What the hell is GWOAT?

Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.

==========================================================================

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ban-vs-ind-2nd-test-dhaka-is-rishabh-pant-the-gwoat-1350894

Is Rishabh Pant the GWOAT?

Longevity will determine where he sits vis a vis Gilchrist and the rest,
but there's no doubt he's already in the debate

Rishabh Pant, MS Dhoni's true successor as wicketkeeper-batter for
India, went past a Dhoni record in Mirpur. Dhoni was out five times in
the 90s, the most by a wicketkeeper in Tests until Pant went past him on
Friday.

Some might call it unfortunate, but add his five hundreds, and Pant has
now made 11 scores of 90 or more in just 55 Test innings, an astonishing
rate of once every five attempts.

Pant is already India's best wicketkeeper-batter by a distance, having
scored Test hundreds in England, Australia and South Africa. On form he
is the best batter in the current Indian side. By extension, leaving
romanticism and the virtues of pure wicketkeeping skills aside, he is
already India's greatest wicketkeeper. And he isn't a shabby keeper either.

But the Pant comparisons can no longer be restricted to just India players.

Not before long, Pant will be discussed among the greatest wicketkeepers
ever, and will likely surpass them, but it is not too early to try and
place him in the pantheon. In terms of sheer runs, Pant is now the
30th-highest run-getter among wicketkeepers with 2262 at an average of
44.35. His longevity will be tested, but among those who have kept long
enough to score 2000 runs, Pant's average is behind only AB de Villiers,
Andy Flower and Adam Gilchrist.

Pant is not like a lot of other keepers, though. This is not to suggest
Gilchrist would have done any less batting higher in the order, but he
mostly batted at No. 7 and didn't perform a specialist batter's duties.
Among keepers who have batted in the top six, Pant is already the
ninth-highest run-getter, averaging 49.67 for his 1540 runs there. De
Villiers, Dhoni, Flower, Gilchrist and Les Ames average higher than him
in these positions, but this is elite company.

Pant hardly gets to score declaration runs. He is playing in a bowling
era where you hardly get flat pitches outside Pakistan, and the attacks
are fitter and deeper than ever before. He is also part of a batting
line-up in transition, and has batted alongside veterans going through
their worst patches. He often finds himself in crisis situations where
there are no tired bowlers to take advantage of. Because he bats in the
top six, these aren't usually nothing-to-lose situations either.

It is difficult to compare him with the past greats on this measure, but
instructive to pit him against his contemporary batters, and not just
wicketkeepers. Let's just get liberal and include No 4s in this comparison.

Since the start of 2021, Pant has found himself batting at 100 for 2 or
worse on 13 occasions, and has scored 733 runs at an average of 61.1.
Nobody comes close to that average. Batting in these situations, he has
scored 30.3% of his team's runs, again the best among his contemporaries.

It is not just the number of runs but how he gets it, striking at 84.5
per 100 balls in these situations. ESPNcricinfo's Shiva Jayaraman has
even compared his strike-rate with the team's scoring rate until his
entry. When walking in with less than 100 on the board, Pant has scored
twice as quickly as India had been before his entry (42.0), and that
ratio is, again, the best among all batters in this period.

People talk lightly about certain batters' presence. For proper
presence, look no further than the field settings when Pant comes out to
bat even when India are struggling. At 48 for 3 and 72 for 3 in the two
Tests in this series, Pant has walked out with long-on and deep
midwicket in place. On both occasions, Taijul Islam had been bowling
beautifully, getting the ball to dip, not letting batters go on the back
foot, but not letting them play attacking drives either. This had
allowed him to be in a position to benefit if the pitch did something.

Pant, though, completely changes the game. To be fair, the in-out fields
were an attacking ploy for him when he came into the side back in 2018.
It worked for a while with Moeen Ali getting him caught in the deep. Now
Pant just picks up the singles and manipulates the field in other areas.
Once he is on, those fielders cease to matter. His power-hitting has
come a long way too: even if he gets too close to the ball, he can
impart enough power to hit flat sixes. Among wicketkeepers, only Dhoni
and Gilchrist have hit more sixes than Pant.

