Page 39 of 216 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989139 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 3238
Like Tree165Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #571
    International Vice-Captain Mike5181's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    City of Sails
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    What made Knott such a class apart from Gilchrist? Would you rather keep to Warne or Underwood?

    And if we're looking for a specialist stumper, then Ames is your man (highest FC stumping/catching ratio by a mile).
    I often wonder where Mark Boucher is rated when we talk about keepers. Is he that far behind guys like Knott?

  2. #572
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike5181 View Post
    I often wonder where Mark Boucher is rated when we talk about keepers. Is he that far behind guys like Knott?
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Knott is definitely a specialist stumper, and possibly the best wicket-keeper of all time according to commenators like Dickie Bird who saw an aweful lot of keepers. The fact that Knott could bat as well is an added bonus.

    Gilchrist was probably not as skillful as Knott behind the stumps, but I didn't hear Warne or McGrath complaining.
    General opinion of a lot of people seems to be that wicketkeeping standards have declined in the modern era. I'm not sure how true this is.

    Older generations seem to rate Tallon very highly. They say you never heard the ball hit his gloves because his actions were so supple and clean. Likewise Knott is rated very highly as a keeper, particularly for his work to Underwood on some ordinary pitches. Engineer is spoken of very highly as well, and he kept to a lot of spinners on Indian pitches, which I imagine is a tough task. Bert Oldfield has a very large amount of stumpings, and is also regarded as a fine craftsman. Godfrey Evans was renowned for keeping up to the stumps to Bedser and making many stumpings from his medium fast bowling.

    I never saw those guys, but the best keeper I saw was Healy. Healy was exceptional to pace and spin, and set a very high standard in what became a great fielding side.

    There is an opinion that Gilchrist wasn't a great keeper. I dispute this. I don't think he was as graceful as some others, but I think he was very effective. I didn't see a heap of Boucher, but I don't think he was ever really tested keeping to a great spinner as some others were. He was certainly effective to high quality pace bowling. Similar to Dujon, very athletic keeper when standing back, but not tested extensively up at the stumps.
    Last edited by Monk; 26-09-2012 at 12:21 AM.

  3. #573
    State Vice-Captain JBMAC's Avatar
    Mahjong Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Qld/Australia
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    General opinion of a lot of people seems to be that wicketkeeping standards have declined in the modern era. I'm not sure how true this is.

    Older generations seem to rate Tallon very highly. They say you never heard the ball hit his gloves because his actions were so supple and clean. Likewise Knott is rated very highly as a keeper, particularly for his work to Underwood on some ordinary pitches. Engineer is spoken of very highly as well, and he kept to a lot of spinners on Indian pitches, which I imagine is a tough task. Bert Oldfield has a very large amount of stumpings, and is also regarded as a fine craftsman. Godfrey Evans was renowned for keeping up to the stumps to Bedser and making many stumpings from his medium fast bowling.

    I never saw those guys, but the best keeper I saw was Healy. Healy was exceptional to pace and spin, and set a very high standard in what became a great fielding side.

    There is an opinion that Gilchrist wasn't a great keeper. I dispute this. I don't think he was as graceful as some others, but I think he was very effective. I didn't see a heap of Boucher, but I don't think he was ever really tested keeping to a great spinner as some others were. He was certainly effective to high quality pace bowling. Similar to Dujon, very athletic keeper when standing back, but not tested extensively up at the stumps.
    There are some pretty fair comments there.I was just a wee lad in '37 when Oldfield retired and can only go on what my late Dad told me.He must have been good to have kept to O'Reilly and Grimmett(70 odd catches,50 odd stumpings) and not off them before someone jumps on me from a great height. I have seen at first hand Tallon,Engineer,Evans,Grout and Maclean and been fortunate enough to be mentored by one of these gents so I am trying not to be biased.If I had to rate them as pure glovemen Don Tallon would be head and shoulders above the rest.Running a very close second would be Grout then Maclean.You have probably never heard of the latter but look him up.If history and a very serious finger injury had not had him dropped after a handful of tests then I's imagined him as an "ATG" and I hate that expression. As fpr you query re technique I will ponder over that and let you know
    Keep Your Feet on The Ground,Keep Reaching for The Stars!

  4. #574
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by JBMAC View Post
    You got to be kidding.You have lineups including all the greats and you would not select a specialist stumper. You are obviously younger or would have selected between Tallon, Grout,Engineer or Maclean.From your own country Walcott was no slouch and neither was Dujon. Both the latter are in front of Ames at least
    best post in forum history IMO

    Also I will have to change my stance on Walcott a little I think!
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick


  5. #575
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by JBMAC View Post
    There are some pretty fair comments there.I was just a wee lad in '37 when Oldfield retired and can only go on what my late Dad told me.He must have been good to have kept to O'Reilly and Grimmett(70 odd catches,50 odd stumpings) and not off them before someone jumps on me from a great height. I have seen at first hand Tallon,Engineer,Evans,Grout and Maclean and been fortunate enough to be mentored by one of these gents so I am trying not to be biased.If I had to rate them as pure glovemen Don Tallon would be head and shoulders above the rest.Running a very close second would be Grout then Maclean.You have probably never heard of the latter but look him up.If history and a very serious finger injury had not had him dropped after a handful of tests then I's imagined him as an "ATG" and I hate that expression. As fpr you query re technique I will ponder over that and let you know
    No, I hadn't heard of Maclean till now. Thanks.

