angryangy said:The basic difference there is that Gilchrist is a naturally better batsman. Check the conversion rate: 15 hundreds (and 1 double century) to 20 fifties, to 5 hundreds and 17 fifties.
You could actually argue that they tend to face around the same number of balls, but in say, 120 balls, Gilchrist will have brought up a century, while Flintoff would have got to 80. The flaw is that the more balls that are attacked, the greater the likelyhood of getting out to a good one. This means Gilchrist is generally better at staying in and scoring runs, be it through technique, concentration or shot selection.
I'd say that Gilchrist is more naturally talented than Freddie, but the way Freddie has improved is incredible. One of the best ODI players (baring his Super series bowling) in the world. Averages 40 with the bat and 24 with the ball in last 2 years.