With Pant, you can sometimes get a loose waft if the right kind of
seamer angles, seams or swings the ball across him, but that is hardly
unusual. Every batter will have some weakness, but batting is all about
what you do around that weakness. The fields set for Pant tell you that
the pitching zone for what qualifies as a good ball is smaller for him.
And when you have to aim at a smaller target, you miss more often. He
can cut and drive just as well as he can slog and reverse-ramp James
Anderson. Okay that reverse-ramp might not be as high-percentage as the
other shots, but you get the drift.

Any wicketkeeper will tell you what a physically taxing job it is; how
far Pant moves up among the handful of all-time greats will come down to
his longevity, but it is sure he is already one of them.

On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
> What the hell is GWOAT?
>
> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.

My bad.

It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.

So simple but YET I missed it.

That's what happens when you are PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY TORTURED for 21
years non-stop.

>
> ==========================================================================
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ban-vs-ind-2nd-test-dhaka-is-rishabh-pant-the-gwoat-1350894
>
> Is Rishabh Pant the GWOAT?
>
> Longevity will determine where he sits vis a vis Gilchrist and the rest,
> but there's no doubt he's already in the debate
>
> Rishabh Pant, MS Dhoni's true successor as wicketkeeper-batter for
> India, went past a Dhoni record in Mirpur. Dhoni was out five times in
> the 90s, the most by a wicketkeeper in Tests until Pant went past him on
> Friday.
>
> Some might call it unfortunate, but add his five hundreds, and Pant has
> now made 11 scores of 90 or more in just 55 Test innings, an astonishing
> rate of once every five attempts.
>
> Pant is already India's best wicketkeeper-batter by a distance, having
> scored Test hundreds in England, Australia and South Africa. On form he
> is the best batter in the current Indian side. By extension, leaving
> romanticism and the virtues of pure wicketkeeping skills aside, he is
> already India's greatest wicketkeeper. And he isn't a shabby keeper either.
>
> But the Pant comparisons can no longer be restricted to just India players.
>
> Not before long, Pant will be discussed among the greatest wicketkeepers
> ever, and will likely surpass them, but it is not too early to try and
> place him in the pantheon. In terms of sheer runs, Pant is now the
> 30th-highest run-getter among wicketkeepers with 2262 at an average of
> 44.35. His longevity will be tested, but among those who have kept long
> enough to score 2000 runs, Pant's average is behind only AB de Villiers,
> Andy Flower and Adam Gilchrist.
>
> Pant is not like a lot of other keepers, though. This is not to suggest
> Gilchrist would have done any less batting higher in the order, but he
> mostly batted at No. 7 and didn't perform a specialist batter's duties.
> Among keepers who have batted in the top six, Pant is already the
> ninth-highest run-getter, averaging 49.67 for his 1540 runs there. De
> Villiers, Dhoni, Flower, Gilchrist and Les Ames average higher than him
> in these positions, but this is elite company.
>
> Pant hardly gets to score declaration runs. He is playing in a bowling
> era where you hardly get flat pitches outside Pakistan, and the attacks
> are fitter and deeper than ever before. He is also part of a batting
> line-up in transition, and has batted alongside veterans going through
> their worst patches. He often finds himself in crisis situations where
> there are no tired bowlers to take advantage of. Because he bats in the
> top six, these aren't usually nothing-to-lose situations either.
>
> It is difficult to compare him with the past greats on this measure, but
> instructive to pit him against his contemporary batters, and not just
> wicketkeepers. Let's just get liberal and include No 4s in this comparison.
>
> Since the start of 2021, Pant has found himself batting at 100 for 2 or
> worse on 13 occasions, and has scored 733 runs at an average of 61.1.
> Nobody comes close to that average. Batting in these situations, he has
> scored 30.3% of his team's runs, again the best among his contemporaries.
>
> It is not just the number of runs but how he gets it, striking at 84.5
> per 100 balls in these situations. ESPNcricinfo's Shiva Jayaraman has
> even compared his strike-rate with the team's scoring rate until his
> entry. When walking in with less than 100 on the board, Pant has scored
> twice as quickly as India had been before his entry (42.0), and that
> ratio is, again, the best among all batters in this period.
>
> People talk lightly about certain batters' presence. For proper
> presence, look no further than the field settings when Pant comes out to
> bat even when India are struggling. At 48 for 3 and 72 for 3 in the two
> Tests in this series, Pant has walked out with long-on and deep
> midwicket in place. On both occasions, Taijul Islam had been bowling
> beautifully, getting the ball to dip, not letting batters go on the back
> foot, but not letting them play attacking drives either. This had
> allowed him to be in a position to benefit if the pitch did something.
>
> Pant, though, completely changes the game. To be fair, the in-out fields
> were an attacking ploy for him when he came into the side back in 2018.
> It worked for a while with Moeen Ali getting him caught in the deep. Now
> Pant just picks up the singles and manipulates the field in other areas.
> Once he is on, those fielders cease to matter. His power-hitting has
> come a long way too: even if he gets too close to the ball, he can
> impart enough power to hit flat sixes. Among wicketkeepers, only Dhoni
> and Gilchrist have hit more sixes than Pant.
>
> With Pant, you can sometimes get a loose waft if the right kind of
> seamer angles, seams or swings the ball across him, but that is hardly
> unusual. Every batter will have some weakness, but batting is all about
> what you do around that weakness. The fields set for Pant tell you that
> the pitching zone for what qualifies as a good ball is smaller for him.
> And when you have to aim at a smaller target, you miss more often. He
> can cut and drive just as well as he can slog and reverse-ramp James
> Anderson. Okay that reverse-ramp might not be as high-percentage as the
> other shots, but you get the drift.
>
> Any wicketkeeper will tell you what a physically taxing job it is; how
> far Pant moves up among the handful of all-time greats will come down to
> his longevity, but it is sure he is already one of them.

