Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No chance.
Gilchrist has totally re-defined the role of the wicketkeeper. As unrealistic as that may be.
Aye, pretty much agree with Geg. The wicketkeeper's role has always been to hold on to the ball that comes his way first and foremost (occasionally whipping off the bails when a run-out or stumping is on offer) and to score runs second. How he scores those runs has always varied, same way it has with other batsmen.How did he re-define it, though? I think people tend to get confused because what Gilchrist was best at was taking the game away from the opposition with explosive hitting. You can get any batsman (well, quick hitting batsman) to fill that role, rather than expecting the wicket-keeper to do it.
Gilchrist was a bit of a freak of nature. Not only was he a pretty damn fine gloveman (which I think a lot of people underrate) he was able to turn a test match with quick hitting. There aren't many people around who can do that, let alone keeprs who can do that.
People who average 59 over their first 40-odd Tests are virtually never seen. If an expectation builds-up for one of them, never mind one who can keep wicket, it'll be realised to be unrealistic sooner rather than later.