Adam Gilchrist announces his retirement

Originally posted by Crowley
Well, he is, or is at least right up there with Sobers.
You guys couldn't 'prove' me wrong and just stopped debating the issue, so I chalked it up as a victory of common sense over emotional ties to the past 'golden age'.

I did prove you wrong on this as well as numerous other posters.
We just gave up on the issue as you wouldnt be swayed anyway you looked at it.

Originally posted by Crowley
Well, he is, or is at least right up there with Sobers.
You guys couldn't 'prove' me wrong and just stopped debating the issue, so I chalked it up as a victory of common sense over emotional ties to the past 'golden age'.

It is very hard to compare different eras. Sadly, I never got to see Sobers play.. and Kallis is a good player - no doubt! However, as an Aussie, I've never feared Kallis from taking the game completely away from us.. and I can't think of too many examples of where he has. Sure, he has scored runs, but when has he taken over the game?

From what I know of both players, Sobers made a much bigger impact on a game that what I have seen of Kallis. Sobers won games whereas Kallis has not - well, not from what I've seen of him against Australia.

I have no emotional ties to the 'golden age' of cricket... I know you will find examples to prove me wrong and that is OK - You have emotional ties to your countryman. I only refer to the impact both players could make on a game.

Originally posted by boarman
Now you have said some funny things but this beats the cake.

Gilchrist has just claimed the world record for dismissals,has hit the most centuries by a keeper.Scored the most runs by a keeper.

So explain yourself Crowley old chap.

You cant just go on his batting average

Actually, I don't think it's that ridiculous. They were different types of batsman - Gilchrist could take a game away from you, and was perfectly suited to being the punisher on the end of a great batting line-up like Australia's. Whereas Andy Flower had the pressure of being the only decent batsman in his team, and coped superbly.

Number of dismissals etc. isn't a fair comparison - nobody is going to break a world record for dismissals while playing for Zimbabwe. A keeper needs chances creating for him.

Originally posted by mtthw
Actually, I don't think it's that ridiculous. They were different types of batsman - Gilchrist could take a game away from you, and was perfectly suited to being the punisher on the end of a great batting line-up like Australia's. Whereas Andy Flower had the pressure of being the only decent batsman in his team, and coped superbly.

Number of dismissals et ...[text shortened]... record for dismissals while playing for Zimbabwe. A keeper needs chances creating for him.

Exactly.
Flower was a real world-class batsman in a under performing team. His keeping was not up to Gilly's standard, but not many keepers can say that.

What boarman can't understand is that we are talking about a keeper/batsman here, not just keeping.

Originally posted by AussieG
It is very hard to compare different eras.

No it isn't. All we have are the stats and they don't lie.

Originally posted by Crowley
No it isn't. All we have are the stats and they don't lie.

Yes, it IS difficult to compare eras. Stats do say a bit.. but not everything.

Here are some reasons why it's difficult to compare: (in no particular oder)
1. Pitches were uncovered some time ago.
2. Players play much more cricket these days
3. Players/countries are much more professional these days.. sponsorship, money.. etc. So it becomes a full time job.
4. Players never used to wear helmets - this is a factor because players don't FEAR about being hit in the head - thus requiring a lesser degree of courage to play. As Viv Richards has said, many players are playing in the game longer than they would have because they have the protection of a helmet and reduces the level of courage required to play. -- This goes for the overall padding that the players have today and not in the past.
5. The quality of equipment is better today.

....and no doubt there are more reasons too.

I am sure that some (or all) reasons that we can think of do make a difference in the game from the past to the present. The commentators universally agree the game is different now. Therefore, when you compare eras, you need to tread carefully.

Originally posted by Crowley
Exactly.
Flower was a real world-class batsman in a under performing team. His keeping was not up to Gilly's standard, but not many keepers can say that.

What boarman can't understand is that we are talking about a keeper/batsman here, not just keeping.

Yes Crowley old boy a KEEPER/batsman.
The whole debate centred on best keeper.So it is you who is trying to justify Andy Flower as a better keeper than Gilchrist on his batting feats alone.

So you might just have to accept that an Australian is the best Keeper that cricket has ever seen.You cant get one from the continent this time.

I must admit though , your patriotism is exceptional ,but SOMETIMES you have to let go and accept the acceptable.

