Wicketkeeping

[Richard]

That fails to answer the point that there is still the difference between a Stewart and a Russell as there is between a Langer and a Haddin.

Presumably the difference in wicketkeeping between Langer and Haddin?
Personally I would disagree. As far as I'm aware Langer is a terrible wicketkeeper, Haddin an excellent one, while Jack is a phenominal wicketkeeper, Stewart a very good one.
Ie, on a 1-10 scale I'd say:
10, Russell
9, Haddin
7 or 8, Stewart
1, Langer
Therefore there is a different difference.

 

[Craig]

I think Robbie Hart is more the traditional 'keeper, a 'keeper who makes the NZ team on his 'keeping so much batting ability.

 

[viewnut]

the only reason why adam gilchrist is effective, despite the fact he does drop the odd few catches is the fact he scores so many runs so quicky. that 30 odd runs (to use a figure) he can give away with a dropped catch he can make up with the 50 or 100 he scores so regulary (but not atm thou, the dravid drop cost us the test in adelaide).

as for other keepers around the world, taibu is defiantely the best "gloveman" around. latif is getting past his prime, but when in his day (captaincy and dissention in team aside) he was certainly a very very good gloveman. i cannot comment much on jack russell, as i did not get to see much of his career, except for a few matches in WC 96. by far and away, ian healy was best gloveman i have ever seen. his ability to keep to warne was phenomonal, and i remember the number of freakish catches he took. his batting was by no means even in the same ball park as gillys, but his 160* against the west indies at gabba 96 was the greatest innings i have ever seen heals play.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Originally posted by Richard
Gorh, sometimes I wish people would RTFP.
Did I ever mention the idea of picking a poor wicketkeeper over a good or brilliant one? Any wicketkeeper who is picked must, simply, be up to a certain standard. Once you exceed that standard all that matters is batting ability. Once you fail to reach that standard, I would not consider your wicketkeeping worthwhile to be considered in selection.
For me, Stewart, Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Jacobs, Flower and Moin are all up to the standards expected in Test-cricket for wicketkeepers. Hence, if they are better batsmen than any other wicketkeepers of this standard, they should be selected.

Yes. As you have pointed out, there is a difference between a Stewart and a Russell. Now this difference could result in a number of byes, a number of dropped catches, etc. that overall could contribute more to the team than the 10-15 extra runs that a good batsman could do.

You seem to think wicketkeeping is a black-and-white issue. Either you're a good enough keeper, whereupon only your batting first-chance average should matter against the average of the other keepers - or you aren't, so you should be judged as a batsman/bowler. But then, you've got your scale of 1 through 10 on which you judge the keepers - wouldn't you then say that a 10-keeper could be more valuable than an 8-keeper?

 

[Richard]

Not significantly so as to cancel-out a large difference in batting-average. There's not a massive difference between 8 and 10, it will rarely make a difference to a match. If you've got two 'keepers with very similar average (ie within 2 or 3 of each other) then you start to look at small differences in 'keeping.

 

[anzac]

Stewart has always kept for Surrey so it's unfair to label him as a convert. He was picked for England as a specialist batsman because at that time we were going down the road of the specialist keeper.

And Jack Russell would have played 150+ Tests had I been in charge. ATM, I rate Taibu as the best keeper in the world.

didn't know he was already keeping prior to Test selection as a batsman......in recognition of which I have just used his example in another thread suggesting that the NZ selectors might want to take a look at using Papps as opener / keeper for NZ in both forms of the game - even tho' McCullum has taken over the gloves from him this season and is opening with him!!!

 

[Arjun]

First of all, I have been critical of Stewart's wicketkeeping only post-Ashes 2002. Earlier, he was one of the beter players that England had. But after the Ashes and in the home series v/s SA, he was a misfit.

If I wanted a wicketkeeper who could bat, I would only go in for someone who can bat VERY well. Like an Adam Gilchrist. Nobody who's just about average. His wicketkeeping also has to be good enough to save a team. Otherwise, I would go in for a better wicektkeeper.

 

[marc71178]

No, two thirds of a season averaging all but 60, regardless of where he came in.

And regardless of the fact that the other third was rubbish so you can discount it.

