I posted a comment in a Roar article recently where I said that Adam Gilchrist would not make my all time XI.
I thought that maybe it actually deserves a full article to flesh that out a little bit more, and then explain who goes into my all time ODI XI. I know that suggesting Gilchrist and his immense talents don’t belong in any all time team is borderline sacrilege and is exceptionally controversial, but I stand by it.
Firstly, I want to state unequivocally that I rate Adam Gilchrist as the best Test wicketkeeper batsman of all time and is always a first three pick in any all-time test XI (Don Bradman and Shane Warne the other two). Adam Gilchrist is responsible for revolutionising the role of a wicketkeeper in both Test and ODI formats, and will always be acknowledged as that person.
That, in many ways, is the more prestigious honour than any naming in a hypothetical best XI.
There is nothing hypothetical about his reputation – he changed the game in a bigger way than other legends ever did. He’s more influential than a Bradman, a Brian Lara or a Warne. These three people were exceptionally talented at what they did, but cricket always had batsman and bowlers. They always had wicketkeepers. But they didn’t have keeper-batsman until Gilchrist came long.
Adam Gilchrist is Neil Armstrong. The first. Deservedly so, the first is always the fondly remembered and widely regarded. But Neil Armstrong didn’t spend the most time on the moon. Nor was his landing the best. His contribution to lunar scientific exploration was dwarfed by subsequent astronauts on future Apollo missions. The torch was passed. Gilchrist is no different.
(Photo by Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
My exclusion of Gilchrist comes down to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Cricinfo a couple of years ago published its list of the top five ODI players of all time which listed Gilchrist, MS Dhoni, Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and Wasim Akram. I completely agree.
Therein lay a small problem. A top five list was blessed with two wicketkeepers, a unprecedented achievement in its own right, but one of them will have to be omitted from a first XI.
A team can have multiple fast bowlers, multiple spinners, and multiple batsman, it can’t have multiple wicketkeepers. And despite that some teams can have players who could sub in and out of the gloves (like Brendon McCullum, AB DeVillers, Kumar Sangakkara and to a lesser extent Rahul Dravid) Adam Gilchrist played just five matches out of 287 where he wasn’t wearing the gloves.
Dhoni has never not been the wicketkeeper in 318 matches.
These two players are unequivocally full time wicketkeepers and thus only one can be picked in a team.
Gilchrist statistically has more catches, Dhoni has more stumpings (not surprising for either) and no one would say one was demonstrably better than the other either. You could argue that Gilchrist was a shade better with the gloves but both are clearly excellent keepers and neither had any question marks raised over their abilities with the gloves throughout their career.
So, we need to also remove their wicket keeping abilities and focus exclusively on their batting – the reason why both are in any top five discussion anyway.
Both Dhoni and Gilchrist excelled (or in Dhoni’s case continues to excel) in their entirely different batting roles. Gilchrist was a superb top order batsman, working perfectly with Mark Waugh and Matt Hayden to set up platforms for the likes of Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Damien Martyn and Andrew Symonds to build on in the first innings, or making life easier for the middle order in the second innings by getting off to a flyer.
It’s no coincidence their period of complete ODI dominance was during the Gilchrist era.
MS Dhoni on the other hand is a superb finisher. An incredibly reliable bat in positions five and six ensuring that strong starts by the Indian top and upper middle order were capitalised on, but his real strength lay in shepherding India over the line in difficult targets.
Both Dhoni and Gilchrist produced their finest on the world stage, and coincidentally, both against Sri Lanka. Gilchrist ensured Sri Lanka weren’t going to win in the 2007 world cup final with a barnstorming century, easily his best of a very strong list.
Dhoni took the game away from Sri Lanka (when Sri Lanka had their nose in front) with an unbeaten 91 in the 2011 world cup final. Add the burden of captaincy for Dhoni with a billion people expecting victory to truly appreciate that innings.
(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
Statistically, there isn’t much to separate them. Gilchrist batted 279 times for 9600 runs at almost 36. He passed fifty 71 times (16 hundreds in there) and hit at a surreal 96.94. It reinforces his reputation as a dashingly powerful opener.
