GILCHRIST player of the series!!

[thuganomics]

I think Laxman is very very unlucky

 

[SirShire]

BS. He last few innings have been below par. Gilly really deserved it and I still think that players like Streak and Symonds deserve to be named over Laxman.

 

[knights04]

Gilchrist had great starts all series and was excellent behind the stumps, Laxman may also feel unlucky.

 

[El Diablo]

Laxman scored less runs and had more innings' than Gilchrist. Dunno why you'd think he's unlucky.

 

[wittyz chick]

i heard Heath Streak got something...what was it i missed it?

 

[knights04]

Laxman scored 3 hundreds in 1 wk with a few 50's that's worth something.

 

[SirShire]

Yet he still did not have the most runs of highest average. And his fielding was poor (it seemed like he dropper one for everyone he caught).

Gilly has has a stellar summer behind the stumps and with the bat (best average, most runs, best strike rate).

And the other 2 blokes I reckon are deserving - H Streak with most wickets (before finals) and a good bowling average, good amount of runs with an avg of ~60 and unreal fielding - not to mention he plays with more spirit than any other player in the series (IMHO). Andy Symonds? Same as Streak - good bowling (about 10 wickets), great batting and he came in usually in a time of need, when a steady flow of runs were required and when no more wickets could be afforded to fall, and his fielding has been excellent.

But thats just my 2 cents.

 

[Macca]

Gilly deserved it and anyone who says differently just hasn't grasped the facts. Laxman went well in one week but wasn't as consistent. Gilly even missed a game where he might have scored another ton. Well done Gilly!

Personally though, I would have given it to Brett Lee. :lol: Just kidding, I am not that biassed.

 

[Anonymous]

Laxman scored 3 hundreds in 1 wk with a few 50's that's worth something.

He scored 3 hundreds and no fifties.

Gilchrist was outstanding. His lowest score was 21 and he was striking at 120 odd for the series.

Whilst Laxman was unlucky, Gilly deserved it no end.

 

[Twizzle]

Symonds must have also been close.

He had a few good all round performances.

 

[Rustay]

Gilly deserved it. Simple.

 

[aqua_duck]

I think everyone is getting carried away with the 3 centuries in 1 weekthI mean he played well and all that but at the end of the day its still only 3 centuries and not much else apart from that. Gilchrist always got Australia off to a flyer, I mean he batted superbly, 176, 90 odd and 70, all off not very many balls. His strike rate was also extraordinary. In my opinion, he batted better than Laxman, Laxman batted well but he had time to settle in and build his innings and bat around guys like Yuvraj, and pick off the singles, whilst Gilchrist didn't take any time to settle in, he just blazed away from the word go, he was also batting against the new ball, and his innings at the WACA was superb on what seemed like a bowler's paradise.
I think its fair to say that it could've gone to either player.

 

[Twizzle]

Laxman scored 2 centuries against Australia in a week.

None of them were match winners.

 

[Tupac Shakur]

Good work Gilly well deserved he was consistent throughout the whole series but there really wasn't a standout player so it could have gone to anyone.

 

[Craig]

Yet he still did not have the most runs of highest average. And his fielding was poor (it seemed like he dropper one for everyone he caught).

You didnt see those two catches at Adelaide v Zimbabwe and at Perth v Australia didnt you?

 

[SirShire]

I saw them all. And the ones he dropped.

 

[thuganomics]

IMO Salmon and Aqua ducks are idiots!!

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Laxman was like Ponting in the test series, he made some big scores but other than make many runs. I think Gilchrist deserved it, like Dravid deserved the award in the test series. He scored the most runs and topped the batting averages.

 

[SirShire]

IMVHO thuganomics I think you are a f**kwit and a complete waste of bandwith, and its not like I give a shit what you think.