
The Ashes 2009 (back where they belong) A thread for gentlemen, and Australians...
#142
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:26 PM
I've been reading a few articles about the Manou would be king... he seems like an interesting player, to make his debut so late. Though I suppose all aussie keepers have never stood a chance for the last decade with Gilchrist there, so now more are starting to come into the limelight.
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#143
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:31 PM
Aussies seem to have been looking for a player similar to Gilchrist, as in destructive batting. Manou apparently isn't up to that kind of standard with his bat, although his glovework is supposedly very good, which would explain his late arrival onto the scene.
#144
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:33 PM
Gilchrist made his Test debut at 28, so it's not like age has been that much of a concern for keepers. We've always had good keepers, and still do, liek Ronchi, Manou and Crosthwaithe (cbf spelling right I'm drunk), but I don't think Haddin is going anywhere. He's arguably the best keeper-batsman we have, and that's what the selectors want in a keeper.
This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 01 August 2009 - 04:34 PM
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
#145
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:44 PM
Impirion, on Aug 1 2009, 11:31 PM, said:
Aussies seem to have been looking for a player similar to Gilchrist, as in destructive batting. Manou apparently isn't up to that kind of standard with his bat, although his glovework is supposedly very good, which would explain his late arrival onto the scene.
Manou is the highest averaging wicket keeper in the Australian Domestic competition - so I wouldn't say he's rubbish. It's a bit harsh to compare any wicketkeeper's batting to Gilchrist's, because with the exception of perhaps Sangakkara pretty much all the glovemen in the modern game fall short. That said, Haddin looks a better batsmen from what I've seen, and barring something spectacular in the second innings/next test from Manou, Haddin will be back.
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#146
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:49 PM
Sir Thursday, on Aug 1 2009, 05:44 PM, said:
It's a bit harsh to compare any wicketkeeper's batting to Gilchrist's, because with the exception of perhaps Sangakkara pretty much all the glovemen in the modern game fall short.
Dhoni, surely?
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#147
Posted 01 August 2009 - 04:52 PM
Dhoni has a few problems with consistency, doesn't he? He's certainly an aggressive batsman though. Also, Boucher is a pretty damn good batsman.
This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 01 August 2009 - 04:53 PM
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
#148
Posted 01 August 2009 - 05:19 PM
Nah, if you look at the stats there really isn't any comparison between the contenders (Dhoni, McCullum, Boucher) and the true greats (Sangakkara, Gilchrist). Dhoni only has one test match century to his name, Boucher averages less than 30. I mean, look at the bolded stats below:
Batsman Average S/R 50s 100s
Sangakkara 55.42 55.78 31 19
Gilchrist 47.60 81.95 26 17
Boucher 29.85 49.27 29 5
Dhoni 37.73 61.93 16 1
McCullum 32.67 63.12 13 3
Sir Thursday
Batsman Average S/R 50s 100s
Sangakkara 55.42 55.78 31 19
Gilchrist 47.60 81.95 26 17
Boucher 29.85 49.27 29 5
Dhoni 37.73 61.93 16 1
McCullum 32.67 63.12 13 3
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#149
Posted 01 August 2009 - 05:25 PM
Of course, Sangakkara and Gilchrist have been the best keeper batsman for a long time and probably a long time to come. They are true greats. Those stats are surprising, though. I didn't think there was that much of a disparity.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
#150
Posted 01 August 2009 - 08:44 PM
Sir Thursday, on Aug 1 2009, 05:44 PM, said:
Impirion, on Aug 1 2009, 11:31 PM, said:
Aussies seem to have been looking for a player similar to Gilchrist, as in destructive batting. Manou apparently isn't up to that kind of standard with his bat, although his glovework is supposedly very good, which would explain his late arrival onto the scene.
Manou is the highest averaging wicket keeper in the Australian Domestic competition - so I wouldn't say he's rubbish. It's a bit harsh to compare any wicketkeeper's batting to Gilchrist's, because with the exception of perhaps Sangakkara pretty much all the glovemen in the modern game fall short. That said, Haddin looks a better batsmen from what I've seen, and barring something spectacular in the second innings/next test from Manou, Haddin will be back.
Sir Thursday
He was last year... however, his career average is 24, which really isn't very good, and even last year, he average 34 I believe, which still isn't that great considering it's in first-class cricket, unless australian first class cricket is lots better than english county standard.
