Best Wicket keeper ever

[marc71178]

5-10 overs in a match is occasional.

 

[Pratters]

5-10 overs in a match is occasional.

Okay we do agree how many overs he would bowl in a match ..

 

[marc71178]

No, I was saying that if he did only bowl that it'd be an occasional workload.

 

[Pratters]

No, I was saying that if he did only bowl that it'd be an occasional workload.

He bowled far less than the ocassional work load in the last test match showing he can do the the job of more than the ocassional work load.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but that was in a specific attack - you're now talking about him being number 6 and 4th seamer, which would be a small workload.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, but that was in a specific attack - you're now talking about him being number 6 and 4th seamer, which would be a small workload.

Yes at number 6 and a small work load as the 4th seamer is some thing Watson is pretty capable of handling. He would be the 5th bowler like England is using 5 bowlers. Bowled half as much as the 4 regular bowlers..

 

[badgerhair]

the only codswallop thats being sprouted here is by those who think that pre 60s players could HOPE to maintain the same average if they played in the post 60s era.
Like i have said before, i can point you to several sources where you can educate yourself on the level of the game played before late 1950s/1960s.

Oh, please do. I doubt they are better than mine, though, since I have had long conversations with people who actually played first-class and Test cricket in the pre-60s era, as well as a fairly voluminous library.

Your increasingly shrill statements about how players of the past wouldn't maintain the same average were they playing today are meaningless without your argument against the corollary that the players of today wouldn't hope to maintain the same averages were they magically transported back in time. Unfamiliarity with the styles and conditions would see to it that both groups would flounder in the alien world. And if you're going to suggest that the basically stronger, hardier and fitter men of the Thirties wouldn't be at least as good as today's athletes if they had access to the same training facilities, then you're going to have to come up with some extremely convincing arguments: it is manifest that a generation which goes to school by car and comes home to watch TV will develop far less basic strength in the bones than one which walked miles to school and back and had to play football and cricket outside once they got home because there wasn't anything else to do. Which is why the bowlers of yesteryear could handle 1200 overs a season and ours break down with stress fractures after 500.

I would ask you to and familise yourself with what precisely is the term 'shamatuer'.
As per social reasons, again, thats irrelevant and quite a big generalisation, given that you had some professionals who depended on cricket to make their living.
If you take Wilfred Rhodes' last test for example, out of the playing eleven, five players played past their forties(test cricket) and three of them were close to their overall career averages while into their forties.
Can you tell me why ?
No-dont quote anomalies like Gooch and Boycott......we are talking nearly 50% here.
you will find that case quiete common in the pre-late 50s era.
I will give you one hint: intensity.

"Some" professionals? The whole bloody point of professionals was that they did depend on cricket to make a living, rather than go down the mine or work on the assembly line. The thing was that there was a whole raft of "amateurs" who also depended on playing cricket to make their living, but because they had been to public school, they needed to be Mr FR Whittle rather than Whittle, FR, they were given sinecures as admin staff so that they could pretend they weren't pros. These shamateurs formed the bulk of the Gentlemen's pool by about 1930. If you're going to make wild generalisations based on the presence of amateurs in a side, it makes a great deal of difference if most of them were professionals in disguise rather than dilettantes looking for a bit of summer sport.

Of course I can tell you why there were a bunch of old folk in Wilf's last Test. It wasn't even meant to be a fully representative side, because it was more in the nature of an ambassadorial tour to welcome WI to international cricket. There was another England team in New Zealand, also playing Tests, at the very same time, which was similarly stuffed with third rankers (and Hammond).

And when it comes to averages, I'm not quite clear what you are saying about people in their forties - perhaps you could elaborate with specific examples - but where you see players aged 40+ in Ashes series of the 30s, or in any matches post-WW2, they are mostly spin bowlers, bred through a system in which they bowled thousands of overs a season (and so unfit were they that they could bowl 35 overs in a day without considering it the hardest day's work they'd had in years like today's namby-pambies) and whose experience and guile were still potent on the pitches which helped them more often than today's perfect decks.

