Poms! Name your best Aussie side of the last 30 years!

Who was this?

Greg Matthews

embee, cricinfo suggested Bopara's wicket came off a no ball. Bowler grounded the front foot OK, but it then slid over the line during delivery. I think it's OK for that to happen, but wondering if you could confirm.

that sounds OK Zat

Thx. Cricinfo speaking rubbish about cricket again.

embee wrote:

ten years after wrote: how would other specialist batsmen have fared batting at seven for their whole career.

The difference between 6 and 7 for another

2nd position 1984-1985 2 2 0 24 17 12.00 92 26.08 0 0 0 2 0 view innings
6th position 1984-1986 11 15 3 380 130 31.66 867 43.82 1 1 1 40 1 view innings
7th position 1984-1993 24 33 4 1317 128 45.41 2902 45.38 3 10 1 112 4 view innings
8th position 1983-1991 3 3 1 128 75 64.00 317 40.37 0 1 0 12 0 view innings

ten years after wrote:Who was this?

embee wrote:Greg Matthews

Well known for being a specialist batsman.

i just said "another" ...but an overall test batting average of 41.08 would suggest he wasn't a mug

embee wrote:i just said "another" ...but an overall test batting average of 41.08 would suggest he wasn't a mug

If he was English he'd be a 'great'.

ten years after wrote:Gilchrist batted brilliantly at seven but the questionj has to be asked, how would other specialist batsmen have fared batting at seven for their whole career. I wish he had batted mostly in the middle order then we would have a better idea of how good a batsman he was.

As it was he only had one gear which was pretty spectacular quite often. When Aus needed a rearguard action (which was very rarely) he didn't deliver.

He could not, surely, displace Waugh, Chappell, Border or Ponting in the middle order.

The difference between Gilchrist's and Healy's batting averages means that this team is going to score 480 instead of 460 in a normal innings. This difference is irrelevant compared to the difference a great keeper makes to an average one.

Gilchrist was at his best in a rearguard action. Some examples.

HOBART 1999
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 126 with Australia chasing 369 in the fourth innings.
Outcome: Gilchrist scores 149 not out - Australia win by four wickets.

BOMBAY 2001
India score 176 in the first innings. Australia collapse to 5 for 99.
Gilchrist comes in and plays defensively, taking 15 balls to get off the mark
Outcome:Gilchrist goes on to score 122 of 112 balls - Australia take a 170-run first innings lead and go on to win by 10 wickets

NOTTINGHAM 2001
Gilchrist comes in with Australia at 5 for 99, still 86 runs behind England's first innings total
Outcome: Gilchrist scores Australia's lone half-century (54) getting Australia to 190 and a five run lead. Australia go on to win the match.

PERTH 2001
Gilchrist comes in with Australia at 5 for 244 needing another 195 to win OR needing to see out another 32 overs for the draw
Outcome: Gilchrist scores 83 not out. His quick scoring forces New Zealand to drop the field back, allowing him to play defensively and secure the draw.

CAPE TOWN 2002
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 176 with Australia still 63 runs behind South Africa's first innings total. It's not a terribly bad position, but a tail-end collapse will leave Australia trailing.
Outcome: Gilchrist smokes 138 unbeaten runs off 108 deliveries, giving Australia a 143 run lead. Australia eventually win by four wickets.

SYDNEY 2003
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 150 with Australia still 212 runs behind England's first innings score.
Outcome: Gilchrist scores 133 in an innings over-shadowed by Steve Waugh's last-ball century. Australia take a one run first innings lead, but England post a score of 450+ in the second innings. Australia go on to lose by 225 runs.

KANDY 2004
Gilchrist is promoted to number three in the second innings, with Australia still trailing Sri Lanka by 85 runs.
Outcome: Gilchrist scores 144, helping Australia set a target of 352. Australia win by 27 runs.

DARWIN 2004
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 77 in the second innings, with Australia leading by 187.
Outcome: Gilchrist top scores with 80, helping set a target of 312. Australia go on to win by 149 runs.

PERTH 2004
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 78 in the first innings against Pakistan.
Outcome: Gilchrist departs with the score on 230, having scored 69. A Justin Langer century gets Australia to 381, setting up a massive win.

CHRISTCHURCH 2005
Gilchrist comes in at 6 for 201, with Australia still 232 runs behind New Zealand's first innings total.
Outcome: Gilchrist top-scores with 121, getting Australia to 432 (one run behind NZ). Australia run through the Kiwis in the second dig and go on to win by 9 wickets.

SYDNEY 2006
Gilchrist comes in at 5 for 222 with Australia still 230 runs behind South Africa's first innings total.
Outcome: Gilchrist scores 80, helping Australia get to within 92 of South Africa. Australia go on to win by eight wickets thanks to a helpful declaration from Graeme Smith and a sensational century by Ponting.