I don't think batting position detracts from runs scored.

Hmm, what the name of that Australian wicketkeeper you constantly put down?

What's that argument you use about a muppet called Ramprakash?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Presumably the difference in wicketkeeping between Langer and Haddin?
Personally I would disagree. As far as I'm aware Langer is a terrible wicketkeeper, Haddin an excellent one, while Jack is a phenominal wicketkeeper, Stewart a very good one.
Ie, on a 1-10 scale I'd say:
10, Russell
9, Haddin
7 or 8, Stewart
1, Langer
Therefore there is a different difference.

Langer is a competent keeper. He was picked for the Aussies as a back up at first, someone help me here! Haddin I'm not sure is that different to Stewie in his prime.

I was thinking 10v8 and 8v6.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Out of 10, I'd give Langers 'keeping 5.

 

[Richard]

Now you mention that it rings a bell... however on that scale I'd rate Dravid and Maher as 6 and absolutely no higher. Surely if Langer was as good as Maher he'd at least have been considered for the role that's been wasted on Maher? Surely, as halsey suggests, he could be no better than 5.
And believe me, Haddin is a very good wicketkeeper. Slightly better, possibly, than Stewart.

 

[Richard]

And regardless of the fact that the other third was rubbish so you can discount it.

No, I haven't discounted it, it was disappointing. But I still think he could be capable of repeating the first two, rather than the second one.

Hmm, what the name of that Australian wicketkeeper you constantly put down?

Gilchrist, I assume. What's that got to do with anything? Have I ever said I rate his runs less because they come from seven? No, I've only ever said I don't consider those that have come courtesy of dropped catches and Umpriring let-offs worth much.

What's that argument you use about a muppet called Ramprakash?

That failures opening don't detract from constant success in the middle-order. Nothing to do with trying to subtract value from runs scored from a lower batting position - to do with subtracting the value of failures when batting in the wrong position.

 

[marc71178]

No, I haven't discounted it, it was disappointing. But I still think he could be capable of repeating the first two, rather than the second one.

And considering his lack of experience, he's equally capable of repeating the slump.

That failures opening don't detract from constant success in the middle-order. Nothing to do with trying to subtract value from runs scored from a lower batting position - to do with subtracting the value of failures when batting in the wrong position.

Let me guess, the "First chance (or-make-it-up-as-you-go-along-to-make-your-"facts"-work) average" does that correctly?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Let me guess, the "First chance (or-make-it-up-as-you-go-along-to-make-your-"facts"-work) average" does that correctly?

Lol

 

[Tim]

During the period of 1997-2001, Adam Parore was an outstanding wicket keeper & he can thank Steve Rixon for that because he made him work very hard.

Infact I don't think I ever saw Parore make a mistake behind the stumps ever during that period of time, that includes stumping chances and making saves down the legside.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Now you mention that it rings a bell... however on that scale I'd rate Dravid and Maher as 6 and absolutely no higher. Surely if Langer was as good as Maher he'd at least have been considered for the role that's been wasted on Maher? Surely, as halsey suggests, he could be no better than 5.
And believe me, Haddin is a very good wicketkeeper. Slightly better, possibly, than Stewart.

No matter, the point is you fail to account for the 10/8 difference.

 

[marc71178]

No matter, the point is you fail to account for the 10/8 difference.

Surely Richard isn't ignoring the points which he's wrong on - that's so out of character!

 

[Richard]

I think Robbie Hart is more the traditional 'keeper, a 'keeper who makes the NZ team on his 'keeping so much batting ability.

Could it be because he is the only decent wicketkeeper left in the country?

 

[Richard]

Surely Richard isn't ignoring the points which he's wrong on - that's so out of character!

No, I've attempted to explain it - I don't think you need a 10-standard wicketkeeper if you've got an 8-standard one who is as brilliant with the bat as Stewart was.

 

[Richard]

And considering his lack of experience, he's equally capable of repeating the slump.
Let me guess, the "First chance (or-make-it-up-as-you-go-along-to-make-your-"facts"-work) average" does that correctly?

Yes, capable, but I don't think it will happen.
If you want to try and dispute the legitimacy of the first-chance scores I quote, you really are running-out of ideas.