SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Bob Simpson seems to suggest that this might well be the case.
Modern day wicketkeepers stand too deep and cover little distance on the off and leg. All of them dive or rather sprawl instead of getting into position swiftly with quick feet and body movement. Wicketkeepers standing too far back also make it difficult to set up the slip cordon properly.
Much of the wicket-keeping problems today stem from the ’keepers’ desire to take the ball on the drop below their knees. Great wicketkeepers of the past always took the ball about waist high on the rise.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is not a wicketkeeper in Test cricket today who can be termed truly great, and the question remains, will Ian Healy be the last of the great wicketkeepers?
Unfortunately, this is because of the modern trend of having a batsman-wicketkeeper rather than a genuine gloveman. In theory, it sounds okay. If you have someone like Adam Gilchrist, who averages 48.66 in Tests, it may be okay — just may be. The reality, however, is that a ’keeper selected mainly for his batting skills rather than ’keeping expertise will drop a lot of catches — and catches win matches.
The Australian spinners of the Lillee-Marsh era claim that they would have got many more wickets than they actually did if their wicketkeeper, who was brilliant against the fast bowlers, had performed better while ’keeping to them. England in particular have suffered due to wicketkeepers who were chosen because the selectors thought they could score more runs than their counterparts who might claim more dismissals, but were less proficient as batsmen.
Matt Prior had a disastrous season behind the stumps and his predecessor Geraint Jones was equally disappointing — neither of them scored enough runs to make up for the chances they missed behind.
India’s Mahendra Singh Dhoni had a good series with the bat and is probably good enough to hold his place in the team with his batting alone. But he has been disappointing behind the stumps, and I would be surprised if someone tells me that there are no better wicketkeepers in India. Where are the Kirmanis of Indian cricket? Where are the Alan Knotts and the Wally Grouts? Cricket is poorer for their absence.
Much of the wicket-keeping problems today stem from the ’keepers’ desire to take the ball on the drop below their knees. Great wicketkeepers of the past always took the ball about waist high on the rise.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is not a wicketkeeper in Test cricket today who can be termed truly great, and the question remains, will Ian Healy be the last of the great wicketkeepers?
Unfortunately, this is because of the modern trend of having a batsman-wicketkeeper rather than a genuine gloveman. In theory, it sounds okay. If you have someone like Adam Gilchrist, who averages 48.66 in Tests, it may be okay — just may be. The reality, however, is that a ’keeper selected mainly for his batting skills rather than ’keeping expertise will drop a lot of catches — and catches win matches.
The Australian spinners of the Lillee-Marsh era claim that they would have got many more wickets than they actually did if their wicketkeeper, who was brilliant against the fast bowlers, had performed better while ’keeping to them. England in particular have suffered due to wicketkeepers who were chosen because the selectors thought they could score more runs than their counterparts who might claim more dismissals, but were less proficient as batsmen.
Matt Prior had a disastrous season behind the stumps and his predecessor Geraint Jones was equally disappointing — neither of them scored enough runs to make up for the chances they missed behind.
India’s Mahendra Singh Dhoni had a good series with the bat and is probably good enough to hold his place in the team with his batting alone. But he has been disappointing behind the stumps, and I would be surprised if someone tells me that there are no better wicketkeepers in India. Where are the Kirmanis of Indian cricket? Where are the Alan Knotts and the Wally Grouts? Cricket is poorer for their absence.
