What do people make of wicketkeeping standards in the modern era? Have keeping standards declined? Particularly interested in hearing from people who have "been around" for a long time....
Printable View
What do people make of wicketkeeping standards in the modern era? Have keeping standards declined? Particularly interested in hearing from people who have "been around" for a long time....
i blame off-spinners
I blame the shift towards looking at a wicketkeeper's batting ability instead of glovework
basically Gilly's fault WAC
Would be interesting to know how much work keepers would put into their batting back in the day.
Guys like Tallon, Oldfield & Grout are spoken of with such reverential awe as keepers. Watching Wade miss that stumping off Lyon yesterday made me wonder.
Gilly has clearly changed the game somewhat, in that now teams are desperate for keepers who could arguably play on their batting alone.
Gilly's fault
Was shocked when KOK nominated Paine as the most sound 'keeper in the country. Had no idea things were so bad.
As I recall, Gilchristg won more matches with the bat than he lost with the gloves. Actually can't recall Gilly loosing any matches with the gloves.
Gilly showed that your wicket keeper can also be a dangerous bat and a match winner, but he wasn't a liability with the gloves like some here belive. For some here they belive that you are either good with the gloves or the bat, but not both. Don't know why.
We also don't really know how good some of the golden age keepers were or how many stumpings they would have missed. Prasanna for instance is an excellent keeper, and older doesn't always mean better and they didn't couln't have been many more difficult bowlers to keep to than Warne and Murali.
Though Sonny and Ramadin in tandem would have been a handfull as well.
Yeah Gilchrist is strangely underrated with the gloves. Kept to Shane Warne for basically his whole career, remember, and barely made a mistake.
yeah but warne isn't a ****ing off-spinner
yeah i agree with people above. With emphasis more and more on batting nowadays for keepers, their keeping standards may have dropped
Gilchrist wasn't a bad keeper by any means IMO. The idea of him changing this was more to do with the fact that other sides expected batsmen to be contributing regularly with the bat, and they compromised good gloveman to do that. Or at least that's what I've understood of the whole thing.
I have always wondered how we know just how good keepers were from the early 20th century though.
Where do people get the idea that Gilly wasnt good with the gloves? Just because he was a brilliant bat? He was genuinely superb with both bat and gloves which is what made him great.
Every keeper since has tried to be as good as him but failed in one or both aspects, so i agree its his fault... no one's been good enough to emulate him (Prior looks great but lets see)
I've been watching cricket since the 70s and the wicket keeping standards of today are ****ing diabolical in comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
Sure, Gilchrist started the trend of picking wicketkeepers based on batting ability, but the difference between Gilchrist and the current bunch of batsmen keepers is that Gilchrist's keeping was up to Test standard. It's a ****ing big difference.