Originally posted by boarman
Yes Crowley old boy a KEEPER/batsman.
The whole debate centred on best keeper.So it is you who is trying to justify Andy Flower as a better keeper than Gilchrist on his batting feats alone.

So you might just have to accept that an Australian is the best Keeper that cricket has ever seen.You cant get one from the continent this time.

I must admit though , your patriotism is exceptional ,but SOMETIMES you have to let go and accept the acceptable.

Uhm, did you even read my post? Read it carefully and you will see I said that Gilly is a bloody good KEEPER.

Why would I be patriotic about a Zimbabwean player?
I'm just showing the facts, and the stats show Flower to be a much better test batsman - you are the one who can't seem to accept that Gilly was not gods gift to wicket keepers.

Originally posted by AussieG
Yes, it IS difficult to compare eras. Stats do say a bit.. but not everything.

Here are some reasons why it's difficult to compare: (in no particular oder)
1. Pitches were uncovered some time ago.
2. Players play much more cricket these days
3. Players/countries are much more professional these days.. sponsorship, money.. etc. So it becomes a full tim ...[text shortened]... ree the game is different now. Therefore, when you compare eras, you need to tread carefully.

All valid reasons there.

Now, here are some others you didn't mention:
- All players are fitter, stronger and faster.
- Players are better drilled and prepared.
- Bowlers have better information about batsmen and can use all these resources to better prepare against their opponents before walking onto the field. Video analysis especially is useful in working out a batsman's flaws.
- The fielding overall is much better, meaning batsmen don't get away with too many bad shots and have to work harder to get boundaries. Runs don't come as easily and you can't loiter around the pitch, because you will get run out.
- 3rd umpire decisions means more batsmen are run out, where in the past the umpire would've given them the benefit of the doubt and his average would just keep climbing.

Your number 3 is actually a point I like to bring up too. The professional era has brought with it much more pressure on players meaning they MUST perform, which is why I believe the contest itself is played at a much higher skill level than it was 20+ years ago.


So, now that I've put my cards on the table, you can see there are many arguments showing how different the game is.
In some aspects it was more difficult to play 'in the old days', but the game nowadays is just as difficult, for the reasons stated above - hence, all we can do is look at the stats that give us a type of peer review/ranking system.

This all means that Jacques Kallis is right up there with Sobers and will put daylight between the 2 of them in short order.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Crowley
Uhm, did you even read my post? Read it carefully and you will see I said that Gilly is a bloody good KEEPER.

Why would I be patriotic about a Zimbabwean player?
I'm just showing the facts, and the stats show Flower to be a much better test batsman - you are the one who can't seem to accept that Gilly was not gods gift to wicket keepers.

Im not doubting you said Gilly was a good keeper,you posted he was rated the 2nd best ,and this is what im disagreeing about.Stats wise as a keeper Gilly is the best, end of story.

There are many better batsman than Gilly ,but that wasnt the issue was it,we are talking about Keepers.

Gilly wasnt gods gift to keepers ,but up till his retirement there hasnt been a better one.

Originally posted by Crowley
All valid reasons there.

Now, here are some others you didn't mention:
- All players are fitter, stronger and faster.
- Players are better drilled and prepared.
- Bowlers have better information about batsmen and can use all these resources to better prepare against their opponents before walking onto the field. Video analysis especially is useful i ...[text shortened]... bing.

you can see there are many arguments showing how different the game is.

I said it IS very difficult to compare eras. You said "no, it isn't" - so I justified my reasons for believing that is IS difficult to compare eras. So with your comments here, thanks for further clarifying my point! 😉 ..and agreeing that you're wrong.

The points you mention come under the term "professionalism" - just broken down a little more. I can't say I agree with your points though.

- First 2 points - fair enough.
- You mention that bowlers have better information about batsmen and their flaws.. well, fair enough but let's not forget that the batsmen also have equally good information about the bowlers and their flaws or weaknesses.. or strategy. It works BOTH ways you know!
- How can you possibly compare fielding? There aren't really any statistics to go by with fielding so you can't make any judgement call there. It's not like they couldn't field 20+ years ago.. c'mon.
- Runs don't come so easily huh? Nonsense! Firstly, the quality of the bats make scoring easier. Conditions are made for batting and the pitches are certainly as batsman friendly as ever.. just look at Twenty20 - this is a batsmans game so they need good batting conditions! Look at 50 over games - the average score is much higher now than 20 years ago. Look at that famous game in South Africa - 434 v 436 or so.. in 50 overs! Just try and tell me that runs are hard to come by!! I dare ya! Not every game gets 400+, sure.. but 300 is very common now - 20 years ago, 200 was a good score.