Dhoni has had 272 innings for a shade under 10,000 at an unbelievable 51 average. He’s hit 77 50+ totals (10 centuries). Yes, he has many not outs, but that is expected for someone who has spent the bulk of his career at positions five and six.
It also reinforces his reputation as the best finisher in the game. Throughout his career, and despite his position and role, he’s maintained a very quick clop of 88.4. What is extraordinary it that these two wicketkeepers have batted almost a similar amount of times and have scored almost a similar amount of runs. Dhoni has scored centuries in positions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 highlighting a his versatility with bat in hand.
So, when taking into account their roles, statistically it’s hard to separate them. We are still in the pickle of trying to pick only one of them. I can’t even say that one stood out more in teams of mediocrity either.
Both had the privilege of playing with some of the finest to play the game, and when they were at their peaks. Neither were starved of supporting talent.
So, how did I come to the conclusion that Dhoni should be in the team at the expense of Gilchrist? Two reasons.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
The first reason is that Dhoni was a captain. In 199 matches as captain he managed to maintain a 53.92 average, hit 53 fifties and took India from a competitive ODI team to a champion team that won the world cup. He took captaincy by the horns and handed the reigns to Kohli as the best ODI captain India ever had and finished with a record second only to Ponting as captain.
I go back to the 2011 world cup final. Sri Lanka posted a strong total. Dhoni made a ballsy call to promote himself up the order, knowing he’d cop it royal if it backfired. 91 runs and a game ending six later he’s upper cutting himself in the jaw for some weird reason. But he’s a world cup captain with a match defining captain’s knock to rival if not exceed Ponting’s in ’03.
Gilchrist didn’t have the burden of full time captaincy and although was a senior and respected leader of the Australian team, he wasn’t the one calling the shots.
The second reason? We have one opener and one finisher. I went with the finisher. Here’s why.
Gilchrist is one of many excellent ODI openers. However, Gilchrist did not invent rapid starts to an innings (that was indisputably Sanath Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharane and why Sri Lanka won the 1996 world cup), nor does he have the record that other openers have.
He may have become one of the best openers in the game, but he wasn’t the best during his era (Tendulkar was still leaps and bounds better) and ultimately other people have since become better than him. Gilchrist had a scintillating strike rate to compensate for a decent average. Others had better averages and scoring abilities but were slower by comparison.
Clearly Sachin Tendulkar takes one spot. For me, the other spot has to go to Hashim Amla. He quietly and calmly destroys teams in the first ten overs of an innings. Secondly, he didn’t have the same generous field restrictions Gilchrist had.
Gilchrist played the majority of his ODI career where only two people were allowed outside the circle in the first 15 overs. Amla has played his career in an era where you only get ten overs of that.
While a lot of well-deserved praise goes to Virat Kohli (where if the cricinfo article was written today, Kohli would undoubtedly be on that list) for his exploits, and the smashing of Tendulkar’s records one by one, Amla silently and calmly is breaking all of Kohli’s. And not just breaking them, he’s putting such large margins on them, it will be hard to think they could be broken again.
At the end of the day, I looked at one opener who averaged 36 and was hitting at 96, against an opener who averages over 50 and strikes at 89. A 50 average as an opener in ODI cricket is just insane and can’t be ignored.
Amla has hit 26 centuries and will likely finish behind only Tendulkar and Kohli on that list. Amla also happens to go like the wind in the opening ten overs before slowing down when the fielders get to go outside the circle. He just doesn’t do it with the same visual destruction as others.
MS Dhoni, much like Gilchrist, didn’t invent the role of designated finisher, that was arguably invented (or at least defined) by Michael Bevan. But there is really no one else who could assume Dhoni’s spot at 6. The only other people I could think of as the perfect finishers were Bevan and Michael Hussey. Both Bevan and Dhoni have 50+ averages, both have a heck of a lot of not-outs meaning they performed their role perfectly, but Dhoni just did it quicker. Striking at 89 is much better than 74. Hussey was no slouch, he would hit at 87, and averaged 48.
