Flintoff. Hero or Zero?

[Gritt23]

Hmm.... Clyde Walcott had a batting average eight runs better than Gilchrist. But that's slightly artificial as he'd have played on worst pitches in pre-protective clothing time.

Batsman today have it much easier - which is why we should look at their averages with a pinch of salt.

Clyde Walcott was indeed a phenomenal batsman, BUT, I think Gilchrist tops him as a wicketkeeper/batsman simply because Walcott didn't actually keep wicket for the majority of his test career.

He gave up the gloves during the tour of Australia in 1951/52, by which time he'd only amassed 888 runs at an ave of 40.36. Having given up the gloves, he played purely as a batsman and scored a further 2910 runs at an incredible average of 64.66.

A legend, part of the 3 W's that changed the face of cricket in the 50's, but I wouldn't have him above Gilchrist simply because the best part of his cricket was played as a batsman alone.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

How 'bout trying to pick an all-time test 11 then...

I'd go for...

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. Bradman
4. Ponting
5. Tendulkar
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

 

[Gwylan]

Clyde Walcott was indeed a phenomenal batsman, BUT, I think Gilchrist tops him as a wicketkeeper/batsman simply because Walcott didn't actually keep wicket for the majority of his test career.

He gave up the gloves during the tour of Australia in 1951/52, by which time he'd only amassed 888 runs at an ave of 40.36. Having given up the gloves, he played purely as a batsman and scored a further 2910 runs at an incredible average of 64.66.

A legend, part of the 3 W's that changed the face of cricket in the 50's, but I wouldn't have him above Gilchrist simply because the best part of his cricket was played as a batsman alone.

Interesting, I didn't know that about Walcott.

I still reckon that Walcott would be the better bet though. Not only did he bat in tougher times but he batted higher up the order than Gilchrist did and made runs in trying circumstances.

Gilchrist is great at flogging runs lower down the order, particularly when the pressure is off but struggles a bit more when it's tougher, it also means that his average is boosted by a higher than average not outs.

Look at his average in the last test series here. 181 runs at 22; not the average of a world great. When the circumstances are right, he's one of the greatest destroyer of attacks in history but consistently great...? Can't see it.

 

[Gwylan]

How 'bout trying to pick an all-time test 11 then...

I'd go for...

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. Bradman
4. Ponting
5. Tendulkar
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

Always fascinating.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Trumper
Bradman
Pollock G
Sobers
Walcott
Hadlee R
Warne
Lillee
Holding

What would be even more fun would be to pick an all-time England X1 v Australia one.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

All-time Australian XI

1. Ponsford
2. Hayden
3. Bradman
4. G. Chappell
5. Ponting
6. S. Waugh
7. Gilchrist
8. Lindwall
9. Warne
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

 

[Gwylan]

All-time Australian XI

1. Ponsford
2. Hayden
3. Bradman
4. G. Chappell
5. Ponting
6. S. Waugh
7. Gilchrist
8. Lindwall
9. Warne
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

No way. You're missing Trumper, a guy that many Australians (who saw both) considered a better player than Bradman. He had an average of 39 in an era when people batted on pitches that would be too rough for outfields now - probably equivalent to about 80 these days.

I think there'd be a lot of support for Charlie Macartney and Keith Miller too but I think that would be pretty close to my team.

 

[Cocksucker Blue]

A f***ing embarassment of a sportsman on most levels.

 

[Gritt23]

Interesting, I didn't know that about Walcott.

I still reckon that Walcott would be the better bet though. Not only did he bat in tougher times but he batted higher up the order than Gilchrist did and made runs in trying circumstances.

Gilchrist is great at flogging runs lower down the order, particularly when the pressure is off but struggles a bit more when it's tougher, it also means that his average is boosted by a higher than average not outs.

Look at his average in the last test series here. 181 runs at 22; not the average of a world great. When the circumstances are right, he's one of the greatest destroyer of attacks in history but consistently great...? Can't see it.

Obviously I've never seen Walcott play, but from what I've read there is no doubt he is a far better batsman than Gilchrist, I don't think that can be questioned.

Whereas, the thing that's special about anyone who can do the wicketkeeper / batsman duel role, is how they can stand the physical exertion of it - how Stewie did it to the age he did was absolutely beyond belief. In the case of Walcott he was suffering with back problems on that tour of Australia, and his batting was suffering as well. He was able to give up the gloves, because he was such a good batsman, but in most cases they have to play on and accept their batting will suffer. That's why it's so amazing that Gilchrist has been able to retain the gloves AND maintain his batting. Sanakara has looked a potential star of the wicketkeeper / batsman role, but I see he has recently given up the gloves for Sri Lanka, at least in Test matches.

Incidentally, Gilchrist has been quoted as saying he doesn't expect to play 100 Test matches, and with Sydney being his 90th, perhaps he is starting to feel the strain.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

England XI

1 J. Hobbs
2. L. Hutton
3. H. Sutcliffe
4. F. Woolley
5. W. Hammond
6. W. Rhodes
7. A. Knott
8. H. Larwood
9. J. Laker
10. F. Trueman
11 S. Barnes

discuss...