• 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

Gilly vs Flower

  • Gilchrist

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Flower

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • Total voters
    31
trundler

trundler

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Well-known member
trundler said:
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 mouse upgrade over Chanders imo.
Click to expand...
Both Flower and Chanders looked a bit mousey tbh
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

Well-known member
If gilly played for zimbabwe he would have had to bat with **** batsmen. He played for australia, though, and because he batted at 7 he got to play with shitter batsmen most of the time.
He would have fared the same. You can bat 100 balls for 50 or 50 balls for 50. Both yield the same average.
Andy played 63 matches for 19 not outs. Gilly played 96 for 20.
Gilly missed many opportunities to bat when it was easy and increase his average because his team meant he only got one go in these games.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Well-known member
trundler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Well-known member
honestbharani said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

baffling
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

Well-known member
Trying to argue who could play the other's role is pointless. What you can look to is how they did their roles that they played. Gilchrist did not shrink among a team of greats, rather, he was one of the foremost players whose addition took them higher. Flower played the lone ranger in a team of filth. He was always going to be their best batsmen.

Is it easier to become cream from cake, or the other way around? There is nothing to say Gilchrist could not play the same style of batting up the order and not been as successful. Sehwag played up the top of the innings. I think it is easier to slow down than to speed up. In my very low level cricket experience, I was the dasher. When the team needed me to stay in and last as many balls as my partner would, I could and did do it. When they needed my partner to match me for runs, he could not.

Is it easier to bat when it doesn't matter than when it does? I don't buy into this. When it doesn't matter you are likely to throw your wicket away. When it does matter you have nothing to distract you from being focused. Some people's mentality is to **** you up. Other people are set against you ****ing them up. Who wins the fight? Can't say - All arguments regarding this are a pile of tosh.

Who would I choose to bat for my life? Probably flower...if there is no limit on balls . Who would I choose to make an all time great team better? Probably Gilchrist. Many players could be Flower. Not many could be Gilchrist.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Well-known member
Victor Ian said:
Trying to argue who could play the other's role is pointless.
Click to expand...
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.
 
D

Daemon

Well-known member
I mean talking about retired players in general is pretty pointless. Doesn't mean we can't argue over it.
 
P

pardus

Well-known member
Gilchrist, without question, for me. Unfortunately I saw his fourth innings 149* off just 163 balls against Pakistan (attack of Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain) in 1999. Aussies were chasing some 360+, and tottering at some 120 odd for 5 wickets down when Gilchrist walked in to bat (and he was the last recognized batsman with tail to follow). Gilchrist just toyed with that great Pakistani attack. I am still in too much awe of that innings. Back then I just could not believe that a batsman can bat like that in a fourth innings against that kind of attack in that situation. He batted like it was T20 cricket. He hammered all the Pakistani bowlers, especially Wasim. I think Langer was batting on 40 when Gilchrist walked into bat, and Gilly reached his 100 before Langer reached 80. It was Gilchrists's second Test match of his career.
Gilchrist was easily the second biggest reason that Aussies won that match (behind Umpire Peter Parker). And thankfully, Gilchrist's innings was pretty much chanceless. Unlike Langer, he didn't need any support from Parker. I just can't imagine Flower, as good as he is, making such a quality bowling attack look so utterly helpless in that kind of pressure situation.

Interestingly if you filter Gilchrist's innings count to his first 111 (nearly same as Flower's career of 112), his stats exactly mirror Flower's almost to the run (Gilly had 4780 runs @ 51.4, Flower had 4794 runs @ 51.54). Gilchrist's batting did fall off a cliff from 2005 Ashes onward when a technical flaw was figured out, but it was rarely felt because after 2005 Ashes till the end of Gilchrists's career, Australia won each and every Test series that he was involved in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top