But what Dhoni has is that little bit extra. He also has the ability to step it up in a first innings and clear the fence at will – something a Michael Bevan, or a Mike Hussey couldn’t do.
Each of these three batsman could be depended upon to shepherd a team home, but of those three, only Dhoni could do what few else can – hit a straight six at Adelaide 18 rows over the fence. It seems harsh to say this, because Bevan in both world cup victories never got to bat in a final, but Dhoni did and it was remarkable.
The rest of the team sort of selects itself.
Amla – as discussed. Proof that you don’t need it to be raining sixes to be just as effective and quick.
Tendulkar – obviously.
Kohli – He’s better than Tendulkar now. He’s also the finest chaser the game has ever seen.
Richards – Still the greatest. Leaps and bounds better than any of his contemporaries, and an average that is worth 60 in the modern game and would probably strike at well over 100 too. Still not sure whether cricket is poorer or better for him not having David Warner’s cricket bat in his hands.
De Villers – His strength lies not with building an innings, but with destroying the morale of a team with a good platform. His success is due to Amla building a solid platform for him to then give him the freedom to swing. A true pairing if there ever was one.
Dhoni – As discussed.
Akram – Best ODI bowler of all time. Liked to swing the blade like a nine iron for some lusty lower order blows too.
Warne – As devastating in ODIs as he was in Tests.
McGrath – Unplayable in ODIs. We’ll rightly remember his Tests better, but he was seriously awesome at ODIs too. Not too many batsman can say that they had his measure.
Muralitharan – Holds many records, won many more games. Hard to ignore.
Shane Bond – an out there pick, but he was seriously good. Exceptionally fast, almost always on top of the batsman, saved his best for Australia at their peak as well. Injuries robbed him and us of much more joy.
That said, I’d also be happy with Waqar Younis in place of Shane Bond if people think his career was too short to be credited with an all time jumper.
I don’t believe in all-rounders. I think when you are picking a best XI, you wouldn’t need one. Presumably you have to make an assumption you are picking players in a hypothetical team, you pick them to perform as close to their reputations or statistics would suggest they would.
I accept the omission of Gilchrist is controversial. I think I’ve put up some decent reasons as to why I went the way I did.
I accept people will almost certainly disagree, and I absolutely want to hear your reasons why you think I’m wrong. But, I only ask that if you disagree, you back it up with reason driven passion, not patriotism driven passion.
I don’t want to pretend that I have insight into the mind of Gilchrist, but if I was him, I would always prefer my legacy as an epochal figure of the game rather than a placement in a hypothetical team. He’ll always have that over Dhoni or any subsequent keeper-batsman.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Sri Lanka did not win the 1996 world cup because of Jayasuriah. They won it because of Aravinda de Silva.
Hari Randhawa
Guest
Khan walks in as a full-time bowler in most setups though. His batting is just bonus. That is the key to the greatest of all-rounders - they walk into the side as a full time specialist in either batting or bowling.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
In the 2003 WC final, I rate Martyn's 88* as more important than Ponting's 140*. Sounds preposterous, but Ponting scratched around, looking awful for a long time. On a small ground that is a batting paradise, Ponting took 74 balls to get to 50, and was slowing us down. I remember thinking we'd be better off if he got out he was chewing up that many balls; playing lots of dots. Up the other end, Martyn was sublime. He kept the runs ticking (46 balls for his 50), which meant the pressure on Ponting didn't appreciably build. Martyn and Ponting's score were roughly equal for a long time, only Martyn scored them more quickly, but then Ponting started middling them and hogged the strike while he went ballistic. I thought Marto was a dead cert to score a century, but he hardly faced a ball in the last 5 overs. Ponting got the glory, but Martyn at the very least deserves very special praise.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Spruce, A very good, well thought out and articulated article. I bow to your selection of Dhoni over Gilchrist - your reasoning is very sound, and I'm on board. However, I would change a couple of other selections, if I may. Dean Jones revolutionised the ODI game. Cricinfo commence his profile: "Dean Jones wrote the book on one-day cricket - literally." His strike rate these days looks pedestrian, but for his day it was pretty high, and he has the still excellent avg of 44.6 (Tendulkar avg = 44.8). Further, he was batting in the mid-80's to early 90's, against some seriously good bowling attacks, esp the Windies. Jonesy was an absolute gun and just has to be in. Of your selected batsman, Amla is the weakest link (though undeniably very good). I unselect Amla for Jones. It means Richards or Jones has to open, but as traditional # 3's, I suspect they'd cope with that. As stated by others, I would take Brett Lee over McGrath, due to his scary good SR of 29.3. His economy rate isn't