When you talk about intensity, it would be rather strange to consider the 32-33 series on a par with a vicarage tea party - and on the subject of age, the England team for the Third Test, when the Woodfull incident took place, had an average age lower than the Australian team at the SCG for Swaugh's last Test.

England's major players in those days only all turned out for Ashes Tests and home series. There are indeed some players with padded averages, but they are not the top players; they are the ones who went on the overseas tours to South Africa and India and only played a few Tests against weak opposition.

As I've shown elsewhere, the real reason to suggest that 30s averages are on the high side is the general set of rules and conditions and the style of play. But 50s averages are abnomally low, and so on.

As I've also often said, if you are going to simply compare career averages, you are doomed to make major misjudgements about all sorts of things, and it's also pretty pointless to try and work out how a player trained to play one way would fare in an era when that method would be useless. The kind of people who feature strongly in inter-era discussions were good enough to adapt extremely well to the conditions of the day, and there seems little reason to suppose that they would not have been able to adapt to another era had they grown up in it.

Ultimately, cricket is a mental game. The technical skills make some difference, but it's actually played in the head. Which is why you can't prove anything very much with tables of figures.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Yes at number 6 and a small work load as the 4th seamer is some thing Watson is pretty capable of handling. He would be the 5th bowler like England is using 5 bowlers. Bowled half as much as the 4 regular bowlers..

Which is exactly my original point.

He wouldn't be picked as an all rounder.

 

[C_C]

Oh, please do. I doubt they are better than mine, though, since I have had long conversations with people who actually played first-class and Test cricket in the pre-60s era, as well as a fairly voluminous library.

I would begin then by asking you to read what is perhaps the most acclaimed book in cricket- Beyond the boundary by CLR James.
Then proceed to read the book called " A social History of English Cricket" by Sir Derek Birley
oh and about the chats with cricketers pre 60s era. Gee. Do you really expect them to go " yes, we would suck if we were put in this era" ?
Almost every cricketer is partial towards his own era and that is a basic human psychology.

without your argument against the corollary that the players of today wouldn't hope to maintain the same averages were they magically transported back in time.

If stalwarts from post 60s cricket were to be transported back in time, they most probably would've done far better than the likes of Voce, Grimmett, Hammond, hutton, Rhodes etc etc.

And if you're going to suggest that the basically stronger, hardier and fitter men of the Thirties wouldn't be at least as good as today's athletes if they had access to the same training facilities, then you're going to have to come up with some extremely convincing arguments: it is manifest that a generation which goes to school by car and comes home to watch TV will develop far less basic strength in the bones than one which walked miles to school and back and had to play football and cricket outside once they got home because there wasn't anything else to do. Which is why the bowlers of yesteryear could handle 1200 overs a season and ours break down with stress fractures after 500.

that assertion is absolute codswallop.
Stronger, hardier and fitter men of the 30s ? please.
I would like to see how many of them could come within an arms distance of Bevan in terms of running or most players today in terms of general fitness.
As per walking miles to school- that is a very questionable assertion. There WAS public transportation in Britain before the era of cars- its called the carriage.
And considering that many of the players at the turn of the century came from nobility or rich families, the idea that they led a very hardy life doesnt wash.
And most players in cricket grow up with their interest in sports. Most of them played cricket or soccer or rugby or some athletic sport since they were children, so your assertion that men back then were hardier is if anything, utterly ridiculous.
Infact, post 50s players are FAR fitter due to FAR superior nutrition science and fitness regiments.