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 7:50:06 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> > What the hell is GWOAT?
> >
> > Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
> My bad.
>
> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
>
> So simple but YET I missed it.

Average subcontinental IQ is 80 .... RH
>
> That's what happens when you are PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY TORTURED for 21
> years non-stop.

This what happens when you are a subcontinental surely? RH
> >
> > ==========================================================================

On 12/24/2022 2:05 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 7:50:06 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>
>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>> My bad.
>>
>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
>>
>> So simple but YET I missed it.
>
> Average subcontinental IQ is 80 .... RH

You fucking typical pale skinned LOW IQ lunatic white clown,

It's called momentary lapse of reason because of 21 years of non-stop
physical and mental tortures with BRAIN CONTROL WEAPONS and AI.

I challenged your LOW IQ pale skinned white ass to an IQ test MANY
TIMES, BUT you fucking RAN AWAY like a TYPICAL white cunt.

An Intelligent WHITE is fucking OXYMORON.

>>
>> That's what happens when you are PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY TORTURED for 21
>> years non-stop.
>
> This what happens when you are a subcontinental surely? RH
>>>
>>> ==========================================================================
>

#India in 1947 had a literacy rate of 12%, lifespan 32 yrs, and a GDP of
Rs. 2.70 lakh crore, when the blood thirsty racist british THIEVES LEFT
India.

Today literacy in India is 76%, lifespan 70 yrs, and #GDP nearly Rs. 200
lakh crore - larger than the GDP of former colonial power #Britain.

The ONLY THING "REAL" about WESTERN WHITE RACE is their GENIUS FELLATIO
EXPERTISE regardless of their Genders and Age.

On 12/24/2022 2:05 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 7:50:06 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>
>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>> My bad.
>>
>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
>>
>> So simple but YET I missed it.
>
> Average subcontinental IQ is 80 .... RH
>>
>> That's what happens when you are PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY TORTURED for 21
>> years non-stop.
>
> This what happens when you are a subcontinental surely? RH
>>>
>>> ==========================================================================
>

Look at your fellow pale skinned DUMB FUCK WHITE RACE victims who WHINE
24x7 about their mind control and DEW tortures BUT NOT ONE whitefuck was
able to put everything together and EXPLAIN BRAIN CONTROL WEAPONS, DEWs
and Supercomputer AI, like I did.

NOT ONE whitefuck but still western whites CUNNINGLY BRAINWASHED the
whole world that white race is intelligent when in REALITY they GOT RICH
by STEALING POC CONTINENTS, COUNTRIES and WEALTH and industrializing
themselves.

Look at yourselves and the ENTIRE WHITE RACE which STILL DOESN'T GET IT
even after I explained everything logically and factually about
Neuroweapons, AI and DEWs and HOW the US UK Govts are PERPETRATING
MASSIVE DECEPTION on them.

I am the ONLY person on the planet who EXPLAINED the Entire Spectrum of
Brain Control Weapons and AI
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/VMW03rRUxbk/m/gQ0BpZ8wBQAJ

On 24/12/2022 07:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>
>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>
>
>
> My bad.
>
> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
The article seems to be an argument for him being the greatest batter
among wicket-keepers, as the only thing it says about his wicket-keeping
is that "he isn't a shabby keeper".