as good as McGrath's, but he took more wickets per match. A strike bowler who bowled exceptionally well at the death, Lee shades McGrath in ODI's. In the bowlers, Bond's short record is indeed par excellence - but I can't go past Allan Donald. His record is slightly better than Waqar Younis even, and better yet, had perhaps the nicest bowling action of all them. He was just glorious to watch. None are bad choices, but I loved Donald's silky action. In saying that, I think the batting line-up is too skinny, so I'd sub one of your 5 bowlers for a bowling all-rounder at 7. Probably Lee or Murali, depending on conditions. World Cup winning captain Imran Khan springs to mind, but in a horses-for-courses selection, I want a dasher at # 7, and so I choose Kapil Dev. His avg is a pretty avg 23, but his SR of 95 is outstanding for when he played. A very good bowler too, but really, I want him in my team for the day he walked out in a World Cup match, after winning the toss and electing to bat, with his side 4 for 9. Shortly after it was 5-17, but Dev finished the innings 175 not out from 138 balls - on a tricky English pitch to boot! That's a great innings today, but 35 years ago - WOW! A few matches later he takes an excellent catch to remove Viv Richards which precedes a Windies collapse, and he's suddenly a World Cup winning captain. Voted India's cricketer of the (20th) century over both Gavaskar and Tendulkar too. My team: Tendulkar Viv Richards Dean Jones V. Kohli AB De Villiers Dhoni Dev Akram Warne Donald B. Lee / Murali
Fergus
Roar Rookie
McGrath batted 11. if you have a team of batting legends i highly doubt his batting would ever be required. If it was you've probably already lost.
Fergus
Roar Rookie
I don't think they get it A) they are under the impression that Dhoni is an inferior bat to Gilchrist and that notouts demean a batsmens performance. The reality is that at positions 3/4 Dhoni averages over 65 and has a higher strike rate then Gilchrist. So the longer he has to bat the better he bats, if he opened who knows how good he could have been. you need to remember that although batting down the order gives more opportunity for notouts it also gives you less balls to face, less opportunity to build an innings and to score runs. lower order batsmen often come in chasing quick runs so for Dhoni to get that many notouts he had to excel at scoring quickly without getting out which is no mean feat. it's alot easier to get a 50 off 60 balls then a 50 off 30 balls. B) just because some keepers can keep and field well doesn't make all keepers capable of keeping and fielding well. Most keepers spend there fielding sessions keeping, it makes them good at keeping. if you don't practice fielding without the gloves its unlikely you'll be as good or better at it then a batsmen who has practices it there whole life. Besides anyone who has played cricket will be able to tell you there's a huge difference between keeping, fielding in the inner circle and fielding on the boundary. excelling at one doesn't automatically make you good at the other. Let me isolate the logic behind what spruce is saying. If you can pick 2 players and each has a rating out of 10 you would pick the two players who give you the highest combined rating (as that's a measure of their worth) as that'll give you the best team. i'll give 2 examples below x = 7 y=9 x = 9 y=10 clearly if you had a choice you'd choose the second set of players as they have the highest rating. to make it more relevant you could say the first set is Gilchrist and Dhoni, the second set Amla and Dhoni. Dhoni is worth less in the first set because he is a better keeper then fielder (the issue with playing two keepers, only ones talents are maximised) and amla is just a better bat then Gilchrist. If you want to dispute the worth of players and give that as your reason why you prefer gilchrist (you believe he's better) that's fine, but give evidence for your reasons and don't dispute the logic. Because like it or not a keeper who doesn't keep is worth less then one who does in the same way that an allrounder who doesn't bowl is basically a batsmen (they can't live up to there full value). so if you have 2 keepers one is basically a bat, so they have to be better then all other batsmen who could bat in their position otherwise your weakening the team. This is basically what spruce is saying, there are better openers then Gilchrist (i.e. amla) so by playing him as a keeper you lose out in the opening spot, weakening the team. There are not any better finishers then Dhoni so by not playing him you weaken the team. even if Gilchrist was the best opener playing two keepers could still weaken the team if a batter of similar ability was a far better fielder. As it is you'd be better off taking watson as his superior average and inferior strike rate put him on par with gilly as an opener and his bowling can still be put to full use unlike gillys keeping if dhoni is in the side. With regards to Spruce saying no-one would pick two keepers in a side he's generally correct as more often then not a keeper isn't in your top 6 bats and if they are you play your keeper up the order a bit and take the next best bat at 7 which rarely is also a keeper. As you pointed out in tassie's instance sometimes that does occur, but in an all time 11 where roles tend to be even more specialised then normal i doubt it'll happen.
