Again, I don't think I disagree with you much. You'll see my alternative XI has got Marshall and Garner in it, not Walsh; I only mentioned him because Ambrose was there - and the two were synonymous. During the 90s, in particular, Ambrose did the work and Walsh got the wickets... it was a bit weird like that. It's why Ambrose and McGrath would be such an effective combo.
I'd probably put Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts above Walsh, who I'd see in a cadre with Bishop, Patterson and Hall.
Incidentally, thinking further about my XI and West Indian cricket, I'm painfully aware that none of the three Ws are in my side - and perhaps ought to be, albeit I don't know enough about them.
I'm with you on the three Ws, I know they are greats but I don't know enough about them to separate them!
Ambrose and McGrath would be scary as a combo: no-one would ever score any runs off them.
I knew that was coming! Is he really a drugs cheat, or a stupid, vain wally? I doubt very much that Warne's slimming drugs were performance enhancing; I suspect he took them because he wanted to text birds and then follow-up on it!
The drugs he took were a well known masking agent. At the time he was coming back from a shoulder injury (rather quickly it must be said as well).
Murali was cleared by the ICC, Warne was convicted, yet Murali is the cheat? This has always rankled with me the way people are willing to cast stones at Murali, yet ignore Warne's numerous indiscretions (lest it not be forgotten, Warne was also found guilty of an inappropriate dealings with a bookie).
I don't disagree that he was very divisive and has not left any legacy. But he's also the most exciting spinner I've ever seen; and that's why he's in.
I don't think he is divisive at all, I've still a huge amount of respect for his bowling. Everyone seems to love him, you never hear a bad word said about him and great claims are made about his impact that seemingly aren't backed up by the facts. Murali is the divisive one.
Ooh... I may, just, have a scintilla of a disagreement with you here!
From the 70s to the 90s, the expert glovemen held sway - Dujon, Knott, Russell, Marsh, Healy. Australia changed that with Gilchrist, whose glovework was nothing like as good as any of those just mentioned... but whose batting was utterly explosive.
It did mark a sea-change in attitudes. It extended Alec Stewart's Test career significantly, it foreshortened Fozzies, it saw the Saffers working with the likes of Boucher and saw the rise of the likes of Sangakkara and Dhoni. It has significantly raised the bar for wicketkeepers, from a batting point of view - and glovework (perhaps sadly, for the purists) definitely takes second place... although keep an eye out for Denesh Ramdin - one of the few West Indians to impress on this tour, and someone who has a very promising career ahead of him - but also, whose glovework is not bad and improving all the time.
:)
Matt
Rod Marsh was known as iron gloves, which wasn't earned as a compliment to his early keeping. Knott was a fine, fine keeper, but Bob Taylor fans maintain that their man was the better keeper, he just lacked Knott's ability with the bat. Russell was regularly dropped for Stewart, and as good as Russell was might not even have been the best keeper in county cricket (Keith Piper was only good enough to bat at 9 for Warwickshire, I think Colin Metson batted on occasions at 10 for Glamorgan - Russell's batting was what put him above guys like these, as Russell was still known to muff chances from time to time)
Are you suggesting that Stewart would have been dropped if it wasn't for Gilchrist?
Gilchrist only made his test debut in November 1999. Duncan Fletcher was already England coach by then and had already decided Stewart was his keeper.
Even before Gilchrist had made his debut, England had selected Chris Read because he was considered (laughably) the wicketkeeper most likely to make test match hundreds, having scored his maiden hundred the week before in front of a selector.
Boucher was already South Africa's keeper, a young Sangakkara made his debut just 6 months later when Gilchrist still only had one test match century to his name.
Gilchrist maybe epitomises batsmen-keepers, but if you look closely there was already that trend in international cricket. Maybe you can say Gilchrist legitimised that trend, but he certainly wasn't the first. Where you could say he was far more influential was in power hitting, in batsmen bulking up, hitting over the top knowing their mis-hits could still make the boundary. Batting at a strike-rate of around 90, taking the bowlers on wasn't necessary new (the likes of IVA Richards and IT Botham may have done it once or twice) but it made counter-attacking from 6 or 7 in the order a vitally important tool. Maybe Gilchrist paved the way for Hayden to return to international cricket by showing that that sort of aggressive style could be highly profitable.
Gilchrist may epitomise batsmen-keepers, but he was far from the first and I'd suggest he wasn't the best batsman to have kept wicket either. I'd suggest Sangakkara, A. Flower and Walcott (if I've got the right W) were all better batsmen. Gilchrist's claim is founded on his explosiveness. He might not have been as good as Flower or Kumar, but he was more dangerous.
