-
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
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
I am going to change the question to should a keeper who is poor at batting be selected for anyone.
About two years ago in the much esteemed HRV T20 cup in NZ, a players called Austin-Smellie (get over his name) was selected as a specialist wicket keeper and batted at number 10. He wasn't that terrible at batting but Wellington just seems full of bowling allrounders who all want to bat at numbers 6-9. So he couldn't get a look in there. Essentially he was in the team for his keeping talents.
In about the 16th over of Otago's inning there was a chance for a tight run out and the ball came into Austin-Smellie who very efficiently took off the bails and did his job.
Just when I was thinking wow maybe he can contribute something to the team only as a keeper he was dropped for the rest of the season. If anything his quick and efficient run out was a nail in his coffin, it forced a discussion on whether the odd wicket through a run out was worth keeping him in the team, and they decided it wasn't worth it.
That is a T20 example where wickets don't really matter so no doubt the equation would be different for tests.
I do think however the days of picking star gloves men is well and truly over, and what we are more likely to see in the next 20 years is fringe test team batsman being approached to take up keeping, even if they will only ever be below average at it.
About two years ago in the much esteemed HRV T20 cup in NZ, a players called Austin-Smellie (get over his name) was selected as a specialist wicket keeper and batted at number 10. He wasn't that terrible at batting but Wellington just seems full of bowling allrounders who all want to bat at numbers 6-9. So he couldn't get a look in there. Essentially he was in the team for his keeping talents.
In about the 16th over of Otago's inning there was a chance for a tight run out and the ball came into Austin-Smellie who very efficiently took off the bails and did his job.
Just when I was thinking wow maybe he can contribute something to the team only as a keeper he was dropped for the rest of the season. If anything his quick and efficient run out was a nail in his coffin, it forced a discussion on whether the odd wicket through a run out was worth keeping him in the team, and they decided it wasn't worth it.
That is a T20 example where wickets don't really matter so no doubt the equation would be different for tests.
I do think however the days of picking star gloves men is well and truly over, and what we are more likely to see in the next 20 years is fringe test team batsman being approached to take up keeping, even if they will only ever be below average at it.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
You can't be serious. Jones would not have played Test cricket - or first class cricket - based on his keeping. Read was a Test Class keeper for a while and his batting at first class level was of a reasonable number 7. If England didn't care about keepers batting there is no way Prior or Butler would ever have played for England, and James Foster would have been the keeper for 10 years.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
I think it might be worth it, but there's no realistic way the Australian cricket system is going to fail to produce an excellent wicketkeeper who can average 30+. I can recall stacks of them in my time as a cricket watcher.
Or maybe if they produce another Bradman they can declare at 500/4 in most matches and the wicketkeeper is seldom needed to bat.
Or maybe if they produce another Bradman they can declare at 500/4 in most matches and the wicketkeeper is seldom needed to bat.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Do you mean Manou couldn't bat? I thought he was ok, averaged 25 in FC. Batted at #7 in the one test he played.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
He was coming off a Shield season averaging 46 when he played that Test too, and 37 the season prior, so he was batting a lot better at the time than his career average would suggest.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
I'm confused, is Brad Haddin retiring before the Ashes too? He has been averaging like 27 since Clarke took over the captaincy. Surely he is selected for his keeping and not his batting.
Last edited:
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's just that you lot have been spoiled with the likes of Healy, Gilchrist and Haddin - leaving Stewart out of the argument since Knotty we've always had to compromise
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, but I'd imagine while Smith is the captain in waiting, Haddin is certainly the Drill Sergeant of the team and has a large leadership role.
Besides, he's preferable over Matthew "You want me to drop catches? Say no more" Wade or Nevill right now unless his keeping goes to hell.
Last edited:
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
yeah fair. Was Healy considered a really good keeper-batsman in the 90s? The first game I ever watched he scored 135* at the gabba in ashes 98... but even then I thought holy **** does this dude look ugly batting or what? I know he got a fair few centuries but just.... such a weird style. Funny that Gilchrist came along after, one of the prettiest batsmen to watch ever
watson
Banned
Of course we will because it is only a matter of time till the following 2 conditions are met at the same time;
1. There is a bowling allrounder with a good bowling average who is also capable of holding down the No.7 spot. The rough equivalent of Miller, Benaud, Botham, Imran, or Kapil Dev.
2. The keeper in question is significantly superior to all his rivals.
Last edited:
adub
International Captain
I don't think so for the simple reason that he wouldn't make a Shield side in the first place. We have a laff about Tim Ludeman but even he has two fc tons and an average over 25. Paine and Hartley both average over 30, Whiteman 37, Wade 40 and Nev 44. I reckon the selectors will always prefer a good enough keeper with an average over 35 against any alternative.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well he wasn't awful, but he was definitely more of a keeper than a batsman, and probably our best recent example. I'm not sure he'd be a good #7 at Test level if he did it regularly.
True pure keepers ala Duckworth, Taylor and Andrew are very rare these days.
Watson33
U19 12th Man
Read I agree with, but Jones was purely in due to his batting ability. His keeping, particularly in 2005, was very ordinary. If Read could have scored runs at test level he wouldn't have got a sniff and Read would probably still be England's test keeper today.