| I'm sure we'd all agree with Andy that Gilchrist has been something of an ambassador for the sport (amongst many others internationally, but perhaps out there on his own amongst recent Australian players).
On the batting front, all should acknowledge a ODI hitter who embodied the modern ODI game: that's not to say he was up there with Lara and Tendulkar as a batsman, or that his style was unique... but Gilchrist's flashing blade (rooted in timing with a light bat in an era dominated by broad shoulders and heavy bats) has become iconic.
Whether Gilchrist's legacy in Test cricket can be viewed so positively is a rather different matter... but I refuse to hold that against the player: he thrived on the opportunities presented to him... and the fact that most of those opportunities allowed him to demonstrate his particular brand of ODI innings in the midst of a Test match (quite commonly to very good effect) is hardly HIS fault!
My own view is that Gilchrist would have been a success even playing for a comparatively weak side (say NZ) in a more difficult era (either the era of uncovered wickets, or at the height of the 1990s, when bowling standards forced batsmen to show bowlers more respect despite the covered pitches).
What might have been different is the style of play: we might, in those circumstances, have seen a more accomplished batsmen emerge... but have missed out on much of the clean hitting.  | 
27-01-2008, 09:28 PM
in reply to sanketh84's post starting "i absolutely agree with u on this andy..." 
Linear Mode