Duncan Smith
Guest
A well argued article , but I would still take Gilchrist over Amla. So Gilchrist is a wicket keeper who can't bowl? I don't think Amla bowls either, does he? I would also substitute an all rounder for Bond, probably Imran Khan. Remember the 1992 cup final?
Nope
Guest
Well, he's in mine. Trophies and performing when it matters are what counts in ODI. Not stats from meaningless games. Gilchrist had the temperament and class to step up when needed. He scored 149 in the 2007 WC final. Ditto Ricky Ponting - 140 in the 2003 final The South Africans are chokers so no room for them. Kohli stays but ditch Dhoni and Tendulkar. Tendulkar always performed in meaningless games but never when the pressure was on. The stage was set for him in 2011 and he scored 18. He scored 4 in the 2003 final. Gilly would keep so MS is gone.
Taurangaboy
Guest
Yes although he was a fantastic cricketer and I loved watching him bat Gilchrist was by no means the pioneer wicketkeeper batsman. As you say Denis Lindsay was excellent in the 1960's. England too were fond of picking keepers who were not necessarily the best behind the stumps but who were batsmen in their own rights, like Jim Parks in the '60's, and Les Ames in the 1930's who scored well over 100 first class centuries.
Nudge
Guest
You just don’t get it mate. You categorically have said that you can not play 2 keepers in the same team. If you have 2 keepers in the same team and both are in the top 6 batsmen in the team you play them both. You just keep digging yourself a bigger hole because you can’t admit you’re wrong. Don’t think Bearfax had anything to apologise about after his first post.
Peter85
Roar Rookie
In my theoretical team, AB de Villiers would be my keeper, allowing an all-rounder to play at the #7 slot. In ABdV 228 ODI's played, 59 were as the 'keeper with an average of 70, 169 as a fielder with an average of 48. His strike rate is 101 for both positions. Given sample size issues, I would argue that keeping does not diminish his batting prowess and also he is a better batsman than Dhoni and Gilchrist. His career is mainly at the #4 position (125 innings) but has a better average and strike rate at #5 (42 innings). These stats make me very comfortable with ABdV as the 'keeper over Dhoni and Gilchrist. No-one has argued against ABdV being picked as a batsman, and in this hypothetical team you then need to fill in the #6 position that Spruce Moose currently has Dhoni slotted in to. Here I am taking Bevan, who I feel was considered peerless as a finisher of innings, especially in chases. If the game was played with todays expectations, Dhoni would be a better choice, but I feel Beven was further ahead of his peers in this role than Dhoni has been. The #7 spot is reserved for one of the match-winning all-rounders. All the good ones are before my time, so I cant make good arguments for or against them, but in this group would be Khan, Dev, Hadlee and probably a few others that I am missing. With the bowlers there probably needs to be at a minimum one, and probably two of the WI great fast bowlers. Garner seems to be the standout here. Interestingly, if you went with the ICC all time rankings, your 5 bowlers would be (in batting order) Hadlee, S. Pollock, Garner, McGrath, Muralidaran. That is a list that I find hard to argue with, especially given how underrated Shaun Pollock seems to be given his career achievements and peak performance. After all that, here we go: Amla, Tendulkar, Kholi, Richards, de Villiers, Bevan, Hadlee, Pollock, Garner, McGrath, Muralidaran.
