The Cricket Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Brishawk said:
And I can't have Wasim Akram either. A fine bowler no doubt but I don't think many people considered him the best of his era such as a Glenn McGrath or a Curtley Ambrose. Can't really argue with most of the others.
Click to expand...
I don't share your reservations about Akram Brishawk. I have vivid memories of him being dangerously unplayable at his peak. Wasted his batting talent, but that's neither here nor there. I think he's considered by many to be the greatest left arm fast bowler of any era.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Langford4FBOTC said:
I don't share your reservations about Akram Brishawk. I have vivid memories of him being dangerously unplayable at his peak. Wasted his batting talent, but that's neither here nor there. I think he's considered by many to be the greatest left arm fast bowler of any era.
Click to expand...

That is fair enough. Only my opinion of course.
 
Brishawk said:
It is October and the Domestic one day season is over???
Click to expand...

Yes, but we get the 20/20 crap from 20th Dec right through January. The final is on the 7th Feb.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brishawk said:
Based on one day form warner would be captain! They need to give him some shield cricket ahead of the series. Test match wickets are very different.
Click to expand...

FC average of 39 over his career is a worry, but his form in India has been supreme. But as you say, it's a completely different ball game in test cricket than ODIs. i.e one slip after about 10 overs etc etc.

I see our bowlers got flogged again to all end of the earth, failing to defend 350. Tough series to be a bowler. in the 4 completed games, I reckon there has been around 2500 runs score. That is a pretty bloody huge tally.

Thoughts on Ashes squad? 13 probalby to be named.
Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Haddin
Siddle
Harris

These guys seem to be certainties (assuming fitness of course, unsure on Harris)

That leaves 5 spot vacant, being 2 bowlers, a bat and two back-ups.

I would think Bailey would take the middle order spot, probably from S Marsh. Bowlers are interesting. Pattinson not right, Starc injured as well, leaes two spots open. Johnson seems to be back in vogue. I'm tipping they'll go Johnson. Spinners, seems to be out of Ahmed and Lyon. Reckon they might just go with the leggie.

So next 5 would be,
G Bailey
M Johnson
F Ahmed
S Marsh
J Faulkner
 
Boyce Doolan and cooper all putting their names up for future baggy greens. Would have been nice to see Patterson )Kurtis) get a crack for the blues.
 
if Cameron White can put in a few more efforts like Shield game against WA, he'll be a very good chance for 1st test. would be great to see.
 
You know a Test Series is about to begin when you read those three words.

Shane. Watson. Injured.
 
Seriously, I'd say you wouldn't read about it...........but we do nearly every time.

Time to take him out the back, bring out the curtain, and put the big fella down.

Worst part is, probably means Shaun Marsh will get a crack at the first test.........out with one medical tragedy in with another......a a less talented one.
 
grizzlym said:
Malcom Connn on the front foot re Gilchrist:

English cricket has become delusional.

"All this Ashes success has created a feel good haze that is seriously clouding the judgement of even respected experts.
To mark its 150th anniversary the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack has chosen the best World XI of all time and overweighted it with Englishmen.
Most embarrassing is the selection of Alan Knott ahead of Adam Gilchrist as wicket-keeper.

And the raw figures do nothing to back up the claim that Knott’s glove work was so superior it discounted Gilchrist’s standing as one of the game’s great all-rounders.
In 95 Tests Knott claimed 250 catches and 19 stumpings. In 96 Tests Gilchrist once held the world record for dismissals with 379 catches and 37 stumpings."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ays-malcolm-conn/story-fni2fnmo-1226746340367

I agree with him. Gilchrist's record as a keeper and a batsman are far superior to Knott's. One basically has to find subjective reasons to either lessen Gilchrist's record or to pump up Knott.

For me, you have a statistical case of a player miles ahead of the other in the position. Then when you consider that Gilchrist not only boasts an average nudging 50, but also one of the highest strike rates of any test batsman in history, well, it all gets rather compelling in my book.

And I reckon if one were to have choose the greatest side to actually play, Gilchrist would be one of the first picked. How could you pick Knott over him?
Click to expand...



I'm coming back to this. The case for Knott is an aesthetic one; picking a fictional "best of" team in this scenario and asking to pick the best wicketkeeper then there is no problem picking Knott. Those who watched him play (alas, not I) will tell you there hasn't been a better one. Statistics are just part of the argument. To present a football analogy:

Player A: 157 games, 567 goals @ 3.6 per game.
Player B: 212 games, 615 goals @ 2.9 per game.

