Cricketers who changed the way the game was played

[Burgey]

Yeah, might have been Kepler, but I have a memory of Phillips doing something similar. Thought I saw it a few weeks ago on one of those WS Classics on Fox.

Was late at night, though.

[Andrew Pollock]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Yeah, might have been Kepler, but I have a memory of Phillips doing something similar. Thought I saw it a few weeks ago on one of those WS Classics on Fox.

Was late at night, though.

I think it was the Final Match of the WSC vs West Indies (1985)

[Matt79]

Funny, was just about to nominate Tony Greig for his role in WSC.

[bagapath]

the first great wk-batsman was les ames. averaged 43 in test matches with 8 centuries. scored 102 first class centuries. but gilly's role in the 90s has coincided witht the arrival of sanga, dhoni etc. ames' achievements for england were stand out performances in the 30s

[Matt79]

Think that the point of "who changed the way the game was played" is not merely to say that someone was the first to do something that later became popular, but that they were the player that led to it becoming popular and emulated. There's a difference.

[Richard]

I don't think Gilchrist did do that, though - I don't think anyone can or ever will. As I say, having a genuine Test-class batsman who can nonetheless keep wicket at least as well as anybody else is not something anyone is going to be able to get very often. A Stewart, Flower or Gilchrist (and sometimes Sangakkara) is a rare thing. Nor is it exclusively a modern thing; Leslie Ames in the 1930s has been mentioned by bagapath; 50 years before him there was Billy Murdoch. Clyde Walcott did the job in the 1950s. Jeffrey Dujon did for a time in the 1980s, before his batting declined. Denis Lindsay in the 1960s.

Even now, we have mere Bouchers, Jayawardenes, McCullums, Kamran Akmals, Ramdins; all capable lower-order batsmen, but never people who would make the side purely for their batting.

And like the batsmen-wicketkeepers, wicketkeeper-batsmen have always been present even before the 1980s and 1990s: Engineer, Marsh, Knott, Murray, etc.

The batsman-wicketkeeper is neither something that started with Gilchrist nor something that will ever become a trend. It is something that will be a rare bonus, because only a phenominally gifted cricketer will ever be able to do it.

[Matt79]

Sorry, should have said "attempted to emulate". And Gilchrist clearly did lead to a readjustment of selection criteria around the world in terms of the compromise teams were prepared to make with keeping skills, in return for a better batting option. That compromise no doubt already occurred, but he led to a shift in the balance.

[Richard]

Well, TBH I don't know that we'll be able to assess that until a few decades are gone by. Sure, it's led to a fair few rubbish wicketkeepers playing Tests in the last 3 or 4 years. But hopefully that will stop again before long. Because I hate to see people being given the gloves in Tests who are so woefully inept with them.

[subshakerz]

Sarfraz Nawaz leads the list, IMO. Reverse swing is now a standard part of any fast-bowler's armory, and its an innovation that will continue as long as the game does.

[Richard]

What I've always wanted to know is was it actually Sarfaraz Nawaz who discovered reverse-swing, or did he learn it from Asif Masood or whoever.

There was a fair length of time when Imran Khan was said to have discovered it too, then he eventually decided it was time to say Sarfaraz had shown him it.

Either way, whoever it was probably is one of the biggest innovators in cricket history.

[social]

Ames had a padded record - about the only test quality attack he played against was Australia and against them he averaged 27

[Richard]

Nope, all the attacks were Test quality by then aside from New Zealand's. Ames' record was better against the weaker teams but that hasn't stopped Mohammad Yousuf from being praised to the rafters. There's no question whatsoever that Ames was good enough to play for England as a specialist bat.

[Manee]

It is probably a combination of dozens of batsmen, but Sachin Tendulkar and Sanath Jayasuriya lead the way for a gradual revolution of ODI batting in the mid 90s which resulted in the norm score to shift from 225 to 275. This high scoring eventually lead to the commericialisation of the T20 game.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nope, all the attacks were Test quality by then aside from New Zealand's. Ames' record was better against the weaker teams but that hasn't stopped Mohammad Yousuf from being praised to the rafters. There's no question whatsoever that Ames was good enough to play for England as a specialist bat.

The issue is not whether he was good enough to play as a specialist bat, it's whether he changed the game.

Quite simply, he didnt because no country felt obliged to select someone with top batting skills as their keeper just to compete until Gilchrist came along

[Richard]

Err, where on Earth have I said Ames changed the game? I quite clearly stated that neither Ames, Murdoch, Stewart, Gilchrist or anyone else changed the game. The game cannot be changed in the respect of batsmen-wicketkeepers, and if anyone is stupid enough to start allowing rubbish wicketkeepers to keep in Tests it's unlikely to last that long.

All I said was that Ames was a Test-class batsman regardless of his skills as a wicketkeeper.