Replacing Gilchrist: the specialist glovemen...

[draexem]

Unfortunately, the phrase ‘test innings’ changes along with the game and the conditions with which the game is played. At its fundamentals, a good test innings is a successful accumulation of runs. That is all. And yes, his innings are worthy of great praise seeing as he outscored every other batmen on the field, and thus conducted the best test innings.

And Australia may have had 200+ runs on the board, but I’m glad to see that you ignored the fact that they were 6 down, were still 230 odd runs behind had two new batsmen at the crease and just the tail to come. Ideal batting conditions obviously.

Anyone who thinks that Gilchrist has been taking silly risks and been getting away with it consistently for his entire career needs to rethink their position on the matter.

England exposed a flaw in Gilchrist’s technique that was allowed to go unquestioned for too long (and he didn't completely fail, averaging an okay 23). To say it was the moving ball that undid Gilchrist neglects to take into consideration the run of poor form he’s had since the ASHES. It’s nothing more than a technique issue that needs correcting. And your basis of a test innings is ludicrous, ‘leaving anything that’s not going to hit the stumps’? There goes Cook and Bell for starters, with their constant hanging bats. Lara, pathetic test player obviously as I’ve seen his nibbles outside off. You know what’s worst of all? Viv Richards is not a quality test batsmen by your standards, and his innings weren’t test innings. The ‘Master Blaster’ was well known for throwing his wickets away on occasion, having a go outside off, and he definitely didn’t use the pace of the ball. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to construct a test match innings.

And you may go on about ‘uncovered pitches, increased sweet spots, shorter boundaries, the introduction of helmets, lack of quality swing bowling’ and so on, but all batsmen have the same advantage and Gilchrist has scored more runs at a greater average than nearly all of them.

And I can tell you quite convincingly (being a New South Welshman and watching Haddin play for the past many years) that he doesn’t hold a candle to Gilchrist batting wise. I can also tell you quite convincingly, having started watching Gilchrist playing convinced he was nothing more than a slogger, that his batting is much more timing of the ball and less slogging than a lot of people think.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by draexem

I can also tell you quite convincingly, having started watching Gilchrist playing convinced he was nothing more than a slogger, that his batting is much more timing of the ball and less slogging than a lot of people think.

That bit we can agree on: Gilchrist has an awesome eye for the ball and his timing is superb... but fcourse... the moment you get on a sporting pitch that's a bit two-paced, and has a little bit of uneven bounce... and use a ball that maintains a decent seam for more than the first few overs... the playing field evens out as timing becomes (as it should be) somewhat hit and miss (and more miss than hit if you go hard at the ball).

Cricket should be about ability to time shots when the ball is doing something.. not an overgrown golf contest with players going at a ball with complete conviction as to where the point of contact will be!

We get the same thing in tennis: I stand in awe of Agassi's timing of the ball on the rise... but the two great tennis surfaces are clay and grass... and he always struggled on clay because it's near impossible to time the kicking ball that well... and the only reason he thrived on the grass was the emergence of over-prepared show-courts that played like the dreaded hard-court - grasscourt tennis should make playing the ball early a lottery, reward ablity to take the ball before the bounce and play into the hands of those great touch players who can play late and adjust to the vagaries off the court surface... and given those conditions Agassi would never have even got close to players like Edberg and Henman.

[draexem]

And you're basing the fact that Gilchrist doesn't play well against the moving ball, or on inconsistent pitches on what exactly? In my opinion, he plays the moving ball quite competently, he's got excellent footwork, his shots are all legitimate, his balance superb and his timing exquisite. And going hard at the ball is his style of batting, just like a number of legendary West Indian batsmen. I don't see you applying the same system of analysis to the Calypso kings batsmen. Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, all would have been discounted as little more than sloggers under your expectations. Firstly, I'd like to point out that if you want to talk about a batsmen relying on nothing more than timing and an eye for the ball, compare Andrew Flintoff's batting to Adam Gilchrists. The former has no movement of the feet and relies nothing more than hand eye coordination and natural timing to rack up scores. Compare this to Gilchrist who has all the fundamentals and you'll be able to see the difference between a batsmen who uses nothing but a good eye and a batsmen well schooled in the fundamentals. Secondly, if you're using the single series in England to determine that he cannot play the moving ball, it will be not only unfair but logically flawed. As I said before, Gilchrist took his run of poor form back to Australia with him, where the ball doesn't move significantly.

And talking about Agassi, in a 5 year block at the French Open he reached the Finals twice and the semi Finals twice. He also won the tournament in 1999, so I can see how he has struggled on clay. Edberg has a far worse record on clay tournaments than Agassi, and Henman's a joke.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by draexem

compare Andrew Flintoff's batting to Adam Gilchrists. The former has no movement of the feet and relies nothing more than hand eye coordination and natural timing to rack up scores. Compare this to Gilchrist who has all the fundamentals and you'll be able to see the difference between a batsmen who uses nothing but a good eye and a batsmen well schooled in the fundamentals.

I've no problem with Gilchrist's "technique" in basic shot execution: I accept that he plays orthodox strokes in textbook fashion.... and that if you want to see how to play through the line of the ball... you'll find no better role model.

