Do you think Brad Haddin will be as a good a Test batsman as Ian Healy?

[Johnners]

I've said it before, but Gilchrist really wasn't the first person to be genuine Test-class batsman in his own right plus wicketkeeper. Alec Stewart obviously predated him by several years, and Andy Flower might not have been the best wicketkeeper you'll see but he was far better than some. Sangakkara became the part a couple of years after Gilchrist (he'd been an inept wicketkeeper for his first year or so). Obviously there'd been the odd one prior to the 1990s too - Dujon, Lindsay, Walcott, Ames, etc.

However, it's been a long time since someone could make a Test side purely by being a good wicketkeeper. Rodney Marsh was probably the first in this line of Australians - you saw that by the way Wayne Phillips was asked to keep wicket after Marsh's career finished despite it clearly not being a strength of his. Healy's place may never have been in danger, but how many others were there around who were scoring state runs? (Which, as I note above, Healy actually was on the rare occasion he played) If Phil Emery was first-reserve, I presume the answer is "no-one".

Healy's place was quite rightly never in doubt even before he became the excellent lower-order batsman he was for 59 Tests 1993-1998/99. But if he'd been an obviously inept batsman with better options out there, I don't doubt it would have.

Gilchrist did not start the trend of wicketkeepers being able to bat. He was simply one (the best, in fact) of an exceptionally rare breed. Before or after him, the man who is Test-class batsman and wicketkeeper is exceptionally rare. Most Test wicketkeepers are merely decent lower-order bats, the exact same thing Healy turned into - eventually.

Think you'll find that SoC was only talking about Australia, and not the rest of the world, in which case he's right. Prior to Gilchrist, there's no way that there was as big an emphasis on how well the 'keeper could bat as there will be now post Gilchrist in Australia.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've said it before, but Gilchrist really wasn't the first person to be genuine Test-class batsman in his own right plus wicketkeeper. Alec Stewart obviously predated him by several years, and Andy Flower might not have been the best wicketkeeper you'll see but he was far better than some. Sangakkara became the part a couple of years after Gilchrist (he'd been an inept wicketkeeper for his first year or so). Obviously there'd been the odd one prior to the 1990s too - Dujon, Lindsay, Walcott, Ames, etc.

However, it's been a long time since someone could make a Test side purely by being a good wicketkeeper. Rodney Marsh was probably the first in this line of Australians - you saw that by the way Wayne Phillips was asked to keep wicket after Marsh's career finished despite it clearly not being a strength of his. Healy's place may never have been in danger, but how many others were there around who were scoring state runs? (Which, as I note above, Healy actually was on the rare occasion he played) If Phil Emery was first-reserve, I presume the answer is "no-one".

Healy's place was quite rightly never in doubt even before he became the excellent lower-order batsman he was for 59 Tests 1993-1998/99. But if he'd been an obviously inept batsman with better options out there, I don't doubt it would have.
Gilchrist did not start the trend of wicketkeepers being able to bat. He was simply one (the best, in fact) of an exceptionally rare breed. Before or after him, the man who is Test-class batsman and wicketkeeper is exceptionally rare. Most Test wicketkeepers are merely decent lower-order bats, the exact same thing Healy turned into - eventually.

True, but it wasn't really expected of a keeper until Gilly came around. Ever since he arrived on the scene it's been a slight issue. Beforehand your keeper kept...if he could bat a bit then that was a bonus, but not a reason for him to get into the team.

If Healy had been an inept batsman and there were better keeping options than him out there then he would have been gone...I don't think the idea that you'd replace a decent keeper with one not as good but who could bat was really in vogue. Gilly couldn't even get a game for NSW with Emery in the way, although I suspect that had less to do with his ability and more to do with politics as Emery was never any great shakes. I don't think the idea that you'd replace a decent keeper with one not as good but who could bat was really in vogue.

 

[NUFAN]

I think he'll average more then Healy, but I wouldn't say that he'll be a better Test batter.

Healy was terrific for a period of around 3 years, performed some terrific innings, loved his 161 against England.

 

[pup11]

Tbh i never considered Healy to be much of a batsman, he never had similar batting talent as Haddin, but Healy was a very very gritty customer, and one thing you could have been sure of with Healy, was he would never thrown his wicket away, he use to fight for his runs and i think he made most of all the batting talent he had.

In Haddin's case he seems to be a pretty talented batsman, but the huge problem in his case is he seems to have a bit of concentration problem, when he gets bogged down or is in a tight spot, he starts throwing his bat at everything, i am saying this on the basis of whatever test cricket he has played so far, so i do expect him to improve as a batsman in every regard with time and prove himself to be a better batsman than Healy, if he doesn't do that than imo Haddin would have underachieved massively with the bat.

 

[Craig]

I'm sure he has all the shots, I've seen him play most of them at some point or other. But the relatively cautious approach seems to me to suit him perfectly. I'm not sure I want to see him trying to be too attacking, even though I've heard of occasions where he's done so and it's paid-off.

Still, he should get the opportunity to attack the bowling against the New Zealand bowlers. Except Oram, obviously.

