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

[Richard]

IMO it's pointless saying that Gilchrist and Kallis were the same player throughout their career. Because they weren't.

Both underwent sizeable sea-changes. Gilchrist went from sensational to pretty average. Kallis went from run-of-the-mill to runmaking machine (at, not coincidentally IMO, the same time bowling standards declined). Almost like the same as the Tendulkar-Ponting debate.

 

[roseboy64]

Was going great in 2004 indeed, against the might of Chris Martin, Daryl Tuffey, Jacob Oram, Daniel Vettori, Tino Best, Fidel Edwards, Corey Collymore, Omari Banks, Dave Mohammed etc. Wasn't so flash in 2004\05 against the likes of Pollock and Ntini.

Would you mind giving me your addy? (I'm trying to get pretty much everyone who's everyone on CW TBH)

Fair point but if he gets back on form he's a formidable batsman. Number 6 is a good position for him if he can contribute some runs.

xaverose13 at hotmail dot com

 

[roseboy64]

I'm basing it on what i've seen of both of them @ international level. Ramdin has impressed with his batting & keeping even though he had that lean batch at the end of 2005 to the home season vs the Indians. But since seems to have gotten himself back in order.

Baugh other than a few crips shots hasn't done anything worth bragging about..

Pretty much true but if Baugh keeps his head he's a definite to average 30+ IMO. Plus his keeping has improved although Ramdin is the better with the gloves. Ideally Baugh for the ODIs and Ramdin for Tests but I feel both are capable of at least moderate success in either form.

 

[Ikki]

IMO it's pointless saying that Gilchrist and Kallis were the same player throughout their career. Because they weren't.

Both underwent sizeable sea-changes. Gilchrist went from sensational to pretty average. Kallis went from run-of-the-mill to runmaking machine (at, not coincidentally IMO, the same time bowling standards declined). Almost like the same as the Tendulkar-Ponting debate.

Dear Richard,

I am not comparing Kallis V Gilchrist here, I just happened to use some figures that happened to further the argument. It just so happened Kallis was exactly it. Let's call the player X and, if you want to, Gilchrist as player Y.

When you compare these variables and what they mean to the team, there is absolutely no way you are going to argue that having 5 or so more runs beats having 45-50 more balls to face.

 

[roseboy64]

To answer the question, I'd say you'd need your keeper to be be more than adequate with the gloves if he's a great batsman. I'd rather that than the excellent gloveman who may not get a chance most games to do anything extraordinary behind the stumps who contributes little with the bat.

 

[Richard]

Dear Richard,

I am not comparing Kallis V Gilchrist here, I just happened to use some figures that happened to further the argument. It just so happened Kallis was exactly it. Let's call the player X and, if you want to, Gilchrist as player Y.

When you compare these variables and what they mean to the team, there is absolutely no way you are going to argue that having 5 or so more runs beats having 45-50 more balls to face.

Perhaps not. But equally, it'd depend on what they were. As I say, there's not really much between 60 and 80. However, the difference between 30 and 50 is much more of a significant one.

For me, a player who had a record, constant of his career, of Kallis would still contribute to many winning of games, without costing much.

 

[Ikki]

Perhaps not. But equally, it'd depend on what they were. As I say, there's not really much between 60 and 80. However, the difference between 30 and 50 is much more of a significant one.

Lara, Ponting nor Tendulkar have an S/R of 60. Ponting is the closet, but Sachin is 54 and Lara 52. So...an S/R of 82 is beyond good or helpful, it's fantastic.

For me, a player who had a record, constant of his career, of Kallis would still contribute to many winning of games, without costing much.

As I implied before, a bowler can take 0 wickets but keep the run rate down and help his team still win the match. The aim is to get the wickets out as soon as possible to win the match.

Kallis will still win you many games with that average, but if he had Gilchrist's S/R he'd win many many more.

It's like you saying that a score of 300 will do and you can win off it, when I say that a score of 400 is better and you will win more games because of it.

 

[Richard]

Lara, Ponting nor Tendulkar have an S/R of 60. Ponting is the closet, but Sachin is 54 and Lara 52. So...an S/R of 82 is beyond good or helpful, it's fantastic.

I'd guess Ponting's would be much closer to the 70 mark in more recent times. Yes, 82 is 30 more than 52. Nonetheless, someone striking at 52 is still fairly unlikely to score so slowly that a chance to win will go down the drain. The difference is there (whereas, as I say, there's pretty well no difference between, say, 67 and 82) but it's not so big as you suggest.