Nick
Roar Guru
Sorry you lost me when you compared Wade/Paine to Gilchrist/Dhoni, and by extension comparing Tasmania a team of such limited resource to a fictional world XI, able to pick any player from any generation. Something tells me that Dhoni being the captain of an all time first XI probably would want the gloves - like he did for every match he played in. Back to the drawing board mate. Word of advice, using Matt Wade to back up an argument, loses the argument.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Kalu did indeed revolutionise the role of the opener/keeper(mostly opener). He was the one to bring into the mainstream the idea of all out attack in the first 15 overs. That changed the way one dayers were played from then on.
DavSA
Guest
Those here who have a few years under the belt will remember a South African wicketkeeper Denis Lindsay . He averaged in the 1970 test series vs Australia 65 with the bat .But it was the destructive way he went about it that caught the eye. Unfortunately no ODI's in those days but all suggests he would have been very effective. There were also no SR stats recorded but some estimates have him at a SR of 70 throughout his test career . Also in least byes conceded he stands way above most other keepers .
Savage
Roar Rookie
spruce moose Tbh I think I've been way too critical of Amla.He is a fabulous player.Amongst the openers (Dhawan,Rohit,D Kock,Warner and Guptill),He is the best batsmen of this generation. I think he deserves to break fastest to 2,3,4,5,6000 ODI runs record.Amla has been performing consistently right from the start of his career unlike ABD and Kohli. However I do think Openers and no 3 batsmen have slight advantage over middle order batsmen in terms of "runs scored per innings". For Ex-: Kohli has scored 133 in 320 chase.But don't you think he could've scored 170 had he batted in no 3 position or opened instead of batting at no 4 position.Yes he would've faced more balls and thus his chances of getting out also increases.But we are only talking about runs scored per innings not about averages.Do you Agree?
Nudge
Guest
I know it’s your article but sorry I’m not playing by your rules. I’m picking Gilchrist to open and Dhoni at 6. I’m not silly enough to pick an inferior batsman because I don’t want to have 2 keepers in my team. You can go down that path. By your theory if Harry Nielsen had of backed up his first class debut ton with another one in his second match last week, he should make way for Alex Carey this week instead of Alex Ross who’s hardly made a run, because you shouldn’t have 2 keepers in the team? Or Matthew Wade, after making 80 off 50 for Hobart Hurricanes, should have been dropped because Tim Paine came in for the very next match and took the gloves. By your theory Wade gets automatically dropped so you don’t have 2 keepers in the team. That’s ludicrous. And by the way I was at that match and Wade fielded very well, which believe it or not is not unusual for a keeper. If, in any team you have 2 keepers that are in the top 6 batsmen in the team then they both play, it’s as simple as that. For the life of me, I can’t see how you can’t work that one out.
Bangkokpussey
Roar Rookie
Just as a matter of interest when looking at the stats did you take into account the grounds in regard to how many were easy batting wickets as opposed to bowlers wickets. that can skew the stats quite markedly.
spruce moose
Guest
Khan was in my thoughts, but I personally wouldn't pick an all rounder in my team. I feel that when picking an all-time best, the 6 bats + 5 bowlers is enough. My all time team isn't going to have an off day in my imagination hahaha :p If Bond was to be replaced (and fair enough, a short career is hard to define greatness), I'd still stick with Waqar Younis who was frighteningly good, if not the best, in his prime. Good comments though. Khan would certainly not weaken the team.
spruce moose
Guest
Certainly would.
jamesb
Guest
.......further more. In your all time ODI team, you did make a huge mistake by not including Imran Khan. He averaged 33 with the bat, 26 with the ball, and was a world cup winning captain. I'd have him in the side instead of Shane Bond. The main reason that counts against Bond was that he had an injury riddled career where he only played 82 games. And with Akram at seven, your side does have a long tail. My lower order adjustments from your side would be: 7. Imran 8. Akram 9. Warne 10. McGrath 11. Muralitharan