• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Are wicket keepers allrounders

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
After a quick flick through the best 4 allrounders i see no one as yet picked a wk. The days of being picked as a wk on your glovework alone are long gone. In years gone if your wk could avg over 30 that was a massive bonus, nowadays if they dont they are dropped. I am a wk opening the batting for my club and i think that i am a allrounder, i class my self as a keeper/batsman. Or as some young player at our clubs says can any mug keep wicket? I did try to add a poll but it didnt get published on the thread?
 
Last edited:

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
After a quick flick through the best 4 allrounders i see no one as yet picked a wk. The days of being picked as a wk on your glovework alone are long gone. In years gone if your wk could avg over 30 that was a massive bonus, nowadays if they dont they are dropped. I am a wk opening the batting for my club and i think that i am a allrounder, i class my self as a keeper/batsman. Or as some young player at our clubs says can any mug keep wicket?
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.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Who gets picked for their catching at 1st slip, apart from Mark Taylor in 96 and 97? He was so bad during that time, his batting didn't qualify him as an allrounder.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Who gets picked for their catching at 1st slip, apart from Mark Taylor in 96 and 97? He was so bad during that time, his batting didn't qualify him as an allrounder.
yeah, Imran wasn't a good bowler and batsman simultaneously either... :-O
 

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
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.
Thats my point, in england is prior the best gloveman no, is he the best keeper batsman maybe, but he needs both to get in the squad at the mo, and i would also put alec stewart up with the two you named.
 

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Wk's are all rounders only if full time slip fielders are too.
If you can name one player who has ever been picked to play at test level for only his slip fielding alone then you might have a very small point. If you had a great slip fielder who avg 25 with the bat or an ok slip fielder who avg 45 the better batsman would be picked and the slip fielding would not come into thinking
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Funnily enough, all the arguments being put forward in favour of the notion that wicket keepers are allrounders are the exact arguments I'd use against it. Yes, it's becoming increasingly important for wicket keepers to be good batsmen, but that just means it's all part of the job description now. There are no specialist wicket keepers in Test cricket, but there are specialist batsmen and bowlers - wicket keeping alone is not a convincing specialist skill without batting to go along with it so a wicket-keeper who bats well is not performing a dual-role.

With the likes of Flower and Sangakkara who batted in the top five, justified their selection as batsmen alone and kept wicket as well you could make an argument for it as they are indeed playing a dual-role: batsman and wk/batsman. Someone batting seven and keeping wicket really isn't an allrounder though, even if he bats exceptionally well like Gilchrist, because batting seven and batting to a decent standard is part and parcel of the greater wicket-keeping in this day and age.
 
Last edited:

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Funnily enough, all the arguments being put forward in favour of the notion that wicket keepers are allrounders are the exact arguments I'd use against it. Yes, it's becoming increasingly important for wicket keepers to be good batsmen, but that just means it's all part of the job description now. There are no specialist wicket keepers in Test cricket, but there are specialist batsmen and bowlers - wicket keeping alone is not a convincing specialist skill without batting to go along with it so a wicket-keeper who bats well is not performing a dual-role.

With the likes of Flower and Sangakkara who batted in the top five, justified their selection as batsmen alone and kept wicket as well you could make an argument for it as they are indeed playing a dual-role: batsman and wk/batsman. Someone batting seven and keeping wicket really isn't an allrounder though, even if he bats exceptionally well like Gilchrist, because batting seven and batting to a decent standard is part and parcel of the greater wicket-keeping in this day and age.
Iam not saying all wicket keeper batsman are allrounders, there are some so-called allrounders out there that would only get in there squad as a bat or as a bowler and not both.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Iam not saying all wicket keeper batsman are allrounders, there are some so-called allrounders out there that would only get in there squad as a bat or as a bowler and not both.
Yeah, but they are still performing a dual-role. Whether or not they're the best available for either role aside, they still do both specialist roles. Wicket-keeping within itself isn't a specialist job anymore - batting middle/lower order and keeping is one player role as wicket keeping with no batting expectations doesn't exist in Test cricket. If Dhoni batted #4 for example I could see justification for him being called an allrounder, but he doesn't.
 

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Yeah, but they are still performing a dual-role. Whether or not they're the best available for either role aside, they still do both specialist roles. Wicket-keeping within itself isn't a specialist job anymore - batting middle/lower order and keeping is one player role as wicket keeping with no batting expectations doesn't exist in Test cricket. If Dhoni batted #4 for example I could see justification for him being called an allrounder, but he doesn't.
So you think any mug can keep wicket? And keeping wicket and batting in the same game is not dual role?
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
So you think any mug can keep wicket? And keeping wicket and batting in the same game is not dual role?
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.
 

