• 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.

Best 'Keeper In T' World (nothing to do with batting ability)

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
JohnnyA said:
Then why is he being touted so much? Standing back from the stumps can't be that difficult. What did Foster do to get jumped in the queue? He looked lilke a ballsy batter to me, and he did a consistent job behind the stumps.

And I've NEVER seen any English spinner with raging turn in the last 16 years. They're all sh*t. You'd gotta seriously question what the hell is going on at county level with the crap that has been coming through these last 20 years.

Time to get rid of most of these counties and concentrate the "talent", coaching and money into 6 or 7 regions. All 3 of the paying spectators might be a little disappointed ... but it's for the good of the game.
Foster had a pretty good run in the side until he bust his arm. Sure, there were a couple of innings of character, but his catching appeared to be highly suspect. He lost his ODI place because of his batting - they gave Trescothick the gloves and that was pretty shabby IMO. It's the old rubbish about if 7 can't get the runs, what makes you think that 8 will?

When the selectors decided that Stewart was going to have the gloves again, there was never going to be a place in tests for Foster.

Regarding 'getting rid of the counties', we've been round those circles as well. 2 divisions was an attempt to fudge the issue with the hope that the best players would migrate to Div 1. Promotion and relegation negates the idea, though.
 

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
luckyeddie said:
Foster had a pretty good run in the side until he bust his arm. Sure, there were a couple of innings of character, but his catching appeared to be highly suspect. He lost his ODI place because of his batting - they gave Trescothick the gloves and that was pretty shabby IMO. It's the old rubbish about if 7 can't get the runs, what makes you think that 8 will?

When the selectors decided that Stewart was going to have the gloves again, there was never going to be a place in tests for Foster.

Regarding 'getting rid of the counties', we've been round those circles as well. 2 divisions was an attempt to fudge the issue with the hope that the best players would migrate to Div 1. Promotion and relegation negates the idea, though.
Shame about Foster ... not too late I hope. I tend to look for talent and character in a player, and I'm sure I saw a glimmer of something there. County stats are completely false (Ed Smith anyone), so I don't care who has the better county batting records.

His keeping was good enough, and I'm sure it will improve. It's not that difficult, and it's not like we have a spinner worthy of the name!

Read's gotta show me something with the bat in the tour of Sri Lanka to convince me he has the balls to stand up when it's needed.

Having a tail that starts at 7 is a surefire recipe for disaster ... maybe 6 if you ask Freddy to bat 6th. Especially when you consider, that of the new crop of fast bowlers, only Simon jones can bat a little bit. England's next keeper HAS to be able to bat, or else England will be screwed.

Forcing Alec Stewart into retirement, against his wishes and 4 years too early IMHO could be the worse thing England (management, press and public) every did. Personally, I think that one decision could **** England up for years to come.

... lose early wickets - they're screwed, middle order collapse - they're screwed. Hell they couldn't even manage 400 against that less than mediocre Bangledesh team.

England are in BIG BIG trouble with this current middle / lower middle order!!!!!!!!
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Stewart went one year too late never mind too early.

His keeping has been patchy at best and he's not been contributing with the bat to the extent he has.

Read, in case it's escaped your notice, is arguably a better bat than Foster.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Top_Cat said:
Liam, without putting too fine a point on it, your list is ludicrous. Putting the 'keepers you have above Gilchrist flies in the face of all available evidence (not just statistical) and I can only conclude a bias against Gilchrist. Putting Sangakkara in the same ballpark as Gilchrist for ability is pretty insulting even, let alone putting Patel and Hart above him.
Everytime I've seen Taibu I've been impressed. What I saw of Patel last year was very good, and Hart was extremely solid from my memory when NZ toured us. Granted that I haven't seen Boucher for a couple of years. When I last saw him, he was technically sound. When I saw Gilchrist earlier this year, he was ordinary (admittedly on ordinary pitches). My list may be a bit misleading in that it seems as though I place a wide gap between Hart and Gilchrist. That's not the case. In my mind it is very close. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in judgement though and upon reconsidering, Gilchrist is alot better than Sangakarra. I still stand by saying that Hart and Patel are better 'keepers than Gilchrist. Consider that Patel and Hart made their respective national sides for their glovework, not batting prowess. They were picked ahead of a few much better batting options. Gilchrist, let's face, would not have made the Test side with an FC average 25-.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Then why is he being touted so much? Standing back from the stumps can't be that difficult. What did Foster do to get jumped in the queue? He looked lilke a ballsy batter to me, and he did a consistent job behind the stumps.
I myself wondered what he did wrong too. I remember last year in a huge Aussie score (can't remember where or when and I can't find the scorecard because I can't get to Cricinfo), he didn't let through a single bye. I remember pointing it out to the Foster baggers on the forums. ;)