FATULLAH 2006
Gilchrist comes in at 4 for 61, a mile behind Bangladesh's first-innings total of 427. Before too long Australia are 6 for 93.
Outcome: Gilchrist top-scores with 144 off 212, getting Australia to 269. The next best Australian score is 26. Australia eventually win by 3 wickets, avoiding an ignominious defeat.


It should be noted that most of the time Gilchrist was following a batting line-up that went something like Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, S Waugh and any of Lehmann/M Waugh/Katich/Hussey/Clarke - hardly mugs with the bat.

Gilchrist turned these matches in a way that Chappell, Border, Ponting and Waugh couldn't. Those greats could all turn matches in their own way, but Gilchrist's speed allowed him to change the situation of a match inside a session. He was much more valuable than an extra 20 runs each innings.

Hass wrote:

BOMBAY 2001
India score 176 in the first innings. Australia collapse to 5 for 99.
Gilchrist comes in and plays defensively, taking 15 balls to get off the mark
Outcome:Gilchrist goes on to score 122 of 112 balls - Australia take a 170-run first innings lead and go on to win by 10 wickets

I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of playing defensively

These example clearly demonstrate that Gilchrist was a very fine batsman, maybe a great one. I would argue that most of these innings would have been more valuable if he had played further up the order rather than from number 7 as many of them involved a large stand with another specialist batsman and would therefore have prevented Australia from getting into trouble in the first place.

This means that he competes with other middle order batsmen for a place in the 'best XI' middle order not as keeper. The fact that he batted at 7 makes it difficult to push Border, Ponting etc aside for him as there has to be the suspicion that batting at 7 is easier than batting at 3 to 6.

I reiterate; Because of the strenght of an Australian best XI batting line up you do not need this quality of batsmanship at 7. The odd example where it had a good outcome is more than countered by the overall effect over 90+ test matches of the lower quality of keeping. I'm not talking about having a bunny at 7 - remember that Healy too played many fine innings.

So do we found a church based on the wait for the second coming of Gilchrist?

ten years after wrote:

Hass wrote:

BOMBAY 2001
India score 176 in the first innings. Australia collapse to 5 for 99.
Gilchrist comes in and plays defensively, taking 15 balls to get off the mark
Outcome:Gilchrist goes on to score 122 of 112 balls - Australia take a 170-run first innings lead and go on to win by 10 wickets

I reiterate; Because of the strenght of an Australian best XI batting line up you do not need this quality of batsmanship at 7.

The Aussie batting at Bombay 2001 was pretty good and they quite clearly needed Gilchrist then!

Rob I wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Hass wrote:

BOMBAY 2001
India score 176 in the first innings. Australia collapse to 5 for 99.
Gilchrist comes in and plays defensively, taking 15 balls to get off the mark
Outcome:Gilchrist goes on to score 122 of 112 balls - Australia take a 170-run first innings lead and go on to win by 10 wickets

I reiterate; Because of the strenght of an Australian best XI batting line up you do not need this quality of batsmanship at 7.

The Aussie batting at Bombay 2001 was pretty good and they quite clearly needed Gilchrist then!

Richie Benaud summed it up when he said Gilchrist's added value with the bat overcame any perceived shortcomings behind the stumps. Over time, Gilly more than held his own as a keeper for mine too. Not the best, but I'd rank him not far behind Marsh and Healy in keeping ability of those I've seen.

He kept wicket to Warne for what, eighty test matches, so he can't have been a slouch behind the sticks.

It does pose an interesting question. What exactly did Gilchrist do poorly behind the stumps?

I always saw him as a world-class batter and a test-class keeper. Much better in the latter role than some of the Doctor Strangegloves that England picked since Stewie.

Rob I wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Hass wrote:

BOMBAY 2001
India score 176 in the first innings. Australia collapse to 5 for 99.
Gilchrist comes in and plays defensively, taking 15 balls to get off the mark
Outcome:Gilchrist goes on to score 122 of 112 balls - Australia take a 170-run first innings lead and go on to win by 10 wickets

I reiterate; Because of the strenght of an Australian best XI batting line up you do not need this quality of batsmanship at 7.

The Aussie batting at Bombay 2001 was pretty good and they quite clearly needed Gilchrist then!

The Bombay innings proves my point. Gilchrisat put on 200 with Hayden. Had he gone in at number 5 Australia would not have been 5 fer f-all in the first place.

I'm not sure he ever put on a huge amount (ie. more than Healy could be expected to do) with 9, 10, Jack. Maybe someone will prove me wrong.

Also, Gilchrist was not a bad keeper. Average test standard which means pretty good.

He dropped too many chances and made too many other mistakes to be in the same league as Healy

ten years after wrote:
These example clearly demonstrate that Gilchrist was a very fine batsman, maybe a great one. I would argue that most of these innings would have been more valuable if he had played further up the order rather than from number 7 as many of them involved a large stand with another specialist batsman and would therefore have prevented Australia from getting into trouble in the first place.

