A Fair Swap..>

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Tait can be classed as untested, but Bracken and Williams have both played tests for Australia.

Playing four or less Tests does count as being untested ZR.

Bracken: 3 Tests, 6 wickets, at an average of 59.

Williams: 4 Tests, 9 wickets, at an average of 45.

Untested and unproven.

[Zainub]

But they have had some decent ineternational exposure, the two have also played, if I'm correct, a handful of one-days.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Ernest,
and I suspect your lack of exposure to MacGill is the reason you don't rate him. He's now a much bigger turner of the ball than Warne (admittedly without the same control or subtlety) and in the year of Warne's 'Mum induced absence' MacGill filled his spot capably and was the world's 2nd highest test wicket taker for that year.

We Notts fans have seen a fair amount of him. The last two seasons his performances have not been amazing. On a real turner he is very dangerous however he'll always give the batsman lots of four balls. I don't believe he'll win you a Test Match in England. I'd like to see him bowling at KP too !!!

[Maranello]

Standing in during a couple of Tests as an alternative to an injured player does not count as decent international exposure in my book. Doing reasonably well at ODIs or 'A'-tours etc is all very well, but it does not make someone a tested or proven Test performer.

Anyway the above is a bit of a side-issue really since the key point is that Australia do need McGrath a lot more than most of their other players, and he remains the key performer.

[Zainub]

No point is slightly different, I think its slightly more bold. I'll here predict (bare witness everyone) that if Aus come to England without Pigeon, a/c to my instinct, then, they will not win. England might draw or win the series. But Aus won't win. Just my instintc. Nothing else.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Maranello

It might be controversial to say this (when did that ever stop me, eh ) but I feel Gilly's reputation as one of Australia's best batsmen is over-estimated. Out of his 13 Test centuries, only once has Gilchrist scored a century in an innings with no other century makers. So he does well when others do well too.... as they say, "a good batsman scores runs when everyone else scores runs, a great batsman scores runs when no-one else does".

Maranello, I think that you might be being a bit unfair on Gilchrist. I haven't checked the figures, but will happily accept those you have quoted (thanks for saving me the effort). I think that the figures need to be read in the context of Gilchrist batting at no. 7 in the lineup.

At no. 7, he doesn't always even have an opportunity to bat (although admittedly, some of these times presumably at least one or two other batsmen have scored tons, so it doesn't counter your argument). When the team does do poorly, Gilchrist's main aim is to hold the tail together, whilst at the same time taking measured risks to increase the team score. This means turning down runs to maintain strike and hitting out even if the bowling is good, because you know Pigeon and possibly a few others won't be there for long. Admittedly the Aussie tail has held it together reasonably well oer the past few years, but there have been several times when Gilchrist has aided this.

Another aspect of Gilchrist's batting that can be overlooked is his unselfishness. Admittedly he bats agressively naturally, but he is sometimes tasked with trying to take the game away from the opposition. I have heard both Steve Waugh and Ponting refer to this in interviews, suggesting that he is sometimes asked to take even greater risks with the intent of shifting the balance of a match in an hour. I can remember a couple of test scores of 60-80 where Gilchrist has done just this at exactly the right moment, when without scoring a century, he has changed the match (on both occaisions day 4, when the Aussies were looking to set a challenging target and force the result and Gilchrist delivered.

So, despite batting at no. 7, when he often doesn't get to bat on the best batting wickets, having to forgo runs, sacrifice his wicket occasionally in pursuit of quick runs (moreso say than a no. 3 or 4), having to keep wickets (just ask Alex Stewart et al about these challenges) he still has an average of 50++ (again am too lazy to chase the exact figure). I would suggest that this makes him a premier batsman of the highest calibre. Speculatively, I think that if he were to take off the gloves and bat at no. 3 or 4, he would probably add 5+ to his average and score the solo hundreds that you refer to as the mark of a great batsman. Although part of me thinks that Gilchrist might thrive on being in the middle of everything (Hey, let's make him captain, ask him to bowl chinamen to himself, drive the bus and make the tea - then ask him to score hundreds. That'll test him - although he'd still probably be smiling)

[Maranello]

I do not disagree with any of the arguments you put forward LS, and in fact I had most of them in mind when writing what I did in my earlier post. I was not able to make them earlier due to the rushed nature of my post this afternoon, and hence my words appear harsher than intended; also, the comment on Gilchrist was not the substantive part of that post of mine, my key argument was concerning McGrath's importance and so I wanted to be succinct concerning Gilly.