Everytime I've seen Taibu I've been impressed. What I saw of Patel last year was very good, and Hart was extremely solid from my memory when NZ toured us. Granted that I haven't seen Boucher for a couple of years. When I last saw him, he was technically sound. When I saw Gilchrist earlier this year, he was ordinary (admittedly on ordinary pitches). My list may be a bit misleading in that it seems as though I place a wide gap between Hart and Gilchrist. That's not the case. In my mind it is very close. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in judgement though and upon reconsidering, Gilchrist is alot better than Sangakarra. I still stand by saying that Hart and Patel are better 'keepers than Gilchrist. Consider that Patel and Hart made their respective national sides for their glovework, not batting prowess. They were picked ahead of a few much better batting options. Gilchrist, let's face, would not have made the Test side with an FC average 25-.
Can't really disagree with much here. :)
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
Bob Taylor could stand up to Mike Hendrick easily - the best keeper I've seen in my lifetime (although Knott wasn't far behind). All others I judge by his standards. If Taylor gets a 9.5 and Knott 9, Russell would certainly be an 8 and Stewart maybe 6.5 (with 5 being county standard).
How would you rate Kirmani, Eddie? and if you have seen enough of him, Sadanand Vishwanath?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Top_Cat said:
I just can't believe this lack of acknowledgement of the 'keeping of Adam Gilchrist. If we were to use Marc's example:
I only used that to illustrat the Russell vs Stewart argument Corey.

They kept to similar standards of attack, but Gilly has the advantage of keeping to the best attack for many a year, so is expected to get more!
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I only used that to illustrat the Russell vs Stewart argument Corey.
Yeah I know but I was just using your numbers rather than your 'example' I guess.

They kept to similar standards of attack, but Gilly has the advantage of keeping to the best attack for many a year, so is expected to get more!
Indeed but he still has to take the catches and I reckon he's taken enough of the tough grabs to suggest that he's of a pretty high standard. Not as high as some of the quick-silver keepers like Taylor, Knott, Healy and Russell but still, one of the best going around currently.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
JohnnyA said:
County stats are completely false (Ed Smith anyone), so I don't care who has the better county batting records.
Awaits Richard's response...


JohnnyA said:
Read's gotta show me something with the bat in the tour of Sri Lanka to convince me he has the balls to stand up when it's needed.
And he didn't show that in the ODI's in England last summer then?


JohnnyA said:
Especially when you consider, that of the new crop of fast bowlers, only Simon jones can bat a little bit. England's next keeper HAS to be able to bat, or else England will be screwed.
Messrs Hoggard and Anderson would disagree here for certain.
And Johnson isn't too bad either.


JohnnyA said:
Forcing Alec Stewart into retirement, against his wishes and 4 years too early IMHO
Only 4? Don't you mean 10? For me, it was the right time to go, didn't subject his replacement to an Ashes tour first up for one thing.


JohnnyA said:
... lose early wickets - they're screwed, middle order collapse - they're screwed. Hell they couldn't even manage 400 against that less than mediocre Bangledesh team.
And that was purely due to their batting wasn't it, nothing to do with the wickets?
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
anilramavarma said:
How would you rate Kirmani, Eddie? and if you have seen enough of him, Sadanand Vishwanath?
I thought Kiri was quite exceptional keeping to medium pacers - he almost knew what Kapil was going to do before the ball left his hand. I rated Engineer highly - but I think Kirmani was probably more secure (and fun to watch too).

I can't honestly say I've seen anything of Sadanand Viswanath - I think he only played 3 tests (all v Sri Lanka). I know he played against England a few times in ODI's - but only because I looked him up earlier. Sorry.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Re the 'England will be screwed'.....

Well, duh.

At the end of the day, if you can't get the runs with 6 batsmen, what makes you think that you can get them with 7?

The number of times in the past that England have gone into a game with just 2 main-line seamers, a trundler and a token spinner can be added to those cases too - it's negative, playing for a draw before the game starts.

Nope.

6 batsmen (at least one who can turn his arm over, eg Freddie)
1 specialist keeper
4 bowlers.

To win a game, you don't have to bat the opposition out of sight (although it helps) but you do have to take 20 wickets. A top-notch keeper will help there.

OK, if the guy cannot hold a bat, that's fair comment but if his average is say 25 as opposed to 40, a top-notch specialist will make up for that deficit by doing his job better than the part-timer
 

Kimbo

International Debutant
Hadlee said Smithy was the best keeper he bowled to in NZ. He rated Knott as the best of his time because he was equally adept at standing up as back.
 

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
luckyeddie said:
Re the 'England will be screwed'.....

Well, duh.

At the end of the day, if you can't get the runs with 6 batsmen, what makes you think that you can get them with 7?

The number of times in the past that England have gone into a game with just 2 main-line seamers, a trundler and a token spinner can be added to those cases too - it's negative, playing for a draw before the game starts.

Nope.

6 batsmen (at least one who can turn his arm over, eg Freddie)
1 specialist keeper
4 bowlers.

To win a game, you don't have to bat the opposition out of sight (although it helps) but you do have to take 20 wickets. A top-notch keeper will help there.