As I implied before, a bowler can take 0 wickets but keep the run rate down and help his team still win the match. The aim is to get the wickets out as soon as possible to win the match.

Disagree, in Test cricket a bowler must take wickets. There's no place for one who doesn't.

Kallis will still win you many games with that average, but if he had Gilchrist's S/R he'd win many many more.

It's like you saying that a score of 300 will do and you can win off it, when I say that a score of 400 is better and you will win more games because of it.

It depends. On a tricky pitch, either is equally likely to. If you bowl-out your oppo for 214 and 99, the result's the same. On a flatter one, 400 is a much, much better score.

Likewise, in almost any game, scoring 90 off 100 balls and 90 off 120 balls - there's pretty well no difference. The difference is exceptionally unlikely to impact on the game.

 

[Ikki]

I'd guess Ponting's would be much closer to the 70 mark in more recent times. Yes, 82 is 30 more than 52. Nonetheless, someone striking at 52 is still fairly unlikely to score so slowly that a chance to win will go down the drain. The difference is there (whereas, as I say, there's pretty well no difference between, say, 67 and 82) but it's not so big as you suggest.

Come on Rich, if I gave you the option of 5 more runs or 30 more balls, what would you pick as a Test standard cricketer? It's more than just a big difference. In almost every instance, the team that is chasing 5 runs with that many balls will always win.

Disagree, in Test cricket a bowler must take wickets. There's no place for one who doesn't.

Yes, should have been clearer, in tests you need to bowl your opposition out. Let me rephrase that: just because you can bowl a team out and take a whole day doing it doesn't make it any better than taking half a day at doing it. The quicker you take the wickets, the better.

It depends. On a tricky pitch, either is equally likely to. If you bowl-out your oppo for 214 and 99, the result's the same. On a flatter one, 400 is a much, much better score.

Likewise, in almost any game, scoring 90 off 100 balls and 90 off 120 balls - there's pretty well no difference. The difference is exceptionally unlikely to impact on the game.

You're digressing. Let's keep the bowling and the pitch constant for both. It's still better to score faster and save the balls.

And, these guys aren't getting anywhere near scoring 90 off 120 balls - which would be a strike rate of 75. Lara gets them at 60, Dravid at 42, Ponting at 58. Also, however good you think it is, to score quicker would be even better.

 

[Richard]

Come on Rich, if I gave you the option of 5 more runs or 30 more balls, what would you pick as a Test standard cricketer? It's more than just a big difference. In almost every instance, the team that is chasing 5 runs with that many balls will always win.

30 balls, out of 5,100, isn't really that much is it? Equally, neither is 5 runs out of 400.

You're digressing. Let's keep the bowling and the pitch constant for both. It's still better to score faster and save the balls.

And, these guys aren't getting anywhere near scoring 90 off 120 balls - which would be a strike rate of 75. Lara gets them at 60, Dravid at 42, Ponting at 58. Also, however good you think it is, to score quicker would be even better.

They will have played such innings at times, however. As I say above (and have done many times before), I prefer not to take an average and SR and simply apply that to every single innings. It's a general indicator, nothing more.

The best way to give things is as a "for example" innings. If I have the choice between 120 off 300 balls and 70 off 100, I'll take the latter. However, if I have the choice between 140 off 270 balls and 70 off 100, I'll take the former, very much so. Some batsmen with relatively fitting averages and strike-rates could accurately be guessed to be sometimes playing such innings.

 

[Ikki]

30 balls, out of 5,100, isn't really that much is it? Equally, neither is 5 runs out of 400.

Those would never be the fractions, we are talking of a single player here. After player X and Y have their go, with that stat, one would leave you 5 runs richer the other would leave you 30 balls richer. You have potentially a much greater advantage to make up that 5 runs with the 5 overs extra you will get.

They will have played such innings at times, however. As I say above (and have done many times before), I prefer not to take an average and SR and simply apply that to every single innings. It's a general indicator, nothing more.

The best way to give things is as a "for example" innings. If I have the choice between 120 off 300 balls and 70 off 100, I'll take the latter. However, if I have the choice between 140 off 270 balls and 70 off 100, I'll take the former, very much so. Some batsmen with relatively fitting averages and strike-rates could accurately be guessed to be sometimes playing such innings.

Um, the problem with that example is you're assuming one guy makes a much more runs than the other with the higher strike rate. I am talking about two players that generally make the same amount of runs with one scoring much faster.

The more accurate example would be a guy scoring 120 off 200 balls and 100 off 120 balls.