The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Wisden - W.A.Oldfield - the star keeper

 

[kyear2]

The key quote from that Wisden article is;



Prior to Alan Knott it seems that Bert Oldfield was a consistent favourite. For example, Walter Hammond in his biography thought that Oldfield was the best keeper he saw while Cameron the fastest stumper.

And Ames apparently even after Knott was playing was still seen as the better wicketkeeper batsman. That puts those 4 plus Gilchrist in an elite group. The fact though that Bradman played with Oldfield and Tallon and favored Tallon shouldn't be ignored, adding his name to that group. Tallon being the worst bat of the group and Gilly the least accomplished with the gloves.

Really can't loose with any of the six really, with Healy and Evans not far behind.

Adam Gilchrist
Allan Knott
Bert Oldfield
H.B. Cameron
Les Ames
Don Tallon

Ian Healy
Godfrey Evans

 

[the big bambino]

Keeping and Fielding are two attributes, in my opinion, which can only be fairly judged by one's eyes. Batting and Bowling have statistics that can be analysed, compared, and scorecards tend to reflect good performances...but keeping and fielding are just so subjective.

You use your own eyes when you read the evidence of a credible witness you know.

 

[watson]

And Ames apparently even after Knott was playing was still seen as the better wicketkeeper batsman. That puts those 4 plus Gilchrist in an elite group. The fact though that Bradman played with Oldfield and Tallon and favored Tallon shouldn't be ignored, adding his name to that group. Tallon being the worst bat of the group and Gilly the least accomplished with the gloves.

Really can't loose with any of the six really, with Healy and Evans not far behind.

Adam Gilchrist
Allan Knott
Bert Oldfield
H.B. Cameron
Les Ames
Don Tallon

Ian Healy
Godfrey Evans

Also depends on team balance who you pick.

If none of your bowlers can bat very well then a keeper-batsman like Gilchrist, Knott, Ames or Healy is mandatory. However. if your team has a good bowling allrounder capable of batting at No.7 like Imran or Kapil Dev then the likes of Oldfield, Evans, and Tallon come into play. I'm not entirely sure how good a batsman Cameron was tbh - probably a No.7?

 

[the big bambino]

Cameron test av of 30 and fc av of 37 suggests he could play. Just read his wisden obit and they comment that he was a hard hitter with a technique.

 

[Red]

I don't think Ames was a particularly good keeper.

 

[the big bambino]

SA had a few keeper batsmen in the period. There was Billy Wade and Ronnie Grieverson who kept for the Saffers soon after Cameron's early death.

 

[cnerd123]

Too many flaws with the argument that "Lots of credible sources say he's the best, so he must be"

These eye witness have only seen cricketers who played in their era, not those before and after. How many people, if any, can claim to have seen both Don Tallon and Prasnna Jayawaradene keep? Or Oldfield and Gilchrist? Or Ames and Healy? How can you make a reasonable comparison when you haven't seen them both?

It is also certainly true that we, as humans, tend to look back at our past with rose-tinted glasses. We get nostalgic. We remember things fondly. And while it may not be the case for every eyewitness report of cricketer ever, it is a factor to consider. I mean you can already hear it with current cricketers-turned-commentators who are busy lavishing praise on the players they played with or against. Cricket writers who talk about their childhood heroes are obviously gonna be a bit biased. It happens.

Which brings me to another point...it's pretty natural that players are going to lavish praise and not openly criticize their teammates and opponents in terms of their cricketing ability. They are going to be respectful, and if you go about saying everyone you played with is **** it doesn't make you career look any better now does it? If you just go by what these retired cricketers say about the players of their era, you'd think they were all ATGs. "The best I ever played with" does not equate to best of all time.

So yea, personally I wouldn't right out say guys like Oldfield and Tallon were the best. They are up there. I agree with Watson that you could form a list of about 6 (maybe 10) or so great glovemen and probably interchange between them with no noticeable dip in quality. Batting ability and personality will come into play when selecting an XI. But you can't crown anyone as a clear Number 1, not with the limited evidence on hand.

 

[the big bambino]

Too many flaws with the argument that "Lots of credible sources say he's the best, so he must be"

Really? What are they? Please don't refer me back to the rest of your post I have deleted. It doesn't represent any sort of argument. Just a bunch of suppositions that people from the past can't critically assess what they see. Or that they didn't live long enough to see Ian Healy play, which is kind of faulting them for their mortality. Or that they look at the past through rose tinted glasses: A cliché you offer instead of any evidence. Besides they were talking about their contemporaries. In fact Strudwick picked 4 spread over 3 generations. Which contradicts the "rose tinted" accusation.