OK, if the guy cannot hold a bat, that's fair comment but if his average is say 25 as opposed to 40, a top-notch specialist will make up for that deficit by doing his job better than the part-timer
We're looking at my posts from opposite angles :)

England will have NO depth to their lower order batting with their future bowling lineup (Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson, Jones???). Which of these guys are going to average 25 against a team like Austrialia or South Africa. If Read can't bat, then it's a case of get England 6 down, you may as well have them all out.

I want the stronger batting to avoid getting tossed over of 180 every inning. If they can average over 250, it gives them a chance if these bowlers are as potent as we hope they will be.

You think that the extra batter is to "bat the opposition out of sight" ... a negative tactic to enable the team to get big runs and prevent getting beat. My point is that they will get consistently beat if they have no depth. Forget about big runs ... that doesn't happen with England. The batters don't have the mentality to achieve large totals consistently. When did England ever consitently get big runs? How many times have they capitulated in the 150-200 range?

England's top order is strong, middle order is inconsistent, and lower order is very weak- 6 down = virtual all out.

You seem to forget that my point was about Alec Stewart balancing the England team, giving them the extra batter and bowler.

Essentially with Alec you had 7 batters (Vaughn to Freddy) and 5 bowlers (Freddy to Harmy) = that's 13 players in effect and lots of options.

Now it's more like 6 batters, a WK who avaerages in the 20's, and 4 bowlers ... in effect 10 players.

They should never have let Alec retire. Biggest mistake England have made in the last 10 years. It's typical of the reactionary nature of English cricket ...
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
JohnnyA said:
They should never have let Alec retire. Biggest mistake England have made in the last 10 years. It's typical of the reactionary nature of English cricket ...
1/ I was under impression that its the player's decision. :rolleyes:
2/ When would you have preferred them to expose a young 'keeper? Stewart isn't young and wasn't getting any younger. What difference would it have made when they replaced him? Now or five years from now, the new 'keeper would still need an adjustment period! It's better to do it as soon as possible IMO.
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
There's no way Stewart was going to be around for the WC 2007, so there was no point for him to continue to play & then retire in late 2004/early 2005 leaving England with little time to blood a new keeper.

He's done the right thing and given England 4 years now to give Read time to develop his game at the highest level. I personally don't think he could have timed his retirement any better...he left the game still scoring runs which is better than just carrying on & battling when age really catches up with him.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
1/ I was under impression that its the player's decision. :rolleyes:
2/ When would you have preferred them to expose a young 'keeper? Stewart isn't young and wasn't getting any younger. What difference would it have made when they replaced him? Now or five years from now, the new 'keeper would still need an adjustment period! It's better to do it as soon as possible IMO.
1. Stewie succumbed to press, media and "expert" pressure. Every interview he was being asked when he's going to quit. It's clear to anyone with half an ounce of wit that he did not want to quit. He was pressured into quitting.

2. Expose a new keeper when Stewie retires. Not before. Like with ANY position. Seems logical to me. I can see the management meeting: "yeah, i think we should weaken our team now, not later ... becasue then we will have a weakened team for longer" :rolleyes:

"What difference would it make" ... huh? That's silly. By that logic Ambrose and Walsh should have been replaced 10 years ago. Nonsense. If they're good enough they'll adapt quickly whenever they're picked, and wherever they play. Otherwise, we'll find someone else. You should always play your best players.

By that logic we should replace Thorpe and Hussain and Butcher now. Imagine the chaos of that middle order. Why are people not urging Thorpe to retire? He's caused more agro and problems for England than any other player. We have plenty of lesser mediocre players to replace these three. You never know, in 4 or 5 years, these new players might raise themselves from they're mediocrity and become average ... then we'd have to replace them :rolleyes:

Play your best team ... always. Stewie could have played test cricket for another 4 or 5 years. He was the fitest member of the team BAR NONE. He was more dedicated BAR NONE. He wanted to play for England more than any other player. His game is all based on timing ... and that has not deserted him one little bit.

This is pure AGEISM with Stewie. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's no way Stewart was going to be around for the WC 2007, so there was no point for him to continue to play & then retire in late 2004/early 2005 leaving England with little time to blood a new keeper.

He's done the right thing and given England 4 years now to give Read time to develop his game at the highest level.
Sorry. The new keeper should know how to catch the damn ball. You don't need 5 years to learn that!!! There is no adaption to be done, save the usual matter of getting adapted to the team and the other players ... like every player has to do ... and if he can't bat, then there's no adjustment to be made ... welcome back to county cricket mate (see Steve Rhodes).

So what Stewie doesn't make the next World Cup. Who gives a sh*t abnout One Day Cricket and the World Cup ... I don't. He'd already retired from the Mickey Mouse game anyway.

Like I said, Stewie was fit enough and enthusiastic enough to play for another 4 or 5 years. Nobody loved playing for England more than Stewie. He was the most important member of that team in terms of balancing the lineup. Now it looks chaotic.

Backward step IMHO, not a forward step.
 

Top