#151
Posted 01 August 2009 - 08:47 PM
Oh, and I just thought I would add one more person whose batting record is currently bearing comparison with gilchrist and sangakkara:
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 20 32 6 1204 131* 46.30 1888 63.77 2 10 140 5 44 1
Who is he you ask? None other than England's own Matt Prior
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 20 32 6 1204 131* 46.30 1888 63.77 2 10 140 5 44 1
Who is he you ask? None other than England's own Matt Prior

#152
Posted 02 August 2009 - 02:30 AM
Yeah but 20 tests hardly counts as a career, and besides his keeping is nowhere near the standard of the other names mentioned...
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#153
Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:02 AM
Impirion said:
Oh, and I just thought I would add one more person whose batting record is currently bearing comparison with gilchrist and sangakkara:
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 20 32 6 1204 131* 46.30 1888 63.77 2 10 140 5 44 1
Who is he you ask? None other than England's own Matt Prior
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 20 32 6 1204 131* 46.30 1888 63.77 2 10 140 5 44 1
Who is he you ask? None other than England's own Matt Prior
In a similar vein, Haddin averages 41.85 with a strikerate of 56.13 from 17 test matches. But as Brood says, you can't look at the record of someone who has played so few tests and expect it to be meaningful - players really need to have gone through at least one international cycle (ie. 4 years) before their averages are really representative, IMO. For example, half of Prior's matches in his career thus far have been against the West Indies - (Ave: 67.18, S/R: 75.02) which skews them quite considerably.
The Sheffield Shield is appreciably stronger than the County Championship. Because there are only 6 teams instead of 20, the talent is far less diluted, making the competition rather stiffer. Manou averaged 46.21 last year, which is a pretty decent figure. You're right that his career average is down quite a bit on that though - 24.76. I think we'd need to see another few innings from him in the test arena before we come to any conclusions, though - it's not like any of us have actually seen him bat much

Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#154
Posted 02 August 2009 - 08:05 AM
On a similar topic, I'm always puzzled why it's so hard to find wicket keeper batsmen. I always found wicket keeper a pretty easy position and I'm convinced for a good fielder who started learning the trade in their late teens it wouldn't be too hard to convert to an good keeper. You look at say Collingwood or Strauss both of whom are excellent fielders and wonder why they weren't asked to have a go with the gloves at a young age. Remember Gilchrist was at Richmond in his late teens and at that time he didn't play keeper. When England had Stewart coming in at the top of the order (although arguably on a keeper of average ability) it effectively gave them an extra bat or all rounde option.
I AM A TWAT
#155
Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:16 AM
I'm puzzled by that as well. I mean, you have plenty of top-order batsman who are great in the slips (Ponting springs to mind), so it's not like one skill comes at the sacrifice of another. It seems unfathomable now that someone like Mark Waugh never took up the gloves. He probably would've been a magnificent keeper-batsman. Also, like you said, a good keeper-batsman is far more useful than having a specialist keeper, where the disparity in skill would be either negligible, or offset by versatility and an extra slot.
This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 02 August 2009 - 09:17 AM
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
#156
Posted 02 August 2009 - 05:57 PM
Ho ho !
England are completley on top, Ponting just went to an absolute corker from Swann.
Another couple of wickets tonight and England are in danger of winning this, though they need the weather to hold off and the Aussies to bowl like fannies tomorrow.
England are completley on top, Ponting just went to an absolute corker from Swann.
Another couple of wickets tonight and England are in danger of winning this, though they need the weather to hold off and the Aussies to bowl like fannies tomorrow.
Now all the friends that you knew in school they used to be so cool, now they just bore you.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
#157
Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:13 PM
It all depends on the first hour I think, if England can get a couple of wickets, then they are in with a shout. As long as they are batting by tea, they should win. I mean, how many runs can Australia put on by tea if they are losing wickets? My guess would be around 150-200, which would give a target of around 150 in 30 odd overs, which would be gettable I feel.
#158
Posted 02 August 2009 - 11:03 PM
It's gunna be a big day for aussie cricket.
Big day.
Big day.
#159
Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:03 PM
Hmm, the aussies will be safe if they can make it through this session. England need the final 6 wickets for another 100 runs at the very most to stand a chance of winning the game.
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.