WK for Post WW2 Dream XI

[bagapath]

this poll is a mere formality as far as i am concerned. the result is very unlikely to surprise anyone. Please choose one of the wicket keepers to play for the post ww2 xi

Alan Knott
Adam Gilchrist

 

[Anil]

knott easily...

 

[bagapath]

knott easily...

good one mate. knott could possibly be the bettter wicket keeper. i voted for gilly because he is a great batsman and a good keeper

 

[Anil]

good one mate. knott could possibly be the bettter wicket keeper. i voted for gilly because he is a great batsman and a good keeper

not really, it was an entirely serious statement and i don't think "possibly" is the word there, he very clearly was....although i am aware that the poll results will overwhelmingly point the other way...

 

[bagapath]

not really, it was an entirely serious statement and i don't think "possibly" is the word there, he very clearly was....although i am aware that the poll results will overwhelmingly point the other way...

i agree but the poll results would be more reflective of the majority's preference to a batsman-keeper, like mine, rather than the respective keeping abilities of these two. knott was an awesome keeper.

 

[The Sean]

Knotty was a wonderful gloveman and a more than capable bat, and a team like this probably doesn't necessarily need the extra batting Gilly provides. But a cricketer as astonishingly valuable as Adam Gilchrist comes along so rarely that to my mind if he's available for selection then you pick him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Knott should win.....but he won't.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist as a pure glovesman was probably as good as all, bar the very very best. But as a combination of both glovesman and batsman he has no equal. He is one of Test crickets giants and should really walk into every all-time XI IMO.

 

[archie mac]

Gilchrist as a pure glovesman was probably as good as all, bar the very very best. But as a combination of both glovesman and batsman he has no equal. He is one of Test crickets giants and should really walk into every all-time XI IMO.

Well the poll does say pick the WK

 

[Ikki]

Well the poll does say pick the WK

And that's precisely why I vote for him. Gilchrist's ability with bat + gloves >> Knott's ability with the bat + gloves.

If we were talking about someone like Flower here, who really can't compare to Knott's glovework, then I can see your point. But Gilchrist is so good with the gloves that however superior with the gloves you think Knott is, the difference is negligible. The difference between their batting, however, is not.

 

[SJS]

I thought this was a poll for a wicket keeper. To me that means a the best wicket keeper in one's opinion. I dont see how it means a good even if not the best keeper but a great batsman.

If this be a criteria we should chose Imran over all contemporary fast bowlers in any fast bowlers poll. And why is Andy Flower not offered as an option or Sangakarra for that matter. At least lets have a choice of batsman -keeper if that is what we are to chose. Its a mockery to chose a keeper and a batsman-keeper with no other options and then chose the latter because it really isn't about pure keeping skills.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I thought this was a poll for a wicket keeper. To me that means a the best wicket keeper in one's opinion. I dont see how it means a good even if not the best keeper but a great batsman.

If this be a criteria we should chose Imran over all contemporary fast bowlers in any fast bowlers poll. And why is Andy Flower not offered as an option or Sangakarra for that matter. At least lets have a choice of batsman -keeper if that is what we are to chose. Its a mockery to chose a keeper and a batsman-keeper with no other options and then chose the latter because it really isn't about pure keeping skills.

It's not really for the best wicketkeeper on just the basis of wicketkeeping. It's for the best keeper within the context of a Dream XI. To me that is still Alan Knott as the batting line-up above is so powerful, but the modern obcession places the greater emphasis of the two skills on batting.

 

[Ikki]

I thought this was a poll for a wicket keeper. To me that means a the best wicket keeper in one's opinion. I dont see how it means a good even if not the best keeper but a great batsman.

If this be a criteria we should chose Imran over all contemporary fast bowlers in any fast bowlers poll. And why is Andy Flower not offered as an option or Sangakarra for that matter. At least lets have a choice of batsman -keeper if that is what we are to chose. Its a mockery to chose a keeper and a batsman-keeper with no other options and then chose the latter because it really isn't about pure keeping skills.

Sangakkara, possibly. Flower, no.

If one built their team in the way that it needed all-rounders all the way down, the above would make sense. Since we have an abundance of specialists to choose from, I don't think it does. Whether it's logical to pick a bowler who can bat in positions 8/9/10 is debatable, depending on how the side was created.