Who is better? On the metric I've selected Player A may get your nod. And if I tell you Player A is Tony Modra, then you feel better. But player B is Wayne Carey. He did things statistics don't measure.

The argument for Gilchrist is his batting average. He batted seven in a dominant team that had little genuine opposition in the Test arena. He was good enough to bat anywhere in that team or any other. But IMHO he wasn't even the best wicketkeeper of his generation in his own country. Darren Berry was better with the gloves and frankly so was Ian Healy, his predecessor in the Test team.

This fictional team attempts to line up the best six batsmen to ever draw breath (but gone a spot wrong). I see no harm in putting the best gloveman in their company.
 
Messenger said:
I'm coming back to this. The case for Knott is an aesthetic one; picking a fictional "best of" team in this scenario and asking to pick the best wicketkeeper then there is no problem picking Knott. Those who watched him play (alas, not I) will tell you there hasn't been a better one. Statistics are just part of the argument. To present a football analogy:

Player A: 157 games, 567 goals @ 3.6 per game.
Player B: 212 games, 615 goals @ 2.9 per game.

Who is better? On the metric I've selected Player A may get your nod. And if I tell you Player A is Tony Modra, then you feel better. But player B is Wayne Carey. He did things statistics don't measure.

The argument for Gilchrist is his batting average. He batted seven in a dominant team that had little genuine opposition in the Test arena. He was good enough to bat anywhere in that team or any other. But IMHO he wasn't even the best wicketkeeper of his generation in his own country. Darren Berry was better with the gloves and frankly so was Ian Healy, his predecessor in the Test team.

This fictional team attempts to line up the best six batsmen to ever draw breath (but gone a spot wrong). I see no harm in putting the best gloveman in their company.
Click to expand...


Difference is that Knott and Gilchrist played the same position, Modra and Carey didn't. Carey was a CHF, Modra a full forward. Stats can therefore be misleading. Gilchrist and Knott played the same position, and therefore there stats can, and should, be viewed on a level playing field.

You make the point that Carey did things that stats don't measure. So did Gilchrist. Many of his innings were when Aussies had their backs to the wall. He had the ability to take the game away from an opposition in a session.

Whist maybe not the best technician with the gloves, he was still far and away the best keeper that the game has produced bar none. If you want to pick players on aesthetics, then Viv Richards shouldn't be picked, nor bradman, as technically they weren't correct in many ways, yet they justify their spot there excellence.

Fact is, you pick a best ever 11, then you pick the best players to have played in that position, and Gilchrist is that
 
Messenger said:
I'm coming back to this. The case for Knott is an aesthetic one; picking a fictional "best of" team in this scenario and asking to pick the best wicketkeeper then there is no problem picking Knott. Those who watched him play (alas, not I) will tell you there hasn't been a better one. Statistics are just part of the argument. To present a football analogy:

Player A: 157 games, 567 goals @ 3.6 per game.
Player B: 212 games, 615 goals @ 2.9 per game.

Who is better? On the metric I've selected Player A may get your nod. And if I tell you Player A is Tony Modra, then you feel better. But player B is Wayne Carey. He did things statistics don't measure.

The argument for Gilchrist is his batting average. He batted seven in a dominant team that had little genuine opposition in the Test arena. He was good enough to bat anywhere in that team or any other. But IMHO he wasn't even the best wicketkeeper of his generation in his own country. Darren Berry was better with the gloves and frankly so was Ian Healy, his predecessor in the Test team.

This fictional team attempts to line up the best six batsmen to ever draw breath (but gone a spot wrong). I see no harm in putting the best gloveman in their company.
Click to expand...

On dismissals alone, Gilchrist has a far superior record than Knott. He might have kept with more grace, been a joy to watch as he rose from his haunches, but Gilchrist has him covered in the dismissals stakes too. All I can judge Knott vs Gilchrist on are their respective records, and Gilchirst is far ahead.
 
Taking predictions for the top shield run scorer and wicket taker (tally finalized at end of h/a series)

Boonie
White
Bubbles

Henry
Cozzie
Milfy

Moginie
Runs: Cowan
Wickets: Sayers

TBoyleSuperStar
I'll have a go:
Marcus North
Hilfenhaus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top