- The overall skill level may be attributed to greater professionalism these days but this is applied equally across the board so no player would stand out with a greater skill level. So it's all balanced out. Besides, I doubt there is such a huge difference.. no doubt the players of the past could play well in todays game.

In respect to Kallis and Sobers, do you have the statistics of both players? Are you comparing them as batsmen? Or all-rounders? I still feel that Sobers had a greater impact on a game. It's hard to see why Kallis is regarded as "great" - but Sobers is regarded as a great.. That's what universal opinion is.. we don't all have to agree though.

Originally posted by AussieG
I said it IS very difficult to compare eras. You said "no, it isn't" - so I justified my reasons for believing that is IS difficult to compare eras. So with your comments here, thanks for further clarifying my point! 😉 ..and agreeing that you're wrong.

The points you mention come under the term "professionalism" - just broken down a little more. I can't ...[text shortened]... reat.. That's what universal opinion is.. we don't all have to agree though.

Please don't try to use these childish tactics - "thanks for further clarifying my point! 😉" - it's something boarman would do...

What I'm highlighting is that the game changes. Kallis probably wouldn't have done well if we put him in a time machine back to in Sobers' era, and vice-versa.


The video analysis is mostly used to work out batsmen. Different balls, overhead conditions, the pitch etc. influence balls bowled by bowlers, so I stand by the my point. I don't think it goes both ways.

I'm not making "a judgment call" about fielding. It's generally accepted that the quality of fielding now is MUCH better than it was in the time Sobers played. Just watch some old footage. Fielders didn't work as hard to stop boundaries - just think back to the Windie fast bowlers like Amrose etc. lumbering around the boundary and stick a foot out, hoping to stop the ball.
This also ties in with player fitness, as the fielders are fitter now than they ever were and this means better concentration, hence better fielding. Because they are all professional now they also practice/drill more fielding, hence better fielding again.

I never said "Runs don't come so easily", I said because of the better fielding, batsmen don't get away with as many bad shots nowadays and run outs feature more because of the 3rd umpire, where in the past the batsman would get the benefit of the doubt.


Anyway, I'll let the stats do the talking... On all round performance.

Stats:
Kallis: http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/45789.html
Sobers: http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52946.html

Originally posted by boarman
Im not doubting you said Gilly was a good keeper,you posted he was rated the 2nd best ,and this is what im disagreeing about.Stats wise as a keeper Gilly is the best, end of story.

There are many better batsman than Gilly ,but that wasnt the issue was it,we are talking about Keepers.

Gilly wasnt gods gift to keepers ,but up till his retirement there hasnt been a better one.

As always, you and I can just agree to disagree.

I weigh Flower's batting as more important than his decent keeping.
You weigh Gilly's excellent keeping as more important than his erratic batting.

I think this makes Flower a better KEEPER / BATSMAN.

Originally posted by Crowley
As always, you and I can just agree to disagree.

I weigh Flower's batting as more important than his decent keeping.
You weigh Gilly's excellent keeping as more important than his erratic batting.

I think this makes Flower a better KEEPER / BATSMAN.

So Flowers batting average is 51 and played 40 odd less tests than Gilchrists who is avaraged 47 (at a strikerate of 82 compared to 45). Flowers ODI avarge is 35 while Gillys is 36 with Gilchrist having played 70 more (at a strikerate of 96 compared to 74).

I really don't think you can conclusivley dismiss Flowers as a better batsmen.

In my eyes, Gilchrist is a better all round player than Flowers.

Flowers did not re-invent Test batting like Gilchrist did and no-one could take the game away from a team like Gillchrist did either.

Originally posted by Crowley
As always, you and I can just agree to disagree.

I weigh Flower's batting as more important than his decent keeping.
You weigh Gilly's excellent keeping as more important than his erratic batting.

I think this makes Flower a better KEEPER / BATSMAN.

I think you mean Gilly was a champion in a team of champions, but Flower was a champion alone, in an ordinary team.