It's not really for the best wicketkeeper on just the basis of wicketkeeping. It's for the best keeper within the context of a Dream XI. To me that is still Alan Knott as the batting line-up above is so powerful, but the modern obcession places the greater emphasis of the two skills on batting.

The above is probably the closest, IMO, rational, reasoning to picking Knott over Gilchrist. If you think the batting line-up is strong enough and if you think whatever superiority he has over Gilchrist with the gloves is more important than their prowess with the bat, then sure.

Simply, for me, if we create 2 XIs (the same exact players apart from the WKs in question, unnamed here for arguments sake):

    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
  Gilchrist   Knott
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx
    xxxx      xxxx

The side with Gilchrist is much stronger than the side with Knott.

 

[bagapath]

I thought this was a poll for a wicket keeper. To me that means a the best wicket keeper in one's opinion. I dont see how it means a good even if not the best keeper but a great batsman.

If this be a criteria we should chose Imran over all contemporary fast bowlers in any fast bowlers poll. And why is Andy Flower not offered as an option or Sangakarra for that matter. At least lets have a choice of batsman -keeper if that is what we are to chose. Its a mockery to chose a keeper and a batsman-keeper with no other options and then chose the latter because it really isn't about pure keeping skills.

actually both flower and sanga lost to gilchrist in the post packer XI polls. this team selection is essentially choosing one team from the two XIs we have already got.

i voted for marsh in the pre packer xi polls but didnt mind it when knott won.

 

[bagapath]

sjs! do you really think knott's keeping was that much better than gilly's? i had seen a bit of knott's work and i think he was absolutely top notch. but i never hated gilly's glove work either. agreed healy looked cleaner and more reliable, and so did marsh and knott. but gilly wouldnt have got the world record in wicket keeping, in roughly the same number of matches as knott or marsh and at least 20 less than healy, if he wasnt superb in his job.

 

[SJS]

sjs! do you really think knott's keeping was that much better than gilly's? i had seen a bit of knott's work and i think he was absolutely top notch. but i never hated gilly's glove work either. agreed healy looked cleaner and more reliable, and so did marsh and knott. but gilly wouldnt have got the world record in wicket keeping, in roughly the same number of matches as knott or marsh and at least 20 less than healy, if he wasnt superb in his job.

Here are the post WWII wicket Keepers who, in my opinion were clearly better than Gilchrist as pure wicket keepers.

England

• Knott
• Evans
• Taylor

Australia

• Tallon
• Healy

South Africa

• Waite

New Zealand

• Wadsworth

Pakistan

• Bari

India

• Kirmani

 

[Lillian Thomson]

sjs! do you really think knott's keeping was that much better than gilly's? i had seen a bit of knott's work and i think he was absolutely top notch. but i never hated gilly's glove work either. agreed healy looked cleaner and more reliable, and so did marsh and knott. but gilly wouldnt have got the world record in wicket keeping, in roughly the same number of matches as knott or marsh and at least 20 less than healy, if he wasnt superb in his job.

The speed in which he obtained the record is largely irrelevant as it's too dependent on the quality of the bowling attack.

 

[Ikki]

Here are the post WWII wicket Keepers who, in my opinion were clearly better than Gilchrist as pure wicket keepers.

England

• Knott
• Evans
• Taylor

Australia

• Tallon
• Healy

South Africa

• Waite

New Zealand

• Wadsworth

Pakistan

• Bari

It's interesting to note how in catches/stumpings per Test how superior Gilchrist was to pretty much all those names listed. Even Healy, who had the same bowlers, pretty much, as Gilchrist did not get near his record. I personally think gauging wicketkeepers is a tough thing; it's very subjective too. But the numbers here show that Gilchrist deserves far more respect than given:

 

[Ikki]

The speed in which he obtained the record is largely irrelevant as it's too dependent on the quality of the bowling attack.

And yet Healy who is considered better and who had the same bowling attack is left in his dust.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Healy was in the team for 3-5 years before McGrath and Warne came along. How ever you look at it wickeeping dismissal records are dependent on chances being created. Gilchrist wasn't taking spectacular catches that other quality keepers would miss, nor did Healy, Knott etc miss many easy chances. Logic suggest that more chances were created for him but there's no way of knowing.