sideshowtim
Banned
Sorry if we've had a thread like this in regards to the terrible keeping in the England vs India series, but I'd like to see where people stand on this.
It's quite clear that in the current cricketing climate, a 'keeper will be chosen for his batting prowess first, and his 'keeping ability second. But how poor does a 'keeper have to be before this spirals out of control? Will we soon be throwing the gloves to Michael Clarke just to fit another batsman in? Prior and Dhoni are not international standard keepers, and it's quite embarassing to see the blunders they make back there sometimes.
Adam Gilchrist, I feel has been the main contributor to this trend. I think the difference is though, that Gilchrist is more than adequate, and at very least an above average international keeper. His batting of course is an entity of its own. He is special, we won't see another Gilchrist for a long time. I compare it to Australia's inane search for an allrounder after the 2005 Ashes -- they just aren't that easy to come across. If you're gonna have one in your team, make them a damn good one.
Some may say "Well, they make up for their errors in their batting". But this just isn't true. It all adds up. Dropped catches like Prior's on Tendulkar can make Tendulkar think "Well, maybe this is my day" and he'll probably go onto hit a good score now. Not only that, the frequent byes that are occuring are a huge weight off the batsman's shoulders. Nothing relieves pressure like a few extras, nice unearnt runs to the total.
I think teams need to realise that excellent keeping should be a priority, not adequate batting. Most keepers these days are good for a few runs here and there anyway, so why not just choose the best 'keeper?
In the cases of freaks such as Adam Gilchrist...well I think he can be excused. Can more than hold his own with the gloves, is very good with them in fact and has improved substantialy recently...and his batting...you'd love him in any team wouldn't you?
It's quite clear that in the current cricketing climate, a 'keeper will be chosen for his batting prowess first, and his 'keeping ability second. But how poor does a 'keeper have to be before this spirals out of control? Will we soon be throwing the gloves to Michael Clarke just to fit another batsman in? Prior and Dhoni are not international standard keepers, and it's quite embarassing to see the blunders they make back there sometimes.
Adam Gilchrist, I feel has been the main contributor to this trend. I think the difference is though, that Gilchrist is more than adequate, and at very least an above average international keeper. His batting of course is an entity of its own. He is special, we won't see another Gilchrist for a long time. I compare it to Australia's inane search for an allrounder after the 2005 Ashes -- they just aren't that easy to come across. If you're gonna have one in your team, make them a damn good one.
Some may say "Well, they make up for their errors in their batting". But this just isn't true. It all adds up. Dropped catches like Prior's on Tendulkar can make Tendulkar think "Well, maybe this is my day" and he'll probably go onto hit a good score now. Not only that, the frequent byes that are occuring are a huge weight off the batsman's shoulders. Nothing relieves pressure like a few extras, nice unearnt runs to the total.
I think teams need to realise that excellent keeping should be a priority, not adequate batting. Most keepers these days are good for a few runs here and there anyway, so why not just choose the best 'keeper?
In the cases of freaks such as Adam Gilchrist...well I think he can be excused. Can more than hold his own with the gloves, is very good with them in fact and has improved substantialy recently...and his batting...you'd love him in any team wouldn't you?
