'Keepers - How much can you compromise keeping for batting?

[gettingbetter]

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/kenya/engine/current/match/302303.html

This is where Patel is.

 

[Richard]

Dawg, if you want 2 say this nigga is biased then just say it, don't sugar coat it.

Have said it before TBH. Surely you remember?

Anyway i believe i argued this point with you before & have no worries doing it again. You say Gilchrist has not been much of a test batsman since this 2003/04 which would begin from the Indian tour of Australia that yeat? thus suggesting that Gilly's streak did not begin from the 2005 Ashes but began in Australia tour to SRI in 2004?.

As i said the last time given that i have not missed an Australian test match since Gilly made his test debut other than 3 test vs PAK in 2002 due to unavailabilty on Skysports Extra, thats not true. Yea he didn't score heavily vs the Indian in that 20003/04 series but based on my knowledge of his dismissals in that series it were more due to bad shots rather than him being out of form or any specific bowler having the wood on him a la Freddie in 05.

In SRI, he played pretty well for a bloke who many agree isn't that great vs spin. That shot filled 144 was one of the best counter-attacking innings you r likely to ever see.

Home vs SRI wasn't out of form, remember scoring a crips 80odd on that Darwin pitch that both teams later complained about.

In India, another solid performance from a bloke who isn't that great againts spin enhanced by the fact that he was giving captaincy responsibilites on which was at the time one of the biggest overseas tours for Australia.

Home that aussie summer vs NZ/PAK was very his brilliant, then over in NZ well he just crucified him.

The lean run began in the 2005 Ashes..

I'm not really arguing about him being worked-out in any obvious way, but the fact is he wasn't scoring runs and wasn't doing a hell of a lot different to what he had been previously. IMO, that means people were bowling better at him (and catching chances, not something that's always happened). He had the odd blockbusting innings but was also dismissed very cheaply plenty of times (someone once put it "a mixture of the binary and the breathtaking" which was pretty apt).

For me, though, failing to score with anywhere near your previous (and near enough unbroken) prolificness, in 13 consecutive Tests (24 innings) means something's changed. I don't feel Gilchrist has declined in any way, as I say, just that people have bowled and caught better against him.

 

[Richard]

Well then no way this would be the case, Baugh is total garbage @ international level. Ramdin better than him in every area.

Baugh's First-Class record is far superior to Ramdin's. Baugh has of times played as a specialist bat, Ramdin is nowhere near good enough to do that.

Ramdin is a decent wicketkeeper-batsman, undoubtedly, but I can see Baugh getting another go somewhere down the line.

 

[Richard]

Would you say having Karthik in the team at the expense of Dhoni - who would be replaced by an all out batsmen would be preferable?

Opening batsman and a keeper - not all that common in Tests and obvious reason for it too.

Obviously, this will flow off into a tangent of who is better than Dhoni and what not, but I have a feeling that you might be content with the Indian 7 at the present time.

If Karthik can do a decent job opening, he can certainly do a good one batting seven. IMO Karthik > Dhoni in the longer form, I'm still very much to be convinced by Dhoni in Tests.

You then obviously have a specialist opening batsman opening.

 

[gettingbetter]

If Karthik can do a decent job opening, he can certainly do a good one batting seven. IMO Karthik > Dhoni in the longer form, I'm still very much to be convinced by Dhoni in Tests.

You then obviously have a specialist opening batsman opening.

I assume you aren't a fan of the 'manufactured' opener. So far he has done a good job of being in a place that he isn't accustomed too, this is clearly seen with that bloke who has Karthik's stats in his signature. Bare in mind, that not only is his average greater as an opener, but he hasn't opened in a home test yet, so his average we could quite possibly say, isn't as good as it could be.

Add to the fact that India would have an out of form Sehwag or a home-track purist (Gahmbir) opening, surely you shouldn't have any qualms with Karthik opening.

I only have one, and that is he opening and keeping.

 

[Richard]

The question, simply, is "is a specialist opening bat better than Dhoni?" My answer would be "probably, yes" but currently Dhoni is obviously established in the side.

As I say - I very much believe if Karthik can score opening he can lower down. I'm not a fan of trying to manufacture openers after they've started a serious career, but so far Karthik has gone pretty reasonably.

Currently there aren't many other good openers around - Gambhir and Jaffer being the best demonstrates that - but I always hope that'll change.

 

[gettingbetter]

The question, simply, is "is a specialist opening bat better than Dhoni?" My answer would be "probably, yes" but currently Dhoni is obviously established in the side.

As I say - I very much believe if Karthik can score opening he can lower down. I'm not a fan of trying to manufacture openers after they've started a serious career, but so far Karthik has gone pretty reasonably.

Currently there aren't many other good openers around - Gambhir and Jaffer being the best demonstrates that - but I always hope that'll change.

With all that said, in the current situation, having the side as it is would be the best option obviously.

 

[social]

To say that Prior and Dhoni are not international-standard 'keepers is simply wrong. .

Dhoni is ok and improving

ATM, Prior is simply substandard (as bad as Jones at his worst IMO). However could be saved by the fact that it's the last home test of the season.

 

[Richard]

If his 'keeping had been faultless this Test he'd have been said to have had a generally excellent first summer.

Get some perspective!

 

[Perm]

If his 'keeping had been faultless this Test he'd have been said to have had a generally excellent first summer.

Get some perspective!

