country ever produced but hey. It's a pity he couldn't have played til 2005 or so and retired on his own terms, he seemed like he was only getting better with age
I'll give my vote to Flower though. His 00-01 stats are insane, and even expanding it out from 98-01 gives a really crazy return.
I may be overrating him though for being the only thing close to an ATG his country ever produced but hey. It's a pity he couldn't have played til 2005 or so and retired on his own terms, he seemed like he was only getting better with age
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
tough one. Purely as batsmen, Gilchrist definitely more valuable to 00's Aus than Flower would have been, but Flower probably more valuable to 90s/00s Zimbabwe than Gilchrist would have been.
I tend to rate Gilchrist higher because he scored quicker and could win you more games but that's coming from the point of view of an already strong team, and also I saw a lot more of Gilchrist than I did of Flower.
As with most of these kinds of comparisons I don't think there's a clear answer and it depends on the parameters with which you compare them.
I tend to rate Gilchrist higher because he scored quicker and could win you more games but that's coming from the point of view of an already strong team, and also I saw a lot more of Gilchrist than I did of Flower.
As with most of these kinds of comparisons I don't think there's a clear answer and it depends on the parameters with which you compare them.
mr_mister
Well-known member
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings
how's that for a 20 inning peak(or 19 innings, close enough)
how's that for a 20 inning peak(or 19 innings, close enough)
ankitj
Well-known member
This is quite close. Flower indeed was playing like one of the premier batsmen in the world racking up insane numbers against Murali as a lone man in the team; just like Lara did and we remember Lara very fondly for that. But at the same time Gilchrist was averaging in excess of 60 for a considerable period of time and was instrumental in taking Aussie batting to a ridiculous level -- 7 batsmen vs. 6 batsmen can make a lot of difference.
morgieb
Well-known member
Flower clearly ahead on batting alone IMO. Gilchrist does have SR in his advantage and he probably could've averaged more for a **** team, but Flower for a good period there was arguably the best bat in the world. I don't think the same thing applied to Gilchrist.
Would still take Gilchrist first though as his keeping is far better.
Would still take Gilchrist first though as his keeping is far better.
mr_mister
Well-known member
He was a 7!
vcs
Well-known member
Gilchrist upto Ashes 2005 was producing ATG batsman-worthy numbers, while keeping, at a Sehwag-esque SR. Yes, he had the luxury of coming in behind Hayden-Ponting-Waugh-Martyn, and I'd certainly back Flower and many others over him to buckle down and get more runs consistently in difficult conditions, but for that '99-'05 period, Gilchrist was something else.
ankitj
Well-known member
Gilchrist's was 874. Flower's was 895.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
Neither as good as Prasanna Jayawardene though, am i right?
Migara
Well-known member
Flower was basically the Number 1 batsman of Zimbabwe for a good deal of his time, if he failed, so did the side.
Gilchrist had the luxury for a good deal of his time at coming in and blazing a brilliant 70 or a ton at 5-300
Both were great, and both could just have played as batsmen full time instead of keeping, but I give it to Flower because he was Zimbabwe, Gilchrist was just a fantastic player, but if he failed it hardly ever mattered.
Having said all that, it's like saying do your prefer chocolate or strawberry topping on your icecream, you can't lose either way.
Gilchrist had the luxury for a good deal of his time at coming in and blazing a brilliant 70 or a ton at 5-300
Both were great, and both could just have played as batsmen full time instead of keeping, but I give it to Flower because he was Zimbabwe, Gilchrist was just a fantastic player, but if he failed it hardly ever mattered.
Having said all that, it's like saying do your prefer chocolate or strawberry topping on your icecream, you can't lose either way.
Whoops. Mixed up the links there. That makes a lot more sense