The rise and rise of Adam Gilchrist

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