What would you want for a keeper?

[Black_Warrior]

^ I reckon Dinesh Kartik is a better keeper

 

[aussie]

Never have much agreed with this TBH. Unless it refers to what sort of pitches you play on and thus whether your attack is spin-dominated rather than seam-dominated, I consider that a good-batsman-decent-wicketkeeper adds more to any side than a moderate-to-poor-batsman-outstanding-wicketkeeper. I don't care in the slightest how strong the specialist batting is - you can never have enough batting and as long as your wicketkeeper is decent and your attack is seam-dominated, you should still pick the best batsman of them.

This.

 

[Richard]

^ I reckon Dinesh Kartik is a better keeper

I used to but TBH from all I've heard he's been shocking of late. Ditto his batting, which in the longer game initially looked better than Dhoni's.

 

[Julian87]

I don't actually think Dhoni's good enough with the gloves. Not when keeping for India, anyway, because he struggles keeping to spin. For Australia or South Africa, he'd be perfect..

Not as perfect as Brad Haddin tbh.

 

[GGG]

Excellent batsman and ok keeper for ODI's and Excellent keeper and OK batsman for tests i.e Dhoni for ODIs and McCullum for tests for me.

 

[Uppercut]

Not as perfect as Brad Haddin tbh.

Well Dhoni's the better batsman, and I can't remember him ever dropping anything standing back. If he only had to keep to Nathan Hauritz... it's a tough call. Haddin's a lot better than Dhoni at the stumps, but he's still not the greatest.

 

[Richard]

Well Dhoni's the better batsman

Not convinced about that - not in Tests. In ODIs Dhoni's clearly light-years ahead of anyone right now and will far more likely than not end-up the best ODI batsman-'keeper in history, but his Test batting still has a little to prove and I don't think he's likely to end-up better than Haddin, and probably not as good either.

 

[Julian87]

Well Dhoni's the better batsman, and I can't remember him ever dropping anything standing back. If he only had to keep to Nathan Hauritz... it's a tough call. Haddin's a lot better than Dhoni at the stumps, but he's still not the greatest.

In ODIs you can not argue the point. (that Dhoni is better, obv)

But Haddin, at this point (and I can't see it changing any time soon), is the much better batsman out of the two in real cricket.

 

[Majic]

Well it depends on the depth of the team.
Ideally I would probably go for a decent batsman/excellent keeper maybe someone like Prasanna Jayawardene? but if the batting lineup isn't very strong then I'd go for a very good batsman/poor keeper.

 

[bagapath]

gone are the days when a team would be happy to have a tallon or a wasim bari; excellent keepers but hopeless bats. the right mix of batting and keeping ability in an ideal keeper would be someone like knott or healy who were excellent with the gloves and also more than handy at no.7. but ever since the arrival of gilchrist (and andy flower to a lesser degree) it is a compulsion the world over to look for a match turning, top notch bat who could also keep well. since this is as much a fantasy as expecting a left hand batsman who is the best in the world to also bowl pace and all varieties of spin and field anywhere like a hawk, to turn up for every team other than the west indies of the 60s, one has to settle for the option of excellent keeper/ adequate bat. practically speaking keeping is the primary job. a good batsman is a bonus.

 

[silentstriker]

Picking more bowlers you get diminishing returns because they take up each other's overs. Not really the same thing with batsmen in most test matches (unless you're so strong in batting you're declaring five down most of the time). Everyone bats, so having a deep batting lineup is important.

Going for an excellent keeper and a horrible batsman will leave your team very short. As long as the keeping is a decent level, as Goughy and others said, I'd pick the best batsman out of the bunch at that point.

This is why Gilchrist was such an amazing player, and added so much value to his side. He rescued his team so many times when they were five down, or came in for some quick hitting when they needed to declare, and was very safe behind the stumps. A better keeper than Gilchrist, but whose batting was the level of your average keeper would not have added nearly as much to the Aussie side.

 

[zaremba]

Completely AWTA

 

[Richard]

gone are the days when a team would be happy to have a tallon or a wasim bari; excellent keepers but hopeless bats. the right mix of batting and keeping ability in an ideal keeper would be someone like knott or healy who were excellent with the gloves and also more than handy at no.7. but ever since the arrival of gilchrist (and andy flower to a lesser degree) it is a compulsion the world over to look for a match turning, top notch bat who could also keep well.

It's a compulsion which won't last long - and one which sensible people don't seriously comply to anyway - for this precise reason:

since this is as much a fantasy as expecting a left hand batsman who is the best in the world to also bowl pace and all varieties of spin and field anywhere like a hawk, to turn up for every team other than the west indies of the 60s

Unrealistic expectations soon get dispelled.

Even the likes of Knott, Healy, Boucher etc. are not something that every international side can realistically expect to have all the time.

 

[nick-o]

Never have much agreed with this TBH. Unless it refers to what sort of pitches you play on and thus whether your attack is spin-dominated rather than seam-dominated, I consider that a good-batsman-decent-wicketkeeper adds more to any side than a moderate-to-poor-batsman-outstanding-wicketkeeper. I don't care in the slightest how strong the specialist batting is - you can never have enough batting and as long as your wicketkeeper is decent and your attack is seam-dominated, you should still pick the best batsman of them.

I often wonder why this question is so frequently framed in terms of how strong the rest of the batting is -- to me it's really a question of the strength of the bowling.

Seems to me that some bowling attacks you can "expect" to get 20 wickets a match, and some attacks you're wondering where the wickets will come from.

Of course if you feel certain you can back your bowlers to do the job, you can concentrate on the wicketkeeper's batting ability; but if you can't feel that confidence in your bowlers you can't afford a wicketkeeper who may miss the regulation chances; you need a wickie who will take almost all the regulation chances plus pull off a few half-chances in order to get up to the 20 wickets you require if you're going to have a chance of winning.

So I think it's a function of the overall level of the bowling attack, not the overall level of the specialist batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Hmm. The only way I'd say the bowling impacts is if you're stacked with quality inswing bowlers who're constantly smashing stumps and thudding pads.

As a top-quality outswing bowler, having an inept wicketkeeper is unutterably infuriating, even if it won't always cost games. However good you are, a single missed chance always has the potential to make a massive impact.

I'd never, ever say that a team should not bother about having an inept wicketkeeper just because their bowlers are outstanding ones. Never. Bowlers, of almost all types, depend on their fielders to no little extent, and the wicketkeeper is overwhelmingly the most important fielder.