Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by ampar.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:46:35


he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
?
or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

The kind ofplayer he is, Gilchrist might come back and make a big
century next match as he has done many times in his career, but at the
moment he seems to be having issues.

he was never really consistent in tests matches throughout his career.
He used to have few bad innings and then 2 great innings and then the
cycle repeated. Ofcourse, he had a few great series like the NZ one
last year and SA series in 2002, but generally when one sees his career
graph...one will see a lot of single digit scores and also big
centuries.

Right now, he definitely has been exposed and Nel exploited the
weakness in this match and I think Bravo also expolited in the previous
series.

I think Australia has been a tad lucky this series with Hussey coming
into form and of course, S outh Africa have been way too generous to
them. But at some point if Gilchrist keeps failing, it might hurt
Australia in a crunch series.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by shariq_ta.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:38:42

2 reasons IMO

1.) He is 34 and being a fulltime wicketkeeper must have taken a much
heavier toll on his body than if he was just a batsman

2.) Players like Gilchrist are aggressive and will give you a chance
early on. If the chance is availed then he's back in the hut for a
cheap score otherwise he will take you to the cleaners. Following
Australia's example, teams have started to use computers to analyze the
strengths, weaknesses and tendencies of players. As a result have been
able to figure out the areas in which Gilchrist gives his chances and
have been able to plug them up. So certainly some figuring out has
happend

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by FRAN » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:26:30

Quote:

> 2 reasons IMO

> 1.) He is 34 and being a fulltime wicketkeeper must have taken a much
> heavier toll on his body than if he was just a batsman

Agreed. There's a reason why keepers generally don't get much above 30
in tests despite possessing many of the attributes of players capable
of challenging 50 and the advantages of batting down the order. It's
very taxing, physically and mentally, and now that keepers generally
play not only a lot more tests but ODI's as well, it's even worse.
Keepers rarely get a break when fielding, and if they churn out
hundreds at the rate Gilchrist has, they are going to be doing a lot of
running and concentrating when other bats have only one task.

Quote:
> 2.) Players like Gilchrist are aggressive and will give you a chance
> early on. If the chance is availed then he's back in the hut for a
> cheap score otherwise he will take you to the cleaners. Following
> Australia's example, teams have started to use computers to analyze the
> strengths, weaknesses and tendencies of players. As a result have been
> able to figure out the areas in which Gilchrist gives his chances and
> have been able to plug them up. So certainly some figuring out has
> happend

That's true too -- analysis is much stronger now than it was during the
days when Rod Marsh played -- and the data is also far more copious.
You can even see extreme slowmo of someone making a shot and work on
exploiting subtle flaws in technique and shot execution. In a game
where a minor error of judgement can see you dismissed, this is a
powerful weapon. Someone who ONLY has to work out how to combat bowlers
in tests or ODIs may develop a workaround, but playing AND keeping in
both forms and playing through injuries is going to take its toll.

I've long thought that Gilchrist should give up ODIs and also give
himself a bit more time to play himself in when he comes out. There was
no need for him to do what he did yesterday. Had I been Ponting, I'd
have told him just to work the first few around and let Warne and
perhaps Lee after him take their share of the strike as we'd bat until
tea -- the aim being for Gilly to get the red ink and maybe swing at a
couple of halftrackers when well in.

Fran

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Gerrit 't Har » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:23:20


Quote:
> he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
> technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
> ?
> or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

Has he had his eyesight checked lately?
Seems to me a classic case of deteriorating eyes.
His keeping is also suffering.

Gerrit

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by kenhig.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:23:19

Quote:


> > 2 reasons IMO

> > 1.) He is 34 and being a fulltime wicketkeeper must have taken a much
> > heavier toll on his body than if he was just a batsman

> Agreed. There's a reason why keepers generally don't get much above 30
> in tests despite possessing many of the attributes of players capable
> of challenging 50 and the advantages of batting down the order. It's
> very taxing, physically and mentally, and now that keepers generally
> play not only a lot more tests but ODI's as well, it's even worse.
> Keepers rarely get a break when fielding, and if they churn out
> hundreds at the rate Gilchrist has, they are going to be doing a lot of
> running and concentrating when other bats have only one task.

Andy Flower being the obvious exception, keeping wicket, scoring at
above 50 and carrying the expectations of his (mediocre, cricketing
wise) country on his shoulders

Higgs

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Ian Galbrait » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:46:24


Quote:
> he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
> technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
> ?