"Some" professionals? The whole bloody point of professionals was that they did depend on cricket to make a living, rather than go down the mine or work on the assembly line. The thing was that there was a whole raft of "amateurs" who also depended on playing cricket to make their living, but because they had been to public school, they needed to be Mr FR Whittle rather than Whittle, FR, they were given sinecures as admin staff so that they could pretend they weren't pros. These shamateurs formed the bulk of the Gentlemen's pool by about 1930. If you're going to make wild generalisations based on the presence of amateurs in a side, it makes a great deal of difference if most of them were professionals in disguise rather than dilettantes looking for a bit of summer sport.

and care to tell me the results of the gentlemen vs players matches ?
Professionalism is not just earning money for living, its the attitude. Today's world is a lot more competitive than in the past and its much harder to succeed today than 80 years ago( this isnt an assumption by me- this is an assertion of some of the leading professors and WHO).
The fact that you had a league full of players in their 40s and 50s is a categoric proof of the lack of intensity as you CANNOT have people in general take the intensity of modern day international cricket and survive in it till their 50s. But hey, backyard cricket ? even my grandpa played backyard cricket into his 70s with us.
I am not the only one to say that the pre 60s cricketers wouldnt do anywhere as well to their post 60s counterparts - FMM Alexander said so, Gary Sobers said so, CK Nayudu said so and even Lala Amarnath said so.

Of course I can tell you why there were a bunch of old folk in Wilf's last Test. It wasn't even meant to be a fully representative side, because it was more in the nature of an ambassadorial tour to welcome WI to international cricket. There was another England team in New Zealand, also playing Tests, at the very same time, which was similarly stuffed with third rankers (and Hammond).

which further bolsters my point about the shamatuer mentality that was prevalent in those days and having a few wolves in midst of sheep.
IF you have the leading lights in cricket today playing against the 4th string or 3rd string team, they would make Hammond, Hutton, Rhodes etc.'s career stats seem laughable.
Simply because they play at an intensity that the old fogies thought was 'unfair' ( one who played with such intensity and reaped huge success but was quiete unpopular was one Sidney Barnes)

And when it comes to averages, I'm not quite clear what you are saying about people in their forties - perhaps you could elaborate with specific examples - but where you see players aged 40+ in Ashes series of the 30s, or in any matches post-WW2, they are mostly spin bowlers, bred through a system in which they bowled thousands of overs a season (and so unfit were they that they could bowl 35 overs in a day without considering it the hardest day's work they'd had in years like today's namby-pambies) and whose experience and guile were still potent on the pitches which helped them more often than today's perfect decks.

check out how many batsmen played well into their 40s. It was common to have even pacers bowl till their late 30s- something that is very rare in the post 60s era.
As per bowling 35 overs,there is a difference between bowling 35 overs by just turning your arm and 35 overs hell bent on picking up wickets.
Spin bowlers did not bowl aggressively till the advent of Chandra ( Bill O Reiley was a notable exception)- Chandra and Qadir mentions how Grimmett, Laker, Underwood etc. had given them tips and how negetive their mindsets were when it came to bowling).

England's major players in those days only all turned out for Ashes Tests and home series. There are indeed some players with padded averages, but they are not the top players; they are the ones who went on the overseas tours to South Africa and India and only played a few Tests against weak opposition.

if you play in an era where practically every team fielded has 3-4 geriatrics in them, everyone padded their averages. Every single one. Its called lack of competitive cricket. Wilfred Rhodes is quoted in Birley's book taking an exception to Ted Dexter's ruthless ways(which is modern day professionalism) and saying that this is not cricket but played as if its war in the middle.

But 50s averages are abnomally low, and so on.

who's averages are you talking here ? batsmen's or bowlers ?
They are inversely proportional.

As I've also often said, if you are going to simply compare career averages, you are doomed to make major misjudgements about all sorts of things, and it's also pretty pointless to try and work out how a player trained to play one way would fare in an era when that method would be useless. The kind of people who feature strongly in inter-era discussions were good enough to adapt extremely well to the conditions of the day, and there seems little reason to suppose that they would not have been able to adapt to another era had they grown up in it.

You are talkin of an era when you pretty much get a four once you pierce the infield. Nowhere close to the level of ground fielding as we saw beginning mid 70s( the heralder of the change- the WI team).
And i dont simply compare averages, i subract 15-20% from a batsman's average and add the same equivalent for a bowler to guage how they would do agianst modern day players who play at an intensity that was considered unsporting in those days.