Exactly, he's had one poor Test. Whilst not being the greatest of gloveman, his keeping has been pretty good and aside from the footwork problem then there isn't much to fault. Really, it's his batting that has let him down in this series.

 

[Ikki]

Well yes, in his first 43 tests Gilchrist averaged almost 60 and in his last 47 he has averaged 40. There are two big parts here in his career, but neither is poor. It's just that his standard is so high that it may look rather poor. And when you factor in his keeping, it makes it actually more than acceptable.

A question for the argument: if keepers who average 10 runs less but are less likely to drop a ball are better than batsmen who average 10 more but are likely to cost 40-50 runs due to mistakes, what then for Gilly who averages so much more than any other keeper and has also arguably been the best glovesman of his time as well?

If keeping seems to pull down the batting average, due to more responsibility, then how much do we ADD to Gilchrist's when he was averaging something like 60 and keeping?

And then you factor in his high strike-rate, which is acknowledged but not factored in his legacy enough. I'd rather a batsmen that averages 48 @ a S/R of 82 (which just happens to be the figures of a Adam Gilchrist) than one who averages 55 with a S/R of 42 (which just happens to be the figures of a Jacques Kallis). A player who scores as fast as Gilchrist will forgo the accolades his individual stats should get for those his team will win. The difference will be 7 runs, which will be made up even by a tailender with the number of balls Gilly saves with his innings.

Sorry, bit of a rant, but I think Gilchrist is one of the best batsmen ever TBH. His carefree and honest ways seem to make him too mortal for the immortal hall of fame.

 

[chaminda_00]

Gilchirst might have average in the low 40s if he batted at the top of order IMO. With that in mind you could always have the agruement that Flower and Sangakkara are better keeper/batsmen.

 

[gettingbetter]

Gilchirst might have average in the low 40s if he batted at the top of order IMO. With that in mind you could always have the agruement that Flower and Sangakkara are better keeper/batsmen.

Flower, Sangakarra > Gilchrist

 

[howardj]

No simple answer to this thread.

It always falls back to the circumstances (i.e. where the strengths of the team lie; how far the keeper stands out as a batsman, compared to his rivals for the spot etc).

Each case on its merits.

 

[Richard]

Well yes, in his first 43 tests Gilchrist averaged almost 60 and in his last 47 he has averaged 40. There are two big parts here in his career, but neither is poor. It's just that his standard is so high that it may look rather poor. And when you factor in his keeping, it makes it actually more than acceptable.

A question for the argument: if keepers who average 10 runs less but are less likely to drop a ball are better than batsmen who average 10 more but are likely to cost 40-50 runs due to mistakes, what then for Gilly who averages so much more than any other keeper and has also arguably been the best glovesman of his time as well?

If keeping seems to pull down the batting average, due to more responsibility, then how much do we ADD to Gilchrist's when he was averaging something like 60 and keeping?

And then you factor in his high strike-rate, which is acknowledged but not factored in his legacy enough. I'd rather a batsmen that averages 48 @ a S/R of 82 (which just happens to be the figures of a Adam Gilchrist) than one who averages 55 with a S/R of 42 (which just happens to be the figures of a Jacques Kallis). A player who scores as fast as Gilchrist will forgo the accolades his individual stats should get for those his team will win. The difference will be 7 runs, which will be made up even by a tailender with the number of balls Gilly saves with his innings.

Sorry, bit of a rant, but I think Gilchrist is one of the best batsmen ever TBH. His carefree and honest ways seem to make him too mortal for the immortal hall of fame.

Disagree on two counts TBH (you may be surprised to hear).

For one, saying "Gilchrist's averages 40 in his last 47 games" is a fallacy and tells no real story. For most of the time since 2003\04 he's actually been decidedly average. Including Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could help disguise that for those who are desperate enough to do so, as could ignoring the fact it's been two periods of considerable barren, one (short) one of extreme fertility.

For two, a batsman who averages 55 with a SR of 42 > one who averages 48 with a SR of 82 anyday (and in any case, Kallis and Gilchrists careers cannot be summed-up by overall career records, they're both far too extensive). Test cricket lasts 5 days, there's absolutely no need to score anywhere near as fast as 82-per-100-balls. Winning in three days is no different to winning in the last session of the fifth. So long as the SR isn't obscenely low, almost invariably the more runs the better.

 

[roseboy64]

Yeah, and hence if anyone was seriously considering it I'd be strongly tempted to shoot them.

Having a wicketkeeper who's a liability with the bat is just not possible any more, even with a Flintoff in the side (who IMO should be seven at the highest). However, having a wicketkeeper who's a liability with the gloves is also a stupid idea, possibly even more stupid.

To date, though, I don't think we can really call Prior such a thing.

What's up with the dislike of Flintoff's batting? He's averaging above 30.

 

[roseboy64]

Well then no way this would be the case, Baugh is total garbage @ international level. Ramdin better than him in every area.

No way Jose.

 

[NUFAN]

Winning in three days is no different to winning in the last session of the fifth. So long as the SR isn't obscenely low, almost invariably the more runs the better.

Yes but winning a match on the 5th day is a lot better then having a side 9 down at the end of play!

 

[Speersy]

Hey, do you guys reckon any International players read the forums on this site? Be cool if they did.

 

[biased indian]

Hey, do you guys reckon any International players read the forums on this site? Be cool if they did.

r u one ???