This means that he competes with other middle order batsmen for a place in the 'best XI' middle order not as keeper. The fact that he batted at 7 makes it difficult to push Border, Ponting etc aside for him as there has to be the suspicion that batting at 7 is easier than batting at 3 to 6.

I reiterate; Because of the strenght of an Australian best XI batting line up you do not need this quality of batsmanship at 7. The odd example where it had a good outcome is more than countered by the overall effect over 90+ test matches of the lower quality of keeping. I'm not talking about having a bunny at 7 - remember that Healy too played many fine innings.

But in exercises of this sort Australia's batsmen would be coming up against an equally good bowling line-up. If Australia were playing the best West Indian team of the past 30 years they'd be facing Marshall, Holding, Garner and Ambrose. What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?

Let's say Gilchrist is competing for a top-six spot. It's not about who deserves to get picked, but who adds the most value to the side. Ponting, Border, Waugh and Chappell can all score big centuries. But only Gilchrist can score big centuries quickly on a regular basis.

It's also worth noting that Gilchrist averaged 51.86 during the 25 times he batted in the top six. That's an improvement on his overall average. There is no doubt he could hold down the number six position.

Gilchrist is ideally suited to batting down the order (at 6 or 7) because he can get runs quickly. He can score a mass of runs before the tail folds. Other batsman haven't been able to do that on a consistent basis. Gilchrist only played in 12 draws over the course of his 96 tests. His batting was a major reason why Australia had time to bowl sides out twice.

I don't think it's necessary to drop Steve Waugh from this side however. I'm very happy with Gilchrist at 7. But we've had the Healy/Gilchrist discussion many times before and failed to budge anyone's opinion, so I'm happy to leave it.

Although Healy missed a stumping to win a test match and dropped Lara to all but win another test match.

FTR - I think Healy is far superior than Gilly as a keeper.

ten years after wrote:
I'm not sure he ever put on a huge amount (ie. more than Healy could be expected to do) with 9, 10, Jack. Maybe someone will prove me wrong.

The most obvious example that comes to mind is Edgbaston 2001.

When McGrath came to the crease Gilchrist was on 91. Gilchrist eventually made 152. They scored 63 runs off 48 balls. McGrath's contribution to the partnership... one run and 18 dot balls!

That partnership was just a case of icing on the cake, but his innings at Cape Town in 2002 was vital.

He made 138 not out. Numbers 9, 10 and 11 scored two runs between them yet Australia put on 65 for the last three wickets. The tail-enders only lasted 10 overs, but Gilchrist made the most of small the time they gave him.

Paul Keating wrote:Although Healy missed a stumping to win a test match and dropped Lara to all but win another test match.

FTR - I think Healy is far superior than Gilly as a keeper.

That missed stumping is a bit of an albatross for Healy. It was a terrible mistake at a crucial time and he he'll never live it down.

Then again no-ones saying he's Australia's best ever keeper - and even Bert Oldfield made the odd mistake.

Hass wrote:

ten years after wrote:
I'm not sure he ever put on a huge amount (ie. more than Healy could be expected to do) with 9, 10, Jack. Maybe someone will prove me wrong.

The most obvious example that comes to mind is Edgbaston 2001.

When McGrath came to the crease Gilchrist was on 91. Gilchrist eventually made 152. They scored 63 runs off 48 balls. McGrath's contribution to the partnership... one run and 18 dot balls!

That partnership was just a case of icing on the cake, but his innings at Cape Town in 2002 was vital.

He made 138 not out. Numbers 9, 10 and 11 scored two runs between them yet Australia put on 65 for the last three wickets. The tail-enders only lasted 10 overs, but Gilchrist made the most of small the time they gave him.

Good stuff. If he did that sort of thing every series then you could say that his position at number 7 was valuable, but doing it a few times in 90 tests doesn't change my point. He could have done these things from the middle order as Hussey did a couple of years ago.

It's clear that, had Gilly played for any team less good than the Aussies were he would have batted higher up the order. He may also, like Sanga, have surrendered the gloves if it seemed prudent to do so - Healy and Gilly could easily have played for a couple of years in the same team.

I'm sure, for another example in a happier world, that Flower and Taibu would have played a fair few tests together.

FATULLAH 2006
Gilchrist comes in at 4 for 61, a mile behind Bangladesh's first-innings total of 427. Before too long Australia are 6 for 93.
Outcome: Gilchrist top-scores with 144 off 212, getting Australia to 269. The next best Australian score is 26. Australia eventually win by 3 wickets, avoiding an ignominious defeat.

I closely followed this mini series between Bang and Aus and I was hugely gutted that Bangladesh didn't force a win, because they were plain awful in the second test. I recall Shane Warne was quite unfortunate on that tour; he got taken to the cleaners on multiple occasion's by the Bangladeshi batters.

I say that, he got taken to the cleaners in ONE innings.


Reading back the scorecards it seems that MacDill and Warne had it under control.