Gilly gone?

Written by Jonathan Cumberbatch

Saturday, 26 January 2008

If you're a cricket fan, you've played the 'World XI' game either with yourself or with friends compiling the best international cricket team. The game is played in either the context of current players or 'of all time'.

For all the age-old arguments of virtually every position (e.g. 'Greenidge-Haynes' over 'Hobbs-Sutcliffe', Bradman vs. Richards vs. Lara vs. Tendulkhar, Lillee vs. Marshall, Warne vs. Murali), the argument for two spots has never been in doubt for some time:

Sir Garfied Sobers, anywhere he wished to be placed, and Adam Gilchrist as keeper.

The Sobers issue has remained a lock for over 40 years but Gilchrist is a comparative hurricane pronouncement in what has been primarily a glacial game that requires substantial time for debate both during and after a career and often still ends in further dispute (Wisden's choice of Bradman over Sobers as 'player of the 20th century' still rankles many).

His need to appeal at virtually anything passing in proximity of a blade (provoking numerous wrong decisions from umpires around the world) and that 'squash-ball' innings in the 2007 WC final may have turned off some purists however at the ridiculous age of 36 Gilchrist retires with the Test dismissals record fleetingly in his pocket and of the course, the record of most Test centuries and runs by a 'keeper. But that's just a part of it.

Brian Lara talking to a collegue on Australia's team during one his series tussles, commented on the difficultes of removing such technically tight batsmen as Hayden, Langer and Waugh, paused and added "..and then there's f#*king Gilchrist"

Lara's sentiment could not be a lonely opinion as Gilchrist shattered the hearts of fans and bowlers and captains everywhere with inning retrieving knock after knock, and all done with calypso flair and fierce positivity. Whether five or six down in an Oz Test innings or with all to play for in the ODIs he simply went for gold every time out.

As a Windies fan, I could only guage how well we were doing based on Australia's score before he came in to bat. A mental gauge perhaps only similarly applied by opposing teams to Viv Richards before.

Which raises the final point, take away his fine glove-work and his record as a batsman places him as one of the best to ever play the game. The same was said of his World XI mate, Sir Gary, whose astonishing range of bowling and fielding hijinks often overshadowed his stunning batting record.

Gone too soon but it was a great ride and apparently enjoyed by the man himself every step of the way.

Comments

Add New

RSS

jaideepv

Unregistered | 2008-01-27 09:51:15

One of the truly great things about Gilchrist the batsman was his ability to win his team matches when the team really needed it. The big stage usually saw him at its best. Because he was in the side as a wicketkeeper, one suspects that he didn't really worry too much about his "career" as a batsman, even though he could probably make most cricket teams as a pure batsman. As a keeper, he was very good, but his greatness really is defined by the great innings he played when most needed, when matches were turned on their head because of his genius with the willow. Given that scenario, does he really make the world xi? Because after the certainties in that side, including Sir Gary and Sir Don and Sir Richards, and Lara and whoever else, would Gilly really need to do anything with the bat? Chances are teh team would be past 500 when he came out to bat, and he would just have a go. A team like this probably needs someone who's a greater gloveman, and Marsh or Knott, or Murray or Evens or even Healy come to mind.

Reply | Quote

Henry

Unregistered | 2008-01-27 10:50:04

Valid argument, but for me he still makes it to the World XI, because despite all the greats in the batting line up, it is a bit presumptious to figure that the team will not have many batting troubles.....besides, coming in at 500+ and getting a quickfire 60-70 and batting the opposition out of the game is also essential.

Likewise, there may be situations such as the one that the current ongoing test in Adelaide has thrown up, where the team may be 450-460 for 5 or so, looking to chase down the opposition's first innings score of 500+, and needing a quickfire 100 odd on the fourth day post lunch/tea session to gain a valuable 100-150+ run lead and put pressure on the opposition on day 5.

A batsman who can score quick runs, and get plenty of them is always useful in Test matches, because he also gives you the flexibility of moving him up the batting order if quick runs are needed, say in the second innings or so.

Don't think Gilchrist is that inferior to the other keepers you mentioned to nullify or outweigh this advantage he offers as a batsman.

Reply | Quote

jaideepv

Unregistered | 2008-01-28 06:54:47

Point taken. But there are two perspectives - the team balance scenario, and the individual-brilliance -at-a-particular spot-brilliance. I guess mine was the first category and yours the second.
However, fantasy teams like this also have these players at the peak of their form - given that, is it presumptuous to assume that after (probably) Gavaskar, Greenidge, Viv, Don, Lara, Sobers have indulged themselves in their peak form, you will need a Gilchrist to round things off? Test matches like these ones at Adelaide are a rarity (thank god for that - test cricket would be in trouble otherwise), and I'm not sure if you'd not rather have the very best keeper you can get, even if he's only slightly better than Gilchrist. We are fantasizing after all!