I don't see why you can't take witnesses at their word. You can't see everything for yourself. The only way to make an assessment for most cricketers is by reading direct accounts.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Really? What are they? Please don't refer me back to the rest of your post I have deleted. It doesn't represent any sort of argument. Just a bunch of suppositions that people from the past can't critically assess what they see. Or that they didn't live long enough to see Ian Healy play, which is kind of faulting them for their mortality. Or that they look at the past through rose tinted glasses: A cliché you offer instead of any evidence. Besides they were talking about their contemporaries. In fact Strudwick picked 4 spread over 3 generations. Which contradicts the "rose tinted" accusation.

I don't see why you can't take witnesses at their word. You can't see everything for yourself. The only way to make an assessment for most cricketers is by reading direct accounts.

He's saying that a ranking of wicketkeepers is impossible because there's absolutely no credible way to compare Don Tallon with PJ, because those who saw Tallon, in all likelihood might not have seen PJ. Wicketkeeping, more than anything requires a first hand experience to judge properly, because we don't even have stats to fall back on. He does have a point. There's just no way we can compare.

 

[kyear2]

We know a top tier keeper when we see one though. P.J. is the only consistently genuine world class wicketkeeper playing at the moment, before him the last was Gilchrist, before that Healy. If we can tell, why can't historians and past players, especially past great keepers who knows what they are looking for.

So even if the judges haven't seen p.j or Healy, that doesn't make Oldfield or Tallon less top tier. Additionally most of them saw Knott and acknowledged he had a chance to be as good as Oldfield, who among us is ready to state the claim that p.j. is as good as Allan Knott? They are always guys that bridges generations that make comparisons easier. Additionally we trust the judges when it comes to batsmen and bowlers as well, not just stats, otherwise Barrington would be seen as second only to Bradman, Sutcliffe seen as Hobbs superior and no one would mention Viv or Wasim for ATG consideration, far less near unanimous selections.

 

[the big bambino]

@Overrated Sanity

Of course Strudwick never commented on PJ. Strudwick is dead. But we can. It is after all a CW thread. We've seen one and can read about the other and make a judgment. So for eg If Bradman had no cause to reappraise his opinion on Tallon at the time of his death we can say he thought him superior to the likes of Knott. I have seen Knott and PJ. I can rate Knott superior. Overlay Bradman's opinion and we have an indirect comparison with PJ. That's how you can compare over generations. A point I was getting at when I said Strudwick picked men over 3 generations.

Of course you can dismiss all of that by saying Bradman was too given to romanticising the past to be trusted. As was Strudwick - or Hammond - or Gilligan - or the lot of them. I think it is a bit dismissive to cast aside the best evidence you have to make a comparison but some do I guess.

Besides there are stats on keepers. Dismissals per innings and byes per hundred runs.

 

[the big bambino]

We know a top tier keeper when we see one though. P.J. is the only consistently genuine world class wicketkeeper playing at the moment, before him the last was Gilchrist, before that Healy. If we can tell, why can't historians and past players, especially past great keepers who knows what they are looking for.

So even if the judges haven't seen p.j or Healy, that doesn't make Oldfield or Tallon less top tier. Additionally most of them saw Knott and acknowledged he had a chance to be as good as Oldfield, who among us is ready to state the claim that p.j. is as good as Allan Knott? They are always guys that bridges generations that make comparisons easier. Additionally we trust the judges when it comes to batsmen and bowlers as well, not just stats, otherwise Barrington would be seen as second only to Bradman, Sutcliffe seen as Hobbs superior and no one would mention Viv or Wasim for ATG consideration, far less near unanimous selections.

Ha! Basically the point I was making. Beat me to it!

 

[Red]

Stats for keeping are pretty misleading, more so than batsmen or bowler's stats which can be misleading too!

Keepers at top level by rarely let byes thru just by lack of skill. It's usually 90% the bowlers wrongdoing, a leggie throws one way down leg side or a quick bounces one that flies over the keepers head. If a keeper doesn't have bowlers who do this to him...

Likewise, a keeper with outswing bowlers will take more catches than one with more in swing bowlers...

Likewise, good spinners create more stumping opportunities....

 

[kyear2]

Cameron test av of 30 and fc av of 37 suggests he could play. Just read his wisden obit and they comment that he was a hard hitter with a technique.

From the extensive searching and reading that I have been doing in it seems that he was a legitimate no. 7 batsman and an under dated performer on CW. For mine, the best wicketkeeper batsman South Africa has produced.