    John Alexander Maclean

    John McLean was a staunch servant of Queensland cricket, leading them with distinction for much of the 1970s. A sturdy but surprisingly agile wicketkeeper, and a limited, albeit solid, batsman, McLean was considered to be a close rival to Rod Marsh for the Australian No. 1 slot, touring New Zealand with Australia in 1969-70. But in 1978-79 he was drafted into an Australian side decimated by defections to World Series Cricket, even though he was past his best. His keeping was dependable, but his batting limitations were exposed by England's spinners.
    Martin Williamson April 2004

    John Maclean | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
    Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan

  6. #576
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,986
    The number seven slot is a very important batting position for any line up and while you would want a quality keeper, you don't want to give up too much with the bat either. The two gentlemen named gives us the best of both worlds with out loosing quality with the gloves. One dowsn't achieve the career number that Gilly did with out being a geat gloveman, especially considering the bowlers he kept to, Warne, Mcgill, Lee ect.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  7. #577
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,404
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    The number seven slot is a very important batting position for any line up and while you would want a quality keeper, you don't want to give up too much with the bat either. The two gentlemen named gives us the best of both worlds with out loosing quality with the gloves. One dowsn't achieve the career number that Gilly did with out being a geat gloveman, especially considering the bowlers he kept to, Warne, Mcgill, Lee ect.
    AWTA

    Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

    Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

    Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

    The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

    And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.
    Last edited by Dan; 26-09-2012 at 04:08 AM. Reason: Better add in the AWTA..
    My sworn enemy:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I give out points for style of which Steve(n) Smith has none.

  8. #578
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,617
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    AWTA

    Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

    Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

    Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

    The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

    And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.
    awta. Richie Benaud has seen quite a few keepers and he found Gilchrist good enough to make a place for him in his side.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  9. #579
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    AWTA

    Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

    Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

    Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

    The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

    And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.
    Gilchrist was good, sure, but if you are placing so much emphasis on batting then why not a superior batsman like Walcott or perhaps Sangakkara? There's an extra 10 runs there and from all reports, the former was excellent with the gloves - Sangakkara fits the 'efficient' category in my eyes but is a colossus at the crease.

    I'd never sacrifice a catch or stumping for a few extra runs myself (let's not forget Gilchrist was a little bit of a hit-and-miss type, either)

  10. #580
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Gilchrist was good, sure, but if you are placing so much emphasis on batting then why not a superior batsman like Walcott or perhaps Sangakkara? There's an extra 10 runs there and from all reports, the former was excellent with the gloves - Sangakkara fits the 'efficient' category in my eyes but is a colossus at the crease.

    I'd never sacrifice a catch or stumping for a few extra runs myself (let's not forget Gilchrist was a little bit of a hit-and-miss type, either)
    I'm not placing so much of an emphasis on batting; I'm merely saying that a balance needs to be reached. There is no point walking in with a number 7 or 8 batsman who averages 15 to face the Martians. I struggle to recall a chance he dropped either - excluding the one that led to him retiring. He kept with distinction for 96 Tests to Warne and McGrath - hardly befitting of a wicketkeeper who would miss catches or stumpings. We all know from watching him, a Gilchrist error was extremely rare (and no wicketkeeper is perfect, as my ridiculous byes count last weekend attests ).

    Onto your other point now. Walcott only averaged 40 while taking the gloves - which, incidentally, is roughly the same as Sangakkara (only Sanga can't be considered nearly as good a wicketkeeper as Walcott or Gilchrist) and Gilchrist in his later, comparatively worse years.

    And Gilchrist, at the start of his career especially, was consistent. Inconsistent batsmen do not average 47. He had a gun period from 1999-2005 with the bat, then became comparatively inconsistent thereafter. From his debut to the end of 2004, he averaged 51. With the gloves, that is 11 points higher than Sanga or Walcott's career stats. From 2005-2008, he was at 39.85-ish, which is on par with their career stats.

    Its not all about batting; nor all about glovework. In my mind, Gilchrist is the best combination for a World XI when his entire package is taken into account.

  11. #581
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,986
    You severly underrate Gilly's keeping. The guy was an excellent keeper and the best combination of the 2 skills, and as you can see from my sig in what order I rate the rest. Lindsay is up there as well.

  12. #582
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Tough on Sangakkara seeing as though he's ripened and hit his prime in recent times - I would imagine it would be much higher even if he'd kept the gloves, but that is pure speculation. I'll always disagree on my childhood hero being the best all-round gloveman though. I have to take the stumper over the run-getter every time. Also, I am surprised you don't value pure wicketkeeping as highly as some seeing as you're a wicketkeeper by the way!

  13. #583
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,119
    Larwood just looks so out of place in an ATG XI for me.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  14. #584
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Eds View Post
    Larwood just looks so out of place in an ATG XI for me.
    Heightist

  15. #585
    State Vice-Captain MrPrez's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,092
    Yeah, he's way overrated due to bodyline. If it hadn't taken place, he wouldn't be near ATXI discussions.
    @CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!

    Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •