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

[Richard]

Expecting any wicketkeeper to be as good a batsman as Adam Gilchrist is obviously very silly, and hardly anyone with any cricketing sense would be expecting such a thing. A more reasonable question would be whether he'll be as good as a "good" rather than "excellent" Test wicketkeeper-batsman like Healy.

Don't be fooled by Healy's overall Test career average: he was very poor at the end of his career (like so many are) which distorts it a little. But more significantly, he was very poor for the first half of his career and damn good for the second half. Haddin is unlikely to have a Test career much longer than half of Healy's, so he is in a sense at an advantage - if he equals Healy's "good" period and that ends as his entire career, he'll obviously look better because people will judge Healy as if his bad and good were all one, which, well, they weren't. Healy averaged less than 22 in his first 47 games in his first 4 years as a Test player, then just under 36 in his next 59 in his next 5-and-a-half years. So he was very poor for a fair while then damn good for a fair while. If Haddin cannot manage something similar, then for mine he's not as good, even if his career average should be, say, 34 to Healy's 27.

Healy also averaged 37.42 in the 50 matches he managed to fit-in for Queensland between 1987/88 and 1997/98. Not as good as Haddin's record for NSW (he averaged 32.96 in 45 games between 1999/2000 and 2003/04, then a really pretty awesome 54.91 between 2004/05 and 2007/08) but Haddin has played in an era where Australian pitches in general have been much flatter than Healy's.

So do you think Haddin has it in him to be better than Healy as a batsman? I'll be damn disappointed if he doesn't emulate him or come close, but I don't think he can really expect to do that much better. If he manages to play 60-odd Tests he'll have done pretty well, debuting at 30.

 

[zaremba]

I expect Haddin to end up with a Test average in the mid-30s.
If he's averaging as little as 27 he'll struggle to keep his place in the team.

 

[Richard]

So would Healy have done if he'd averaged that all his career.

 

[NZTailender]

From what I remember seeing of Healy, and what I've seen of Haddin, Haddin is the better batsman, and hopefully he'll end up with an average that reflects this.

The biggest problem for Haddin in terms of batting is that he won't have as many chances to score as freely as Gilchrist did, who benefitted from having the likes of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waughs, Martyn and Hussey (Katich and Clarke to a lesser extent) at various times making up the top 6.

 

[four_or_six]

Haddin's done pretty well so far and hasn't even played at home yet which I reckon he'll do better with.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haddin is more of a technician than Healy was but it remains to be seen whether he'll be as valuable a player.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, there's no doubt Haddin is technicaly far more sound and has a much more solid base to work from. Equally I'll be very surprised if he doesn't up his game when he finally plays his first home Test.

As regards this:

The biggest problem for Haddin in terms of batting is that he won't have as many chances to score as freely as Gilchrist did, who benefitted from having the likes of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waughs, Martyn and Hussey (Katich and Clarke to a lesser extent) at various times making up the top 6.

it should benefit him I think. Haddin's game is not naturally suited to extreme strokeplay, and to have such a role expected of him would likely be a hindrance rather than a help.

If Haddin can feel like he can play his own game, rather than try to play Gilchrist's, I think he has much his best chance.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah, there's no doubt Haddin is technicaly far more sound and has a much more solid base to work from. Equally I'll be very surprised if he doesn't up his game when he finally plays his first home Test.

As regards this: it should benefit him I think. Haddin's game is not naturally suited to extreme strokeplay, and to have such a role expected of him would likely be a hindrance rather than a help.

If Haddin can feel like he can play his own game, rather than try to play Gilchrist's, I think he has much his best chance.

I meant more that Gilchrist more often than not came in with a fairly large score to give him free reign to bat however he pleased, something Haddin won't get as much of, in terms of freedom and will probably have to play the role of defensive scrapper to save an innings or situation.

 

[Richard]

I honestly think that's a role that'll suit him better than the ideal requirement of 70-odd* off 80 balls with 36 off 50 the second-best option.

I think the expectation to score quickly (which, really, is always there if you come in with 350 or so already on the board) is something that could potentially be a big negative for Haddin. He's already had to contend with a few ridiculous comments along the lines of "wicketkeepers should be attacking batsmen".

 

[Top_Cat]

I honestly think that's a role that'll suit him better than the ideal requirement of 70-odd* off 80 balls with 36 off 50 the second-best option.

I think the expectation to score quickly (which, really, is always there if you come in with 350 or so already on the board) is something that could potentially be a big negative for Haddin. He's already had to contend with a few ridiculous comments along the lines of "wicketkeepers should be attacking batsmen".

He is an attacking batsman, though. Belted a few big tons for NSW in OD cricket opening the batting (even if they were all on North Sydney Oval). The guy can hit the ball hard, what we've seen in his Test and even OD career so far hasn't really shown that. Been very cautious.

