Both Flower and Chanders looked a bit mousey tbhI think Gilchrist would've been a 45-48 averaging #5 at a similar strike rate. Very valuable cricketer no matter how how you look at it. Can't think of many guys who did that. What I think is being overlooked is that he debuted fairly late and most of his career coincided with his batting peak, unlike most batsmen. Pretty unfair how Flower didn't get to play as much as he should've. Would've ended up a mouse upgrade over Chanders imo.
I think Gilchrist would've been a 45-48 averaging #5 at a similar strike rate. Very valuable cricketer no matter how how you look at it. Can't think of many guys who did that. What I think is being overlooked is that he debuted fairly late and most of his career coincided with his batting peak, unlike most batsmen. Pretty unfair how Flower didn't get to play as much as he should've. Would've ended up a moderate upgrade over Chanders imo.
Did you really just completely ignore all the previous posts documenting Gilchrist's thriving success as a batsman when under pressure and needing to "carry the team" and then just repeat your same horrific opinion? Why did you even bother?It is very simple, he ended up a 47 averaging batsman, didn't he? He may have done just the same but still it obviously shows Flower is the better batsman easily. Also, when I mentioned Gilchrist was a right handed Viv Richards (Geoff Boycott's words, not mine) it was obviously a very big compliment to his style of play and how good he was at it. I do reckon Viv is under rated as a test batsman here and I was obviously against Mr Mr when he was try to find some stat holes in the great man's records. And I very clearly mentioned if we consider them as keeper-batsmen, which they were, Gilchrist is ahead.
The post in question was about whether Gilchrist would have succeeded more in Flower's role than Flower in Gilchrist and the answer is a pretty emphatic no. I can see Flower doing better as #7 than Gilchrist does as a #5 batsman who has to carry the team. How stats come into it is anyone's guess but if that is the lingo some will understand, I can get to it in the weekend when I will have the time. Simply put, there is no way anything in Gilly's career showed he will be good having to carry a batting line up.
It's not pointless, it was just a facet to talk about. No one ever claimed that it was a definitive measurement. That's all we have when comparing players with such different roles. There's never going to be a definitive, objectively "correct" answer to this question. Way too many variables.Trying to argue who could play the other's role is pointless.
This.Trying to argue who could play the other's role is pointless.
I mean talking about retired players in general is pretty pointless. Doesn't mean we can't argue over it.
Exactly thisWhat else do we have to argue about with no live cricket till about just now...
Absolute poetry, surely your finest CW momentExactly this
If that's pointless then this whole forum is pointless
Life is pointless
Death comes for everyone
Kinda crazy Lara’s on there twice as much as anyone else.An interesting side note. A. Flower broke a 76 year record - most runs in a Test for a losing cause from H.Sutcliffe. A mere 2 months later, Lara broke that.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282863.html
Makes sense though. Incredible batsman. Terrible team.Kinda crazy Lara’s on there twice as much as anyone else.
Damn... Lara is there 8 times, effin 8 times in that list! Next highest are Ponting & Flower (3 times).Kinda crazy Lara’s on there twice as much as anyone else.
Yeah not surprising, just a big reminder of his skill and his teammate’s lack of it.Makes sense though. Incredible batsman. Terrible team.