Other Cricket
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 you sort of counter your own argument coz Gilly is an all-rounder.
I reckon if you've got the best 6 batsman you don''t need the extra 20 runs Gilchrest will get you in a match so you take a better gloveman who won't concede a couple or put down that crucial catch, miss the stumping. Not that he was a mug behind the stumps but the best batsmen might only give you one chance in an innings so you want the guy who is more likely to snaffle it.
Well it is the fern so I won't back down on my stance
Bowling and batting stats are analysed to death and even then it's sometimes hard to gauge who is better depending on how cherry picked the stats are. Home records/records vs minnows etc can skew these a bit......
Wicket Keepers have a number of catches and stumpings but no clear stats on missed chances/byes etc so who is the "better" keeper is largely anecdotal.
I remember Gilly being a decent keeper from what I saw and of course his runs speak for themselves not even taking into account the very valid point made by @virgil on how quick he scored them. You could put the house on at least a couple of that Australian top seven getting big hundreds in the 2000s every time they batted and the man at seven played a huge part in this.
He gets in my team any day that ends in Y.
-
I think wicket-keepers of yore would turn in their graves at the big lumps who do the job these days. On uncovered pitches and the chance of a wicket turning into a "bunsen burner" your keeper had to be so good to make the grade. Keeping to Warne when he was ripping it was a breeze compared to keeping to Underwood on a drying pitch - he was virtually medium pace and the ball would just take off.
I think Knott was the first to be a real athlete and leap to take catches off the fast bowlers and Marsh was the same but against much faster (and often wilder) bowlers on faster tracks. Knott was my Mum's favourite because he used to be doing stretching exercises the whole day of test cricket.
-
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
I think wicket-keepers of yore would turn in their graves at the big lumps who do the job these days. On uncovered pitches and the chance of a wicket turning into a "bunsen burner" your keeper had to be so good to make the grade. Keeping to Warne when he was ripping it was a breeze compared to keeping to Underwood on a drying pitch - he was virtually medium pace and the ball would just take off.
I think Knott was the first to be a real athlete and leap to take catches off the fast bowlers and Marsh was the same but against much faster (and often wilder) bowlers on faster tracks. Knott was my Mum's favourite because he used to be doing stretching exercises the whole day of test cricket.
Jeff Dujon must have gone ok too against all those quick bowlers but wouldn't have had much chance to stand up to slow bowlers given they cleaned up like they did.
A batting average over 30 for a keeper in that era was bloody good too.
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
For such a talented player it seemed like he got hit in the head a lot. Technique issue or bad luck?
-
@Crazy-Horse I'd say one led to the other.
-
incredible test career. the guy whose personality and attitude drove India from a talented team to a team who could go to Australia and win. Absolutely beautiful player to watch as well.
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
incredible test career. the guy whose personality and attitude drove India from a talented team to a team who could go to Australia and win. Absolutely beautiful player to watch as well.
For sure, at his peak he was top of the Fab 4.
but fell away badly in his last few years, only averaged 30 for the last 5 years. During his peak he was averaging double that. What stood him out was his form in both England and OZ during that time
He scored 6 x double tons in the period of 18 months then as well, only Bradman did better.For me though he will go down as a better ODI batsman (probably the best of all time)
-
best ODI player of all time. Best multi format player of all time. His peak at test level was as good as anyone.
But his test career in terms of what he means to India is more than numbers.
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
best ODI player of all time. Best multi format player of all time. His peak at test level was as good as anyone.
But his test career in terms of what he means to India is more than numbers.
He had an Aussie attitude about him, which is why he rubbed them the wrong way so much.
its a shame his test record fell away as badly as it did, he could have finished with a 50+ average in all 3 International formats (T20I's average his dropped to 48 but still..)
51 ODI centuries in just 290 innings is insane.
-
A test average of 46 is possibly a bit disappointing but perhaps it just got too tough to maintain absolute excellence in all three formats ? Not quite sure if he was top of the Fab Four at his peak, let’s not forget Steve Smith…..but if you take all formats into account maybe he was.
As has been mentioned his ODI figures were insane. Very likely the best ODI batsman of all time ( ok maybe tied with Viv )
The test game will be worse off without him.
As always curious to hear the thoughts of @NTA once he’s finished celebrating
-
-
@Virgil said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
My thoughts on Kohli: we hated him because he was so much like us...
Now you know why we hate your guys.
-
Kohli's overall test stats put him a level below Smith, Kane and Root, but he was a player that really rose to the occasion and seemed to thrive under pressure rather than fold. Some of those knocks he played in Aus, while his teammates folded like wet paper as usual, were simply incredible. So despite his numbers (which are still fucking excellent to be fair), in a close match he was the wicket you wanted the most in the Indian lineup.
He was also an absolute joy to watch bat, his cover drives were something else.
-
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Kohli's overall test stats put him a level below Smith, Kane and Root, but he was a player that really rose to the occasion and seemed to thrive under pressure rather than fold.
I think that's why stats shouldn't be treated as the be all and end all.
As Virgil points out, if he'd walked away in 2019 he could have averaged 55.
I'm happy to have him on the same tier as Kane et al.
He's played 550 international matches to Kane's 371!
More opportunity - but, also more attrition....
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
A test average of 46 is possibly a bit disappointing but perhaps it just got too tough to maintain absolute excellence in all three formats ? Not quite sure if he was top of the Fab Four at his peak, let’s not forget Steve Smith…..but if you take all formats into account maybe he was.
As has been mentioned his ODI figures were insane. Very likely the best ODI batsman of all time ( ok maybe tied with Viv )
The test game will be worse off without him.
As always curious to hear the thoughts of @NTA once he’s finished celebrating
David Warner with a public tribute wherein half the words are actually about David? Colour me surprised.