With all that said... I've grave doubts about his ability to linger on the back foot and nudge and nurdle, late, with soft hands: I've always shied away from claiming this as a Gilchrist failing as (sadly) the Aussie batsmen have rarely been put in situations where this is required... but I'm increasingly prepared to express doubts!

I've no problem with passages of play in Test cricket in which batsmen are on top... but they need to be shortlived... against the old ball... and not TOO one sided: if Gilchrist wants to hit the ball into the first tier of the stands that's fine.... but the bowler does at least need to know {a} that anything other than a perfectly timed shot is going to be disasterous for the batsman (something that doesn't happen with modern bats with large sweet spots), {b} that even a powerful batsman with perfect timing is going to struggle with the effort of clearing the ropes (possibly true at the larger Aussie grounds when the ropes are kept out, often not true enough for big blokes with heavy bats), and {c} that there's enough in the pitch that persistence is most commonly going to get reward within the hour rather than after the destroyer has racked up a match-turning total (rarely true given the true bounce of most modern wickets).

Bottom line: cricket needs a contest between bat and ball, and no matter who the culprit it (Richards, Tendulkar, Gilchrist), successful assaults make a complete mockery of the notion of such a contest. In just 2-3 hours such assaults can basically turn a game from a contest to a procession... and that sucks. That's not an attack on what these superb players can do.. it's just an admission that the game of cricket dies when these guys get going.

If that's your thing then fine... but I've more time for the improvisation and touch of Lara and Jayawardene

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've no problem with passages of play in Test cricket in which batsmen are on top... but they need to be shortlived... against the old ball... and not TOO one sided: if Gilchrist wants to hit the ball into the first tier of the stands that's fine.... but the bowler does at least need to know {a} that anything other than a perfectly timed shot is going to be disasterous for the batsman (something that doesn't happen with modern bats with large sweet spots), {b} that even a powerful batsman with perfect timing is going to struggle with the effort of clearing the ropes (possibly true at the larger Aussie grounds when the ropes are kept out, often not true enough for big blokes with heavy bats), and {c} that there's enough in the pitch that persistence is most commonly going to get reward within the hour rather than after the destroyer has racked up a match-turning total (rarely true given the true bounce of most modern wickets).

I totally agree with you here. The addition of helmets to prevent batsmen from getting easily intimidated, enlarged sweetspots in the last 10 years so nicks go for sixes which heavily favour aggressive batsmen, shorter boundaries, flatter pitches, stadiums preventing wind and therefore swing on the grounds, all of these things are ruining the game to some degree. There can be a case made for the degradation in ALL the batsmens skills in the modern era because they have been too pampered. I’m hoping that the flattening of the pitches and the reduction of the role of the fast bowler will aid in the rise of legspin. Legspin is at its most valuable on flat pitches with the old ball. A key reason why Australia and Pakistan usually have legspinners in their team, it’s one of the only ways you can get wickets on roads (and both Australia and Pakistan produce roads). Maybe that’s why other teams (who don’t have access to a quality leg spin bowler) find it so hard to win in either of these countries? No offence, but the minute you guys came out here and named Giles, you guys lost the series. Panesar's a start but England will need another spinner to complement him when England tours places like Paki and Aus.

The way cricket is headed (batsmen friendly), a quality legspin bowler is a necessity! Pakistan have Kaneira, and an offie in Malik (a leggie and an offie complement each other perfectly). Australia have Warne, MacGill, and young leggies in Bailey, Doran and Heal (lets not mention White and pretend he doesn’t exist). I think that any World Champion in test cricket in the future needs to have AT LEAST a quality spinner and PREFERABLY a wrist spinner in the squad. These spinners will get movement through the air via drift and dip, and should get movement off the deck. Maybe in the future you’ll need 2 fast bowlers and 3 spinners. The fast bowlers will see off the new ball and the spinners will use the old. Australia should really have had 2 spinners in their squad, but Warne was overbowled and tied an end up all day. They should have rotated him with another spinner. I think pace bowling is dying at the moment. I think pace bowling is becoming steadily useless with an old ball. Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I correct in assuming that the third test in Lahore, England versus Pakistan, was played on a flat track. Pakistan's offspin bowler (Malik) took the top 3 English wickets in the first innings while England's Pace quartet were belted everywhere. In the second innings, Akhtar took 2 wickets with the new ball, and Kaneira then tore through the middle order with the old. When India last toured Pakistan, the first test Kumble took 2 wickets in the first innings and 6 in the second.

Of course I may be completely wrong, and pace bowling is as strong as ever, these are just my opinions on the matter. I can't see what the rest of the World is doing, but here in Australia, NSW have 3 spinners in their squad, with 2 in their starting 11 (Casson, MacGill, Hauritz), Queensland have one in their 11 (Doran), South Australia have 2 (bailey and Cullen), Western Australia have a couple I think (Hogg and Heal), Victoria have White, I don't know about Tasmania. It just seems to me that spinners are going to have a much bigger role in the future. In the early 90's there weren't nearly as many spinners hanging around Australia.

I've rambled on a bit, but in short I believe that in the future, the only way we'll see a contest between bat and ball when the ball gets old is with quality spin bowling.