-
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
honestbharani
Well-known member
Not sure why you are bringing up their keeping as the question of the OP is pretty much about batting and even mentioned to forget their keeping.
And yeah, I see absolutely no way Gilchrist can succeed batting like a proper batsman but I do think Flower would have been a good #7, even if not as aggressive as Gilchrist. Flower easily the better test batsman.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
That is a genuinely horrific opinion. Did you ever actually see him bat? He succeeded "batting like a proper batsman" a lot, more than most proper batsmen
I think what hb meant by 'proper' is that he doesn't see Gilchrist doing well if he tried to hold back and change his game completely to bat at a slower pace. I think that's fair, Gilchrist has maybe 1-2 innings of note where he scored slower than 75.
I do take issue with batting slower being considered 'proper' though. I actually think batting at his frenetic pace could help a weaker side more than chugging along while your side collapsed around you like Chanders or something.
I do take issue with batting slower being considered 'proper' though. I actually think batting at his frenetic pace could help a weaker side more than chugging along while your side collapsed around you like Chanders or something.
honestbharani
Well-known member
By batting at 7 and playing his shots without having to hold back due to the strength of the side he is in. I don't think he could have succeeded defending the ball and there is a lot of mental pressure if you are playing as a pure batsman. Hence the disparity you often see with blokes who tend to bat like this but then get picked as specialist batsmen.
"Proper" as in having to hold the responsibility of being one of the 5 or 6 main batters in the side.
There is no doubting Gilly is an ATG and redefined the role of the batsman/keeper but to take that as somehow meaning he had the game to succeed as a pure batsman is silly. Of course, his keeping skills are part of his genius as a cricketer and there is no reason why that should be discounted when discussing his greatness, but that is not what is being discussed here, is it?
honestbharani
Well-known member
Of course, the real "horrific" opinion here is the one who thinks Gilly could have "easily" done what Flower did. 
That is about as idiotic an opinion as you can get in such a thread. Tell me why Australia never tried playing with 5 bowlers when Gilchrist was the keeper again, even when they badly needed it, like just after the 2005 Ashes when the search was on for the next Flintoff?
That is about as idiotic an opinion as you can get in such a thread. Tell me why Australia never tried playing with 5 bowlers when Gilchrist was the keeper again, even when they badly needed it, like just after the 2005 Ashes when the search was on for the next Flintoff?
honestbharani
Well-known member
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
truly horrific
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
**** me it keeps getting worse
1. They never badly needed it, or needed it at all, during Gilchrist's career
2. They actually did play with 5 bowlers in 1 series shortly after the 2005 Ashes in Bangladesh, and Gilchrist did bat in the top 6, and he made a match-winning 144 (212) coming in at 4-60 playing as a "proper batsman"
at least do your research
stephen
Well-known member
Yeah this is getting absurd. Even with a strong side Gilchrist often came in relatively early and dug Australia out of a hole. The ferocity with which he did it often turned likely losses into dominant victories.
He batted 7 and Australia played 4 bowlers largely because McGrath and Warne meant that 5 bowlers was overkill.
Most sides in history have only played 4 specialist bowlers because there is diminishing returns adding a 5th. Your 5th bowler is by definition your worst bowler and unless you're playing in extremely poor bowling conditions 4 bowlers is enough for rotation purposes.
When you have two of the top half a dozen bowlers of all time on your side, why on earth would you pick three more specialists?
The arguments in this thread are getting absurd. Gilchrist had the game to bat anywhere.
He batted 7 and Australia played 4 bowlers largely because McGrath and Warne meant that 5 bowlers was overkill.
Most sides in history have only played 4 specialist bowlers because there is diminishing returns adding a 5th. Your 5th bowler is by definition your worst bowler and unless you're playing in extremely poor bowling conditions 4 bowlers is enough for rotation purposes.
When you have two of the top half a dozen bowlers of all time on your side, why on earth would you pick three more specialists?
The arguments in this thread are getting absurd. Gilchrist had the game to bat anywhere.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
For positions that Gilchrist batted at more than twice, he averaged:
49.61 at no. 6
103.50 at no. 5
50 at no. 3
no. 7 was actually his worst position statistically. Keep telling us that he wouldn't have been any good batting up the order.
If you are actually interested in doing some research (even though I know you're not) have a look at the list of his Test centuries and you'll find that almost all of them were when Aus were in pretty serious trouble, and generally against quality bowling attacks too.
The suggestion that Gilchrist's career success was due in any part to him having a role of less-responsibility in the team is bordering on the worst I've ever seen on this site
Gilchrist would have thrived on more responsibility and opportunity. Being stuck at 7 in that Aus side much more likely served to limit his success than anything.
49.61 at no. 6
103.50 at no. 5
50 at no. 3
no. 7 was actually his worst position statistically. Keep telling us that he wouldn't have been any good batting up the order.
If you are actually interested in doing some research (even though I know you're not) have a look at the list of his Test centuries and you'll find that almost all of them were when Aus were in pretty serious trouble, and generally against quality bowling attacks too.
The suggestion that Gilchrist's career success was due in any part to him having a role of less-responsibility in the team is bordering on the worst I've ever seen on this site
Gilchrist would have thrived on more responsibility and opportunity. Being stuck at 7 in that Aus side much more likely served to limit his success than anything.
Last edited:
vcs
Well-known member
He dug Australia out of plenty of holes early on in his career, though he might not necessarily have single-handedly prevented a collapse or anything like that, it was usually with another proper batsman for company. It's just that his method of doing it was counter-attack rather than bunkering down. I personally count that as a point in his favour (though this approach may yield poorer or inconsistent results in tough batting conditions), since I'm a big fan of entertaining and attacking players.
He wouldn't need to defend much, he could go about playing the same way he did.
138 from 108 coming in at 5-176 - https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...d-test-australia-tour-of-south-africa-2001-02
122 from 112 coming in at 5-99 - https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...alia-1st-test-australia-tour-of-india-2000-01
149 from 163 coming in at 5-163 chasing 369 - https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...n-2nd-test-pakistan-tour-of-australia-1999-00
Cbf to find more, but there are many.
The guy would've made a very very good pure batsman.