Regarding Ames, no one says he was the best keeper, lots state that he was the best wicketkeeper batsman even at his death, which was after Knott ' s playing career. No one speaks of his glove work in the same glowing terms as the others except that he was Jaradine's first choice pick for body line. We can probably surmise he was a Gilchrist type who was great but just short of the top tier guys with the gloves. Though as I have previously indicated his test performance with the bat doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny, but he did have 100 first class tons.

 

[the big bambino]

@Monk

I get all of that, no problem. While I'd rely on opinion more than stats for a keeper the best ones nevertheless have the best stats such as they are.

Besides there are keepers who make dismissals. Which is why I'm impressed by comments about Cameron's swiftness in stumping.

Like wise I've seen an ordinary bowler like Ray Bright apparently create heaps of chances that Wayne Phillips kept fluffing. That doesn't mean Bright was a top flight bowler at test level. Rather batsmen got ****y with him bcos they knew Phillips would screw up as likely as not.

 

[OverratedSanity]

We know a top tier keeper when we see one though. P.J. is the only consistently genuine world class wicketkeeper playing at the moment, before him the last was Gilchrist, before that Healy. If we can tell, why can't historians and past players, especially past great keepers who knows what they are looking for.

So even if the judges haven't seen p.j or Healy, that doesn't make Oldfield or Tallon less top tier. Additionally most of them saw Knott and acknowledged he had a chance to be as good as Oldfield, who among us is ready to state the claim that p.j. is as good as Allan Knott? They are always guys that bridges generations that make comparisons easier. Additionally we trust the judges when it comes to batsmen and bowlers as well, not just stats, otherwise Barrington would be seen as second only to Bradman, Sutcliffe seen as Hobbs superior and no one would mention Viv or Wasim for ATG consideration, far less near unanimous selections.

No one's dismissing their opinion and saying Tallon and Oldfield were rubbish. Far from it. But it's absolutely impossible and pointless to use anecdotal evidence, and only anecdotal evidence to compare players so far separated by time. A direct comparison between Tallon and PJ is hence completely impractical. People like Knott are different. As you said, we have enough footage of Knott which is further backed up by contemporary praise to see that he was without doubt better than PJ. But when you're comparing keepers separated by 70-80 years of history, it's just dumb to directly compare them.

@Overrated Sanity

Of course Strudwick never commented on PJ. Strudwick is dead. But we can. It is after all a CW thread. We've seen one and can read about the other and make a judgment. So for eg If Bradman had no cause to reappraise his opinion on Tallon at the time of his death we can say he thought him superior to the likes of Knott. I have seen Knott and PJ. I can rate Knott superior. Overlay Bradman's opinion and we have an indirect comparison with PJ. That's how you can compare over generations. A point I was getting at when I said Strudwick picked men over 3 generations.

Of course you can dismiss all of that by saying Bradman was too given to romanticising the past to be trusted. As was Strudwick - or Hammond - or Gilligan - or the lot of them. I think it is a bit dismissive to cast aside the best evidence you have to make a comparison but some do I guess.

Besides there are stats on keepers. Dismissals per innings and byes per hundred runs.

Why do you keep repeating that I'm "casting aside" the evidence? Weird.
And the bolded part I just don't agree with. Wicketkeepr stats like mislead more often than painting a clear picture of how good a keeper was. Which is why, for keepers, contemporary opinion is really important, which is the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of saying (ie)expert opinion is useless. Again, if the keepers are separated by several decades of history, making it very unlikely anyone will have seen both play, it makes comparisons meaningless

 

[cnerd123]

When did I say Tallon and Oldfield weren't top tier? I literally had this sentence in my post:

So yea, personally I wouldn't right out say guys like Oldfield and Tallon were the best. They are up there. I agree with Watson that you could form a list of about 6 (maybe 10) or so great glovemen and probably interchange between them with no noticeable dip in quality.

 

[kyear2]

Don't know if you mean me, but I was responding to Overratedsanity's post.

BTW in one of Watson ' s threads, re. Rare footage (not the last one) with Lindwall and Miller there is some extensive footage of Tallon keeping.

 

[Dan]

Current-day Likeable ****s XI:

1. Cheteshwar Pujara
2. Hashim Amla
3. Kane Williamson
4. Ajinka Rahane
5. Steven Smith *
6. AB de Villiers +
7. Nasir Hossain
8. Jason Holder
9. Bhuvi Kumar
10. Trent Boult
11. Nathan Lyon

12. Chris Woakes