No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
consistrently after that.

Quote:
> or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

Stress of his workload and age having a deteriorating effect.

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Halekal » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 02:53:31



Quote:

>> he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
>> technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
>> ?

>No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
>consistrently after that.

>> or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

>Stress of his workload and age having a deteriorating effect.

Everyone here is talking about his weakness, what is it? I won't write
him off yet. He is going through classic bad form. Lack of confidence
is hurting him. He mistimed a pull shot in 2nd inning. That indicates
lack of confidence, IMO.

Best Regards,
Halekala

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by alve » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 06:35:16

Quote:


>> he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
>> technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
>> ?

> No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
> consistrently after that.

>> or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

> Stress of his workload and age having a deteriorating effect.

And having a God-botherer next to you alot of the time can't help.

Thought: It must be conversationally taxing for Clang when Warney's
bowling. One over he has a God Botherer to chat with and the next over it's
Warne. So it's not a fine line between Heaven and Hell, it's about 30
metres.

alvey

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Airw0l » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 06:55:17


Quote:

> Andy Flower being the obvious exception, keeping wicket, scoring at
> above 50 and carrying the expectations of his (mediocre, cricketing
> wise) country on his shoulders

> Higgs

Sangakkara is doing an OK job so far, but it's very early days for him. And
SL isn't a team full of superstars by any stretch. In fact, it can already
be argued that he is the side's best batsman.
 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by razarah.. » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:11:19

Yeah, what the hell is his weakness? Are the bowlers showing some leg?
I think that's arse talk. I could be wrong.
 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Ian Galbrait » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:25:35

[snip]

Quote:
> Everyone here is talking about his weakness, what is it? I won't write
> him off yet. He is going through classic bad form. Lack of confidence
> is hurting him. He mistimed a pull shot in 2nd inning. That indicates
> lack of confidence, IMO.

The ball coming from a left armer bowling over the wicket or right arm
bowling around the wicket angled in at his off stump.

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by vdeolali.. » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:29:38

This has been known/speculated for a long time. I have heard many
commentators talking about this supposed weakness.

I don't think there is such a weakness, or at least it is not very
pronounced. Gilchrist is a complete player, and one of the titans not
only of our times but of all time. I think this is nothing other than
the tall poppy syndrome.

He is going through a bit of a slump, but I think it is premature to
attribute it to a technical weakness. When he gets back to form he will
be whacking precisely those deliveries to the boundary.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by kenhig.. » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:32:30

Quote:



> > Andy Flower being the obvious exception, keeping wicket, scoring at
> > above 50 and carrying the expectations of his (mediocre, cricketing
> > wise) country on his shoulders

> > Higgs

> Sangakkara is doing an OK job so far, but it's very early days for him. And
> SL isn't a team full of superstars by any stretch. In fact, it can already
> be argued that he is the side's best batsman.

Oh, I agree to some extent.

Gilchrist got an awful lot of praise for what he did (and did very
well), but all the talk about head and shoulders above any other
keeper/batsman was to ignore what players like Flower achieved.
I still believe Flower was vastly underrated as a batsman. 50+ in a
***side is quite an achievement

Higgs

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Airw0l » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:55:21



Quote:

> Gilchrist got an awful lot of praise for what he did (and did very
> well), but all the talk about head and shoulders above any other
> keeper/batsman was to ignore what players like Flower achieved.
> I still believe Flower was vastly underrated as a batsman. 50+ in a
> ***side is quite an achievement

> Higgs

Agree fully about Flower. He really was quite prolific. And I always
admired his ability to play spin, even using the reverse sweep.
 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 08:03:44


Quote:
>This has been known/speculated for a long time. I have heard many
>commentators talking about this supposed weakness.

>I don't think there is such a weakness, or at least it is not very
>pronounced. Gilchrist is a complete player, and one of the titans not
>only of our times but of all time. I think this is nothing other than
>the tall poppy syndrome.

>He is going through a bit of a slump, but I think it is premature to
>attribute it to a technical weakness. When he gets back to form he will
>be whacking precisely those deliveries to the boundary.

He's been vulnerable to that line of attack throughout his career.
However, if you get it wrong and bowl too wide, he'll cut you to
ribbons, and if your gully-area fielders drop all the catches he
gives, he ends up scoring vast numbers of runs.

The problem most sides have had is that they haven't had bowlers who
can deliver the correct line and length consistently engouh to get him
out before he's scored a bazillion.

Cheers,

Mike