Are wicket keepers allrounders

[Prince EWS]

Prince ews i understand your point and if you read my first replys i said not all keeper batsman are allrounders i quite agree if you bat 7 you are a keeper who can bat a bit, but stewart, gilly and maybe sangakarra can/could get into the team as a batsman or a wk therefore imo they are are a 2d cricketer on in the same way that a allrounder is thats my view, please explian the 'straw man'

Well I strongly challenge the notion that Gilchrist ever played a dual-role consistently. I have little doubt he could have because he was an awesome batsman, but he spent his entire career batting seven - he just played as an extremely good version of the modern wicket keeping role rather than shoulding any top order batting. One's "tag" has more to do with his role in the team and its balance than one's actual quality, IMO. Gilchrist could have batted five at a pinch but he never actually did, so he didn't play as an allrounder IMO.

You could make cases for Flower, Sangakkara and Stewart though.

 

[Dano.85]

Well I strongly challenge the notion that Gilchrist ever played a dual-role consistently. I have little doubt he could have because he was an awesome batsman, but he spent his entire career batting seven - he just played as an extremely good version of the modern wicket keeping role rather than shoulding any top order batting. One's "tag" has more to do with his role in the team and its balance than one's actual quality, IMO. Gilchrist could have batted five at a pinch but he never actually did, so he didn't play as an allrounder IMO.

You could make cases for Flower, Sangakkara and Stewart though.

The thing is gilchrist imo could have been picked for aus as a batsman alone, thats why i say him.

 

[Faisal1985]

In their dream of finding a wicketkeeper who can bat, some teams have found themselves with players who can do neither very well.

I would say Gilly and Sangakara were the only ones you could call allrounders. Having said that, I dislike the term for anyone who does not bat and bowl.

Akmal is a prime example.........

Its a blessing if your wicketkeeper is a Gilchrist/Sangakara/Dhoni

 

[G.I.Joe]

First off no has ever been picked for slip fielding alone. Secondly if a slip fielder drops a few catches he is simpley moved out of slip. And as for whats the difference i will simply just go and laugh into my coffee, that doesnt even justify an answer. If you play cricket get yourself behind the stumps this year and find out for yourself. I got a lot of respect for guys who field in the slips its a hard place to field.

No one has been picked for slip fielding alone. but there are players that have been picked for fielding alone. Does that qualify them as all rounders? Does squatting and a pretty pair of gloves make you unique?

 

[Migara]

Unless you are like DIlshan, who bats, bowls, keeps and a top class outfielder, keepers are not all rounders.

 

[Dano.85]

No one has been picked for slip fielding alone. but there are players that have been picked for fielding alone. Does that qualify them as all rounders? Does squatting and a pretty pair of gloves make you unique?

No it does not make me or any other keeper unique to have nice gloves, but keeping on its own is a skill. Yes player have been picked for fielding alone but as my reply says not slip fielding, and as my reply was about slip fielding i will stick with it.

 

[Richard]

No one has been picked for slip fielding alone. but there are players that have been picked for fielding alone.

Who were you thinking of?

Even the very best fielders - Rhodes, Bland, Gibbs to give the SAfrican examples - would not have played Test cricket but for their batting.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Who were you thinking of?

Even the very best fielders - Rhodes, Bland, Gibbs to give the SAfrican examples - would not have played Test cricket but for their batting.

Would Solkar have played for India as purely a batsman? Jonty's actually a good shout too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, I don't think any mug can keep wicket; classic straw man there.

It's not a dual role because no-one, in this day and age, ever gets picked just to keep wicket. You don't see wicket keepers batting eleven. Bowlers are often picked regardless of their batting ability and batsmen are often picked regardless of their bowling ability, but wicket keepers are never picked with complete disregard for their batting competancy. Being a decent batsman and contributing in the middle/lower order is part of the job description for any international wicket-keeper, so it's all part of the one greater role.

Possibly not, but their keeping can be sufficiently dire to get them the arse regardless of batting tho; eg Prior after Sri Lanka.

I agree that keeping isn't a "pure" skill anymore (yer Tallons and Taylors would probably remain capless nowadays), but equally it's in a different class to other fielding positions because no batsman or bowler is ever dropped because of their fielding prowess, or lack thereof.

 

[ret]

You don't become an all-rounder just because you can bowl/keep and bat but when you do that effectively. I don't expect a bowling all-rounder to average 40+ with the bat as he is contributing with the ball too. If he is avging around 35 that's acceptable for me to consider him as an all-rounder. Same goes for a keeper who avg around 35 and is good enough to be in the side as a specialist wk (not a batsman who can keep too or a keeper who can bat too)

Also the all-rounders tag depends upon if you are good enough to get in to the side as one of the 4/5 bowlers or keeper and one of the top 6/7 batsmen.

 

[Richard]

I agree that keeping isn't a "pure" skill anymore (yer Tallons and Taylors would probably remain capless nowadays)

No probably about it - such players don't even get games for counties, never mind international sides, any more.

Keith Andrew himself admitted as much when he talked of why he only played 2 Tests - he never took his batting seriously and had no complaints about the preference of either Godfrey Evans or Jim Parks to him.

 

[Richard]

Would Solkar have played for India as purely a batsman? Jonty's actually a good shout too.

Jonty Rhodes clearly played based on his batting; he was good enough to be picked for Test cricket with batting in mind, played well as a batsman for a few years, lost form, got dropped, modified his game, won a recall, and performed very well again for another few years.

