Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
yeah this is what I am disagreeing with I guess. A pure WK can average less than other WK with the bat but still be a gun bat.
-
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.
Will we ever see a pure wicket-keeper selected to play tests for Australia again?
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
Howe_zat
Audio File
???
It's his definition. Use 'specialist' if you prefer that word. The entire point of the discussion was to talk about a keeper who can't bat.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah this is weird from Jono.
If someone was the best bowler of all time but also batted like Bradman, we wouldn't call him a 'pure bowler', because he'd be a ****ing allrounder. That wouldn't take away from how we rated his bowling at all. Same thing applies here; sometimes non-pure keepers will actually be better at keeping than pure keepers, but they're not pure keepers just because they're good at keeping.
If someone was the best bowler of all time but also batted like Bradman, we wouldn't call him a 'pure bowler', because he'd be a ****ing allrounder. That wouldn't take away from how we rated his bowling at all. Same thing applies here; sometimes non-pure keepers will actually be better at keeping than pure keepers, but they're not pure keepers just because they're good at keeping.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Les Ames, Alec Stewart, Kumar Sangakarra and Andy Flower have very little idea what you are on about.
Perhaps you mean domestically in Australia.
Last edited:
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
What is my point regarding Stewart and how is it disproved by Jack Russell?
But yeah the others batting high in the order means that they were rated as highly with the bat as some of the other batsmen in the team. rendering your previous point void. But now you have created a "designated keeper position, number 7". The hits just keep coming. Are you here all week?
Stapel
International Regular
Just a random thought: Is it likely or unlikely to save (an average of) 25 runs (the assumed batting average difference between a modern Test keeper and a bowler batting at 10) each innings for a better wicket keeper? Against good batsmen (averaging 50), it means 1 stumping or catch that the alternative batsman wouldn't make every other innings. I think it's unikely for a specialist glovesman to be be that much better than a regular Test keeper. So no, we won't see keepers batting at 10 or 11, I guess.
Stapel
International Regular
A very good reason for Gilchrist to bat at 7, was that Australia had a gazillion batsmen suited for 1-6 spots anyway. I haven't dig into the data, but it would surprise me if Gilchrist's batting averages would be significantly higher than any #5 or #6 he has played with regularly. Kumar, Flower and Stewart must have played with less talented #5 or #6 team mates, not? It wouldn't be too odd to think your arguemnant doesn't hold that much, regarding this situation.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
my point was teams generally expect its keepers to average near the batsmen nowadays. england persisted with russell when he averaged nowhere near the rest(except ramprakash lol) long after stewart had made his bones and his made his mark so clearly there was no change in protocol for them. warren hegg even got a run in the late 90s after they realised stewart was better as a specalist batsmen, much like sanga. i didnt mean to imply there were no decent keeper batsmen before gilchrist, in fact i rate andy flower higher
youre living up to your username dude
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Jack Russell played about 100 Tests too few.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Sure, but you can't tell me "pure keeper" is a commonly accepted term, like allrounder is in cricket.
Riddle me this. Kallis was an allrounder, but he was also a pure batsman. He was picked for his batting regardless of his other skills. Why is he not a "pure batsman"?
If the best keeper in the world averaged 50 with the bat, he'd still be a pure keeper imo. Because its quite likely he'd be picked if he averaged 35 too.
Anyway don't want to OverratedSanity this thread and agree to disagree etc., but the thread question should more be "will a keeper who is chosen solely for his glovework be selected again"
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
yes i prefer that word #overratedsanity
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
"Pure X" just isn't a term I'd use in cricket in general because it's a bit vague and clumsy, but if someone asked me who the best "South African pure batsman" was for example, I'd not consider Kallis because he was an allrounder. It's a weird term so I think it's obvious that it's trying to exclude some players, and I think it's obvious which of those players it's asking you to exclude.
Am I correct in that your entire gripe is that you'd like to see the thread title phrased differently? Because if so then yeah, agree to disagree.