Probably not as good as Gilchrist in being able to consistently hit the ball for a long peroid of time but make no mistake, has all the shots. And this from a bloke who isn't the biggest fan....

 

[Johnners]

He's a better batsmen than Healy was, has a way to go to catch up to him in terms of 'keeping though.

Seriously though, I cannot believe that there is actually so much speculation surrounding Haddins future on these boards. He's played 6 tests away from home, done a good job behind the stumps in all bar 1 test, and whilst he hasn't made the best of starts with the bat, he's at least been able to stick around most of the time and help produce partnerships of 50-70. People need to wtfu and realise that he ISN'T going to do a Gilchrist and average around 50 for the majority of his test career. His primary role is to be a wicket keeper, and he's the best at that in Australia, his secondary role is to be a batsmen. He's also comfortably the best batsmen out of all the 'keepers available for Australian selection and I've no doubt that if people actually give the bloke a fair go, he'll go on and prove it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He is an attacking batsman, though. Belted a few big tons for NSW in OD cricket opening the batting (even if they were all on North Sydney Oval). The guy can hit the ball hard, what we've seen in his Test and even OD career so far hasn't really shown that. Been very cautious.

Probably not as good as Gilchrist in being able to consistently hit the ball for a long peroid of time but make no mistake, has all the shots. And this from a bloke who isn't the biggest fan....

Yeah, I saw from cricinfo his List A SR is above 90, which surprised me no end. Hasn't ever looked quite the real deal when I've seen him. He looks a bit too rigid a player, as if he's entirely manufactured. Had all the spontaneity coached out of his batting. It might be that because he's had to wait so long to get a go he's too uptight to play his natural game for fear of mistakes tho, I suppose.

Still averaging over 30 in tests without fully convincing, so if he ever does hit proper form I think he could get close to his FC average.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So would Healy have done if he'd averaged that all his career.

I don't know that he would have...given Healy came before Gilchrist and as such there wasn't as big an onus on a keeper who could score thousands of runs I'd say Healy would have been fine with an average of 27 as he could keep pretty well. Post-Gilchrist there's a bigger focus on the keeper being able to score runs at a healthy average as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know that he would have...given Healy came before Gilchrist and as such there wasn't as big an onus on a keeper who could score thousands of runs I'd say Healy would have been fine with an average of 27 as he could keep pretty well. Post-Gilchrist there's a bigger focus on the keeper being able to score runs at a healthy average as well.

Yep, Heals was in the side for his 'keeping. At no stage, even during the early and mid parts of his career when he wasn't scoring many runs, was his place under threat.

 

[Jnr.]

Brad Haddin is an excellent batsman - probably my favourite current batsman from NSW. However, like most players starting out at Test level, he needs a big innings so that he can believe that he's good enough at this level. All he needs is one big innings, then the floodgates will open.

Hope I haven't jinxed him.

 

[Polo23]

An average of 32-37 sounds about right for me. I think it's tough for anyone who comes in at number 7 to average more than that who isnt a complete freak (Gilchrist).

 

[Richard]

I don't know that he would have...given Healy came before Gilchrist and as such there wasn't as big an onus on a keeper who could score thousands of runs I'd say Healy would have been fine with an average of 27 as he could keep pretty well. Post-Gilchrist there's a bigger focus on the keeper being able to score runs at a healthy average as well.

Yep, Heals was in the side for his 'keeping. At no stage, even during the early and mid parts of his career when he wasn't scoring many runs, was his place under threat.

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.

 

[NZTailender]

He's a better batsmen than Healy was, has a way to go to catch up to him in terms of 'keeping though.

Seriously though, I cannot believe that there is actually so much speculation surrounding Haddins future on these boards. He's played 6 tests away from home, done a good job behind the stumps in all bar 1 test, and whilst he hasn't made the best of starts with the bat, he's at least been able to stick around most of the time and help produce partnerships of 50-70. People need to wtfu and realise that he ISN'T going to do a Gilchrist and average around 50 for the majority of his test career. His primary role is to be a wicket keeper, and he's the best at that in Australia, his secondary role is to be a batsmen. He's also comfortably the best batsmen out of all the 'keepers available for Australian selection and I've no doubt that if people actually give the bloke a fair go, he'll go on and prove it.

Yeah, most of it started up in the last test after he got out playing a rash shot, which annoyed me no end (the criticism that is). Posted quite a few times on the matter, tbh.

 

[Richard]

He is an attacking batsman, though. Belted a few big tons for NSW in OD cricket opening the batting (even if they were all on North Sydney Oval). The guy can hit the ball hard, what we've seen in his Test and even OD career so far hasn't really shown that. Been very cautious.

Probably not as good as Gilchrist in being able to consistently hit the ball for a long peroid of time but make no mistake, has all the shots. And this from a bloke who isn't the biggest fan....

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.

 

[andyc]

Definitely better than Healy, will end with an average in the mid to high 30s.