Well he won't be playing. Unless I mis-read your post

 

[Uppercut]

I think he'll average more then Healy, but I wouldn't say that he'll be a better Test batter.

Healy was terrific for a period of around 3 years, performed some terrific innings, loved his 161 against England.

Agree with this. Healy also had the habit of bailing Australia out of holes, Haddin i can't see having that.

 

[NZTailender]

Agree with this. Healy also had the habit of bailing Australia out of holes, Haddin i can't see having that.

Has done it twice this tour iirc.

 

[Johnners]

Has doen it often for NSW iirc.

 

[NZTailender]

Remember he got Timmy O'Toole out of a well once as well. Guy has a habit of getting people out of holes.

 

[NZTailender]

Remember he got Timmy O'Toole out of a well once as well. Guy has a habit of getting people out of holes.

This post is so obvious that the naughty doesn't even need to be wheeled out.

 

[Richard]

Think you'll find that SoC was only talking about Australia, and not the rest of the world, in which case he's right. Prior to Gilchrist, there's no way that there was as big an emphasis on how well the 'keeper could bat as there will be now post Gilchrist in Australia.

Why did Rodney Marsh play when he was known as Irongloves then?

Because he could bat quite a bit better than any alternatives. And you'd be crazy not to take account of that.

If there's such a big account placed on how well a wicketkeeper can bat, it seems rather strange that the likes of Hartley, Crosthwaite and Clingeleffer have\had such long state careers despite not being anything other than useful lower-order bats.

Haddin happens to be a very good batsman as well as an acceptable wicketkeeper. I expect Haddin to be above average as a Test wicketkeeper-batsman as well TBH. I don't, however, think Australia will be able to have someone of the calibre of a Haddin all the time from now on, however much "emphasis" is put on it. Because if the ability isn't there, there's nothing any emphasis being put on it can do.

 

[Richard]

True, but it wasn't really expected of a keeper until Gilly came around. Ever since he arrived on the scene it's been a slight issue. Beforehand your keeper kept...if he could bat a bit then that was a bonus, but not a reason for him to get into the team.

If Healy had been an inept batsman and there were better keeping options than him out there then he would have been gone...I don't think the idea that you'd replace a decent keeper with one not as good but who could bat was really in vogue. Gilly couldn't even get a game for NSW with Emery in the way, although I suspect that had less to do with his ability and more to do with politics as Emery was never any great shakes. I don't think the idea that you'd replace a decent keeper with one not as good but who could bat was really in vogue.

As I say - Rodney Marsh's case seems to suggest otherwise, to me. Not to mention Wayne Phillips' one straight after - an inept wicketkeeper who was shoehorned into the position because he could bat. And post-Marsh, there weren't really any decent wicketkeepers who could bat very well until Healy got the hang of it. If there had been, I don't doubt that wicketkeeper-batsman would've played instead of the Rixons, Woolleys, Zoehrers and Dyers.

 

[Mister Wright]

Haddin may have the ability, but no-one will ever match Healy's gutsiness. The guy could dig you out of a hole more often than not.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haddin may have the ability, but no-one will ever match Healy's Queensland. Queensland Queensland Queensland, Queensland Queensland Queensland

Translated.

 

[Hoggy31]

I'm a petty ****.

" "

 

[Mister Wright]

Haha. I actually rate Haddin. Think he has improved his keeping no end. Gun batsmen when in top gear, great to watch.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

" "

<(^_^<)

 

[Johnners]

Why did Rodney Marsh play when he was known as Irongloves then?

Because he could bat quite a bit better than any alternatives. And you'd be crazy not to take account of that.

If there's such a big account placed on how well a wicketkeeper can bat, it seems rather strange that the likes of Hartley, Crosthwaite and Clingeleffer have\had such long state careers despite not being anything other than useful lower-order bats.

Haddin happens to be a very good batsman as well as an acceptable wicketkeeper. I expect Haddin to be above average as a Test wicketkeeper-batsman as well TBH. I don't, however, think Australia will be able to have someone of the calibre of a Haddin all the time from now on, however much "emphasis" is put on it. Because if the ability isn't there, there's nothing any emphasis being put on it can do.

Yes Marsh might have been selected ahead of other because of his batting. But that's not point I'm trying to make. What Gilchrist did was unprecedented for an Australian keeper/batsmen, and it's only natural that people are going to hold unreasonably high expectations of those succeeding him. Higher, in terms of batting, than ever before.

 

[Richard]

What Gilchrist did was unprecedented for any wicketkeeper-batsman. It's perfectly conceivable there'll never be another as good as him.

Brad Haddin, too, is above-average, and it's perfectly possible that after him Australia will once more have to make-do, as most teams who haven't had a Stewart or Haddin have, with someone who will merely do a "normal" wicketkeeper-batsman job of keeping and averaging early-30s or so.

Higher expectation doesn't mean you'll be able to have those expectations reached.

 

[Richard]

Well he won't be playing. Unless I mis-read your post

Daym, guess the guy's picked-up yet another injury? Missed that.