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
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.
If you keep wicket and bat you preform a 2d role, it does not matter that we have to do both, allrounder preform a 2d role its the same. And to say keeping is not a specialist role well i just dont buy it, you dont pick the 7 best batsman and then stick some gloves on one and say good luck.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
If you can name one player who has ever been picked to play at test level for only his slip fielding alone then you might have a very small point. If you had a great slip fielder who avg 25 with the bat or an ok slip fielder who avg 45 the better batsman would be picked and the slip fielding would not come into thinking
Could make the same argument for keepers nowadays. If you have a great keeper who averages 25 with the bat and an okay keeper who averages 45, the better batsman would be picked and the keeping would not come into thinking.

Tell me what is so fundamentally different between a keeper and a slipper? Both have to concentrate for extended periods. Could make the argument that the slipper has it tougher because he always has more weirder angles to contend with, doesn't have the gloves, and almost always has to deliver with his batting or he's out of the team.
 

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Could make the same argument for keepers nowadays. If you have a great keeper who averages 25 with the bat and an okay keeper who averages 45, the better batsman would be picked and the keeping would not come into thinking.

Tell me what is so fundamentally different between a keeper and a slipper? Both have to concentrate for extended periods. Could make the argument that the slipper has it tougher because he always has more weirder angles to contend with, doesn't have the gloves, and almost always has to deliver with his batting or he's out of the team.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Personally my description of all-rounder is someone roughly equal in terms of ability with bat and ball.

An all-rounder and a wicketkeeper-batsman are two very different things. The days of the specialist wicketkeeper (at any remotely serious level) have been over for a long time - haven't seen them regularly at Test level for over 40 years now - but an all-rounder of the highest class is and will always remain an extreme rarity.

The two are very unlike, however, in that if you don't have a top-class all-rounder, someone who can get into the side purely based on one of their two disciplines without reference to the other, you're better-off just picking specialists (picking a poor-quality all-rounder like, say, Ronnie Irani weakens your Test side, not strengthens it). Whereas there is no circumstance under which you can afford to just pick the best wicketkeeper - your wicketkeeper's 'keeping must meet a certain minimum standard, but once it does IMO you're best-off just picking the best batsman of those whose 'keeping meets said standard.

With reference specifically to England, Matthew Prior's wicketkeeping did not used to meet that standard, but for the last ~6 months it has done. So maybe he might be of some use as a Test player after all.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Dano.85 said:
you dont pick the 7 best batsman and then stick some gloves on one and say good luck. .
How can you say Bradman wasn't a good batsman? He averaged almost 100 in Test cricket; I completely disagree with the assertion that Bradman was as bad as Chris Martin with the bat.

Dano.85 said:
If you keep wicket and bat you preform a 2d role, it does not matter that we have to do both, allrounder preform a 2d role its the same
It's not the same at all, because there are specialist batsman and specialist bowlers. Doing both means you're playing a dual-role. There aren't any specialist wicket keepers at all though, so keeping wicket combined with batting decently in the lower order combined is one role. You're continuously arguing the straw man by pretending I'm saying that wicket keeping is not important or that you should just pick the best seven batsmen and give the best catcher the gloves but I'm not saying that at all - I'm merely saying that performing the standard role of the wicket keeper batsman in Test cricket (ie. keep to a good standard and have some vague competency with the bat) is not a dual-role.

No Test wicket keepers are genuine tailenders. Being able to bat to a decent standard is a requirement of the wicket keeping position. I'm not saying you have to average 40 or even much more than 20 odd necessarily, but you have to be able to hold your own batting somewhere between 6 and 8, below all the specialist batsmen but above the specialist bowlers. As such, doing such is not playing a dual role because it's not something that's ever split up in a team whereby a wicket keeper just can't bat at all.

There are basically four defined roles players are selected in:

1. Batsman - bat in the top/middle order, score lots of runs
2. Bowler - bowl lots of overs, take lots of wickets cheaply
3. Wicket Keeper - keep wicket to a good standard, bat to a *decent* standard, score *some* runs
4. Allrounder - any combination of the above

Wicket keeping is a defined role so it's theoretically possible for a wicket-keeper to be an allrounder, but someone who bats seven isn't doing a second role as that's all part of the singular role in the team he's selected in. If he bats in the top five and keeps wicket then he's playing a dual-role, but not if he's down in the middle/lower order behind all the other batsmen just chipping in, because he's expected to do that.

I also agree with those who suggested that slips catching is almost as important as wicket keeping. It's a hugely under-rated part of the game.
 
Last edited:

Dano.85

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
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'
 

Top