The rise and rise of Adam Gilchrist
Daniel Laidlaw
Heading into his third season as a Test player, the remarkable rise of
Adam Gilchrist continues unabated. It is difficult to believe the Australian
wicket-keeper batsman, vice-captain and a permanent fixture in his side,
made his Test debut two years ago next month. Already an established star
on the international stage, Gilchrist has risen to every challenge in a brief
but distinguished career that continues to reach greater heights.
Gilchrist will be Australia's not-so-secret weapon in the world
championship battles with the Proteas this season. South Africa is one of four teams he
is yet to play at Test level and, intriguingly, it was against South
Africa when he first made his international mark in the finals of Australia's ODI
tri-series tournament during the 1997/'98 season.
That season, Gilchrist was a recognisable protagonist in the controversial
divide of Australia's Test and one-day teams, when the selectors began
choosing players solely on their respective Test and ODI merits. At a time
of confused selection policy, Gilchrist became a logical target for some
of the Aussie cricket public's wrath after replacing long-standing
wicketkeeper and admired great Ian Healy in coloured clothes. Coming in at No. 7, the
fickle ODI crowds booed the largely unknown interloper as an expression of
their displeasure at Healy's axing.
That began to change in January '98 after Australia, then an inconsistent
ODI team in the process of being rebuilt, limped into the tri-series
finals against the mighty South Africa. With Test captain Mark Taylor having been
similarly dropped, Australia was searching for an opening partner to Mark
Waugh, and on a hunch new skipper Steve Waugh decided to promote Gilchrist
to open in the first final. He only made 20 and Australia lost, but the
tone had been set - in the next match, Gilchrist made a thumping century and
has not looked back as an international cricketer since.
If not for the remarkable deeds of Andy Flower, Gilchrist would be
regarded as the world's finest keeper/batsman. He is that most valuable of
commodities, a match-winner, but the amazing aspect of the Gilchrist
phenomenon is not that he is capable of playing blinding innings on his
day, but the consistency with which he has done it.
Gilchrist has had plenty of opportunities to falter and sceptics, myself
included, have been waiting for it. We're still waiting.
First, there was the start of Gilchrist's Test career, when he again
replaced Healy. Sure, he had proved his one-day credentials, but that
hardly mattered when it came to Test cricket - just look at Michael Bevan.
The switch to whites made no discernable difference to Gilchrist's
technique, however. If anything, it made batting easier for him, because
the pressure to hit boundaries had been lifted. His debut innings was a fluent
81 against Pakistan and by his third innings he was the central figure in
the third-highest fourth innings chase of all time, striking 149* not out
after coming in at 126/5.
He maintained a 50+ average through series against India, New Zealand and
West Indies before venturing into new terrain again in India, playing an
innings of daring brilliance against spin to help win the first Test.
Gilchrist's first real failures were to follow, though, as he experienced
a result other than victory for the first time in his 16th Test. Had the
Gilchrist bubble burst?
He emphatically proved it had not with an excellent Ashes series,
including his third hundred. In the process, he became the fastest to 100 Test
dismissals as a wicketkeeper and is now ranked 7th in the PwC batting
ratings.
That is all very well for a batsman but the fact is Gilchrist is a
wicketkeeper, which traditionally would have meant evaluation primarily on
his keeping ability. But when Healy was pushed out, that philosophy
changed.
Gilchrist is probably not his country's best wicketkeeper and he certainly
wasn't when he replaced Healy. Such are his batting abilities, though,
that the criterion for selecting a wicketkeeper has changed. It is reasoned,
quite correctly, that the extra errors he makes behind the stumps are more
than compensated by the value he adds as a batsman.
That is not to say Gilchrist is a poor keeper, for if catches were dropped
with any kind of regularity then his role behind the stumps could not be
justified. He is serviceable, and learning - Gilchrist had a horrible
start to the Ashes series as he surprisingly struggled with the unfamiliar swing
of the ball. Fortunately he had no such difficultly with the bat.
With footwork perhaps not as sharp as a specialist batsman, Gilchrist was
considered suspect under English conditions, due in part to his ordinary
1999 World Cup tournament when he struggled as an opener. That suspicion
was also laid to rest, as England got a taste of his fearless brand of
batting.
And it's not as if these innings have been occasional, or even flukey,
feats. His portfolio already includes at least three spectacular knocks
through 22 Tests: The record run chase in Hobart, the hundred in Mumbai,
the ton in Edgbaston and a collection of smaller but significant innings.
It is not so much those performances that make Gilchrist such a compelling
and watchable batsman but the manner in which they are achieved. He is a
quintessential member of the current Australian team for his instinct is
to seize the initiative and bat positively regardless of the situation, which
he does with an ease attainable only by those for whom it is natural. He
can change the momentum of a match with alacrity and bowlers, knowing this,
are placed under considerable pressure. They know they have to remove him
quickly or else the runs usually mount and that, in turn, aids Gilchrist.
Although originally from New South Wales Gilchrist is a natural West
Australian batsman, murderous on the pull and cut. Yet such is his free
scoring ability, bowlers are seemingly always bowling short and wide to
his strengths.
So Gilchrist, now a key component in the Australian team, is soon to
confront South Africa, a side not known for permitting opposing batsmen to
play as they wish. For some reason, I'm no longer expecting him to fail.
More Columns
Mail Daniel Laidlaw