That Gilchrist is a very good batsmen, the best wicket-keeper/batsman ever, and consequently, a great cricketer, is not in doubt. I guess the only point of contention is about his greatness as a batsman alone. I find it difficult to have discussions about the strength of all-rounders in their 'weaker' area of expertise, since the debate tends to be very subjective. For instance, if Imran Khan was not a fast bowler or a great captain or the best leader his country has ever seen, but simply a middle-order batsman, would he have been one of the all-time greats as a batsman alone? His batting average for the last ten years of his career, when he was at his peak as a bowler, a batsman and a captain, is over 50, and he made numerous match-saving and match-winning contributions with the bat. Similarly, let us consider the 'weaker strings' to the bows of two batting all-rounders: how good a bowler was Gary Sobers, or Jacques Kallis? Would they have been better bowlers had they not been world-class batsmen? The answer is we do not know, and have no reasonable basis for forming a conclusion.

So would Gilchrist be Australia's best batsman if he was simply a no.4, and did not have to do everything else he does? Who knows.... the answers will by necessity derive from specuation and conjecture, since no hard facts are available.

I do not dispute the fact that Gilchrist has made numerous match-winning, and match-turning contributions with the bat. In any case, the statistic I quoted earlier comes with many provisos (as do all stats for that matter); there probably have not been a lot of innings in the recent past where no Australian bat has reached 100! So in a way, Gilly is a a star amongst the other stars of the Australian batting line-up.

I also agree that as Gilly bats at 7, he often has to sacrifice his wicket for the team, or bat with the tail for a significant part of his innings. At best, he can have one partnership with an established batsman, and then it's the Aussie tailenders, though of late they have all contributed admirably.

Gilchrist's record is not in doubt; apart from his 13 Test centuries, he has 19 half centuries, an average of 52.67 and a phenemonal Test strike rate of 82 runs per 100 balls. Makes him special as a cricketer, but does it make him a great batsman the way Tendulkar or Lara or Border or Steve Waugh are great batsmen? Due to the role he performs, his accomplishments have been somewhat one-dimensional; maybe if he spent two years batting at no.4, we would know the answer to that question.

I do not for a moment question Gilchrist's quality as a wicket-keeper batsman; alongwith McGrath and Warne, he is part of the triumvirate that makes Australia so dominant. However, to my mind, he is definitely the third most-important cricketer in that side, and by no means the best proven batsman Australia currently have.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I do not for a moment question Gilchrist's quality as a wicket-keeper batsman; alongwith McGrath and Warne, he is part of the triumvirate that makes Australia so dominant. However, to my mind, he is definitely the third most-important cricketer in that side, and by no means the best proven batsman Australia currently have.

But a large number of Gilly's centuries (especially the early ones) have actually come when Australia have been in trouble. The fact that someone then scores runs with him is testament to the confidence he instills in the other player. I saw his first century against Pakistan, the fact that Langer hit one too (from 126-5 chasing 369) should not be used against him. Even his second century at the Wankhede was from a perilous position of 99-5. Once again, Hayden shared in the partnership but it really is an example of scoring under pressure when most of the team had already failed. His centuries often come when needed and this is contrary to the point you are making.

The 138 at Newlands against SA was a cracking knock. He wresatled the game back off South Africa with a century in about an hour and a half. Once again, the team were 185-6 at one point and he was the reason whey Australia posted nearly 400 and actually won the game. In Sydney he came in at 150-5 and once again the fact that Waugh scored his runs with him (very much like Clarke in India) should not be used against him.

PS Maranello: I posted this without reading your second post (unfarily the one I replied to) and must add that I do agree with all the comments you have made here.