--
David North

On 12/24/2022 4:22 AM, David North wrote:
> On 24/12/2022 07:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>
>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>> My bad.
>>
>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
> The article seems to be an argument for him being the greatest batter
> among wicket-keepers, as the only thing it says about his wicket-keeping
> is that "he isn't a shabby keeper".
>

His current weight might hinder him from becoming a great wicket keeper.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 12:22:47 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/12/2022 07:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>
>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>> My bad.
>>
>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
>The article seems to be an argument for him being the greatest batter
>among wicket-keepers, as the only thing it says about his wicket-keeping
>is that "he isn't a shabby keeper".

GWOAT depends on how you define G, of course.

One way is "most skilful at doing what only wicketkeepers do". Another
is "contributed most to the team's effort while occupying the keeper's
role".

People like Pant, Gilchrist and Walcott figure nowhere very high in
the first classification but near the top in the second.

For me, "greatest wicketkeeper" means the first one, ie glovework,
disciplining the field etc, without any regard to skills with the bat.
So I don't rate Pant, Gilchrist or Walcott.

I have no quarrel with those who want to argue about "most influential
keeper/batter" or "which keeper would you pick in an all-time team?"
and bestow the GWOAT title that way because "greatest" is a matter of
personal preference.

Cheers,

Mike

On 12/24/2022 4:22 AM, David North wrote:
> On 24/12/2022 07:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>
>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>> My bad.
>>
>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
> The article seems to be an argument for him being the greatest batter
> among wicket-keepers, as the only thing it says about his wicket-keeping
> is that "he isn't a shabby keeper".
>

"Pant is already India's best wicketkeeper-batter by a distance, having
scored Test hundreds in England, Australia and South Africa. On form he
is the best batter in the current Indian side. By extension, leaving
romanticism and the virtues of pure wicketkeeping skills aside, he is
already India's greatest wicketkeeper."

The columnist argued that Pant is arguably the greatest
wicketkeeper-batter and by leaving the romanticism, INDIA's greatest
wicketkeeper.

I think he needs to perform at the same level a couple of more years to
beat Dhoni and become the BEST Indian wicket keeper since Dhoni also
carried the BURDEN of captaincy which he excelled at.

"Any wicketkeeper will tell you what a physically taxing job it is; how
far Pant moves up among the handful of all-time greats will come down to
his longevity, but it is sure he is already one of them."

This last sentence argues that Pant is already "ONE" of the all time
greats in cricket.

On 24/12/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 12:22:47 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/12/2022 07:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2022 11:06 PM, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What the hell is GWOAT?
>>>>
>>>> Is it a typo or there is a meaning I don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My bad.
>>>
>>> It is greatest wicket keeper of all time.
>> The article seems to be an argument for him being the greatest batter
>> among wicket-keepers, as the only thing it says about his wicket-keeping
>> is that "he isn't a shabby keeper".
>
> GWOAT depends on how you define G, of course.
>
> One way is "most skilful at doing what only wicketkeepers do". Another
> is "contributed most to the team's effort while occupying the keeper's
> role".
>
> People like Pant, Gilchrist and Walcott figure nowhere very high in
> the first classification but near the top in the second.
>
> For me, "greatest wicketkeeper" means the first one, ie glovework,
> disciplining the field etc, without any regard to skills with the bat.
> So I don't rate Pant, Gilchrist or Walcott.
>
> I have no quarrel with those who want to argue about "most influential
> keeper/batter" or "which keeper would you pick in an all-time team?"
> and bestow the GWOAT title that way because "greatest" is a matter of
> personal preference.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
The best wicket keeper I ever saw was Alan Knott. He could bat a bit too.
Steve Hague

On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 04:04:39 +0000, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 24/12/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> I have no quarrel with those who want to argue about "most influential
>> keeper/batter" or "which keeper would you pick in an all-time team?"
>> and bestow the GWOAT title that way because "greatest" is a matter of
>> personal preference.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>The best wicket keeper I ever saw was Alan Knott. He could bat a bit too.
>Steve Hague

I'd probably go for Syed Kirmani as the best pure keeper I've seen in
Test cricket.

Cheers,

Mike