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

by ten years after Sat 08 Aug 2009, 11:17

Hass wrote:
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.

As i've said i think there is every chance that you are correct and that Gilchrist would have excelled in the middle order. In fact that's exactly where he should have routinely played. The decision on his suitability for an ATXI (or last 30 years XI) would have enough facts to make a reasoned decision.

With temporally defined superlative XIs you do not go with bits and pieces players. The bowlers should be great bowlers, the batsmen should be great batsmen and the keeper should be a great keeper. It's as simple as that.

by Ash Sat 08 Aug 2009, 12:24

TYA - your logic is flawed. gilchrist excelled at 7 batting behind 6 world class batsmen. this is exactly what he would be doing in a best xi. so there is nothing to suggest that he wouldn't excel. i dont see where the question of him batting in the top 6 comes from. he did brilliantly in a certain role, so keep him there.

and with australia being so strong, he rarely needed to bat defensively. give me a counter-attacking match winning 100 over a dour rear guard action anyday. he was a match winner, not a match saver but a) thats better and b) he didnt need to save matches due to the strength of the sides he played in

by ten years after Sat 08 Aug 2009, 12:40

Ash wrote:TYA - your logic is flawed. gilchrist excelled at 7 batting behind 6 world class batsmen. this is exactly what he would be doing in a best xi. so there is nothing to suggest that he wouldn't excel. i dont see where the question of him batting in the top 6 comes from. he did brilliantly in a certain role, so keep him there.

and with australia being so strong, he rarely needed to bat defensively. give me a counter-attacking match winning 100 over a dour rear guard action anyday. he was a match winner, not a match saver but a) thats better and b) he didnt need to save matches due to the strength of the sides he played in

I'm afraid it is you that have flawed logic as you are totally overlooking one rather significant detail. Gilchrist is selected at number seven as a keeper, not as a batsman. If he is not good enough to be the keeper he can't be a specialist batsman at number 7 and therefore has to compete with the middle order for his spot.

by Ash Sat 08 Aug 2009, 12:48

he was a keeper batting at 7 for his teams, he will be keeper batting at 7 for the best xi. there is no question of him competing for a top 6 position imv.

you're suggesting he's not good enough to keep in this xi - but its not general consensus. some believe the added value gained through his batting is more significant than the the value gained through having a better keeper.

how many tests did australia lose because of a gilchrist keeping error?

by ten years after Sat 08 Aug 2009, 13:03

As I have said before 'best of' XIs should, as far as possible, comprise greats in all of the key departments including keeping. Gilchrist wasn't a great keeper so he shouldn't get the keeping slot.

Many on this forum seem to think that a keeper's batting ability is more important than their keeping ability. This is one of the many aspects of the modern game that are turning the whole thing into a one dimensional slog fest. The logical extension of this is to pick the seven best batsmen and give the gloves to the one who is less likely to stuff up behind the stumps.

To address your question, Australia lost very few tests in Gilchrist's time as keeper and, as in most such hypotheticals, it is impossible to tell if a Gilchrist error led directly to any of them. It would not be relevant if one did. Cricketing greatness is measured over a career not a single event.

by ever hopeful Thu 06 Jan 2011, 16:54

The current Aussie side have probably given me more pleasure than any I can remember, although I also have fond memories of the last two touring outfits to come here.

by Sponsored content