Ultimately, cricket is a mental game. The technical skills make some difference, but it's actually played in the head. Which is why you can't prove anything very much with tables of figures.

aye. it is a mental game.
but back in the pre 60s period, the mental game was NOWHERE as intense as it is in the post 50s period.
I have had the opportunity to talk to Lala Amarnath, Vijay Hazare and George Gunn's son( who's great grandson son was my classmate at Queen's University not too long ago) and all of them were of the opinion that the single biggest reason why the pre 60s cricketers wouldnt do anywhere as well as they did in their era was because of the lack of intensity and proper fitness regiments.


Put simply, you are talkin of an era where professionalism was nowhere close to the level you see it today and where the 'dog eat dog' mentality was nowhere as prevalent, making it for a much cozier living mentally. The ruthlessness of today's cricket was missing- bodyline was a big example of that where such a hissyfit was thrown for tactics that was the norm in the 70s and 80s.

SJS- i had already answered your question previously on the thread when i quoted some sources to you.
i have done so here as well.

 

[Dizzy #4]

Gilchrist by a mile!


Sanakarra 2nd!

 

[SJS]

Gilchrist by a mile!


Sanakarra 2nd!

Parthiv Patel by three and a half kilometers.

Daylight close second.

 

[Pratters]

Which is exactly my original point.

He wouldn't be picked as an all rounder.

He would be doing the work of an all rounder. In the Sydney test he showed he can bowl a fair bit in a match and certainly would as and when needed. He couldnt make the team as simply a batsman and sinmpy a bowler right now most definitely. The bowling adds to his repetoire and he is indeed an all rounder.

 

[marc71178]

But his bowling would be occasional, so would not be an issue, and his batting alone isn't enough to get him a spot.

 

[Craig]

Hard to compare the different bygone eras in which who was better.

Perhaps my favourite 'keeper would be Alan Knott (and yes for the record I have seen footage of him playing in Tests).

 

[SJS]

Here is ablunt assessment

Best keeper, pure and simple: Bob Tayor (Heads and shoulders above all else)

Best Batsman keeper (for tests) : Andy Flower ( no doubt)

Best Batsman keeper (for ODI's) : Gilchrist (who else)

 

[C_C]

SJS- how would you rate Hendricks ? ( rated by many as the best keeper to come from the caribbean)

 

[SJS]

SJS- how would you rate Hendricks ? ( rated by many as the best keeper to come from the caribbean)

Yes. I would agree. Dujon was very good too. So was Derryk Murray. But Hendricks was technically the best.

 

[C_C]

Dujon was excellent at keeping to the fast men...i dont think he is behind anyone when it comes to keeping to superfast and bouncy bowlers.....but his keeping to spinners was dodgy...he had a bit of trouble from Roger Harper and Carl Hooper.....i shudder to think him keeping to Lance Gibbs or Valentine/Ramadhin.....
Murray i think was much better against spinners but not as good with pacers...
How would you compare Hendricks to Bob Taylor ?

 

[SJS]

Dujon was excellent at keeping to the fast men...i dont think he is behind anyone when it comes to keeping to superfast and bouncy bowlers.....but his keeping to spinners was dodgy...he had a bit of trouble from Roger Harper and Carl Hooper.....i shudder to think him keeping to Lance Gibbs or Valentine/Ramadhin.....
Murray i think was much better against spinners but not as good with pacers...
How would you compare Hendricks to Bob Taylor ?

You are right about Hendricks' keeping to spinners but yopu know how it is, if you dont have spiners playing the first class game in the country, the batsmen end up weak against spinners ! Same for keepers. If there were enough spinners, high quality ones to keep to in the nets and in the games for long periods, who knows.

I dont think Hendricks was comparable to Taylor.

Taylor must rank amongst the greatest of all time. I havent seen the older kepers so cant say except based on what I have read.

 

[Zinzan]

Wicketkeeper/batsmen = Gilchrist

Wicketkeeper (alone) = Bob Taylor