Eknath Solkar, like Syed Abid Ali, was a useful bits-and-pieces all-rounder (what Indians tend to call "utility players") who was an important cog in India's greatest-ever side. He could bat a bit and bowl a bit. Yes, if he was a moderate fielder he might well not have played but that's different to being picked almost purely based on fielding. If he was a number-nine batsman and bowler of the standard of, say, Sourav Ganguly or the seam-up version of Tendulkar, I doubt he'd have played Test cricket.

No way to say for sure, of course.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I believe Neil Pickup proves that case.

You try it if it's that easy.

 

[Prince EWS]

Possibly not, but their keeping can be sufficiently dire to get them the arse regardless of batting tho; eg Prior after Sri Lanka.

I agree that keeping isn't a "pure" skill anymore (yer Tallons and Taylors would probably remain capless nowadays), but equally it's in a different class to other fielding positions because no batsman or bowler is ever dropped because of their fielding prowess, or lack thereof.

Yeah, I wasn't saying otherwise. Merely that the wicket keeping role in this day and age requires some batting competency in the middle/lower order, and doing such is simply part of the job description rather than a dual-role. Wicket keeping is a specialist role as such, but part of that role is being able to bat a decent standard in the #6-8 range after the specialist batsmen. Those who do that fantastically (eg. Gilchrist, Dhoni) are not playing as allrounders but merely fulfilling their roles to an exceptional standard.

If they're batting up the order ala Sangakkara/Flower then maybe, but it's still questionable IMO because you still need to find an allrounder to do that batting part of the standard wicket keeper's role and chip in at #7 or so - it's still not quite a dual-role because he can't bat at five AND seven.

 

[jeevan]

Jonty Rhodes clearly played based on his batting; he was good enough to be picked for Test cricket with batting in mind, played well as a batsman for a few years, lost form, got dropped, modified his game, won a recall, and performed very well again for another few years.

Eknath Solkar, like Syed Abid Ali, was a useful bits-and-pieces all-rounder (what Indians tend to call "utility players") who was an important cog in India's greatest-ever side. He could bat a bit and bowl a bit. Yes, if he was a moderate fielder he might well not have played but that's different to being picked almost purely based on fielding. If he was a number-nine batsman and bowler of the standard of, say, Sourav Ganguly or the seam-up version of Tendulkar, I doubt he'd have played Test cricket.

No way to say for sure, of course.

Solkar - like Abid Ali, Madan Lal, Roger Binny and more recently Joginder Sharma - are reasonable domestic seaming all rounders who get picked for international duty and become "utility" players by not being of completely that standard. In the period Solkar was selected, India needed two somebodies to roll their arms for a few overs before the spinners took over. (On occasion even Gavaskar did the job).

Think he was probably initially picked as that type of all-rounder - but kept getting selected somewhat consistently for his catching.

Kapil Dev (re)introduced the notion that Indians should do pace bowling too as a key part of the plan.

 

[zaremba]

Who were you thinking of?

Even the very best fielders - Rhodes, Bland, Gibbs to give the SAfrican examples - would not have played Test cricket but for their batting.

No-one will be picked if they're clearly sub-standard with the bat, but outstanding fielding ability can make a big difference, and might get you picked ahead of a somewhat better batsman, and/or help to cement your place in the team once you're there.

I suspect that Jonty Rhodes falls into this category. Likewise Gus Logie who wasn't a particularly great batsman but was a ridiculously good fielder close to the bat. Keith Arthurton too.

 

[AaronK]

if wicket keepers are considered alrounders.. then what do u call Dilshan.. who not only can bat...keep wickets and also bowle.. he is considered one of the best fielders in the SL side.. what is a good word to describe him?

I perfer the term batsman wicket keeper for those keepers who can bat.. keeper batsman for those who can't bat...

 

[Anil]

an allrounder has to be adept in 3 disciplines in cricket, batting, bowling and fielding...a 'keeper is not an allrounder...

 

[Richard]

No-one will be picked if they're clearly sub-standard with the bat, but outstanding fielding ability can make a big difference, and might get you picked ahead of a somewhat better batsman, and/or help to cement your place in the team once you're there.

I suspect that Jonty Rhodes falls into this category. Likewise Gus Logie who wasn't a particularly great batsman but was a ridiculously good fielder close to the bat. Keith Arthurton too.

Logie and Arthurton were both good Test batsmen for a short period, and got dropped pretty sharpish when they weren't (Logie on a before basis, Arthurton on an after). Similar to Rhodes, whose case I outlined earlier, really.

It might be possible to argue that some received extra chances based on their fielding which they otherwise mightn't have, but Arthurton was a prolific domestic batsman who more than earned the shots he got (and arguably should've had more), Rhodes was easily prolific enough to earn it.

Whether there were better options as Test batsmen than Rhodes at the times in question I wouldn't really be able to comment on (it is certainly possible as there was great strength in depth in SA in the mid-1990s) but I don't have any truck with him playing as often as he did.

 

[Richard]

an allrounder has to be adept in 3 disciplines in cricket, batting, bowling and fielding...a 'keeper is not an allrounder...

Hmm, although most of those who've been decent\good batsmen and bowlers have also tended to be good fielders (in fact I can't really think of any couterwise) I have never counted fielding as an essential part of being an all-rounder. If someone could average 35 with the bat and 27 with the ball in Test cricket I'd call them a damn good all-rounder regardless of whether their fielding was woeful.

Also, wicketkeeping is an adjunct of fielding. Keeping wicket is a very specialised aspect of fielding, as fielding at slip is a slightly less specialised aspect.