• 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.

One more cup of coffee for the road - CW decides the greatest ever keeper -Nom thread

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Will try to limit this one to 32, but said that about the AR thread.


This is gonna be challenge. Mainly because I don't know how voters and nommers are meant to weight keeping skills with batting skills.


Perhaps it should be soley based on keeping ability? Something hard to do with only anecdotal evidence to go by for the pre-war players.. as it's not like stats tell the whole story with keeping. Still, I feel this would be really interesting and we'd see a lot of players advance far who are rarely talked about as ATGs



Or should it just be overall value to their team with the qualification that the player simply kept wicket? Taking their batting contributions fully into account alongside their keeping ability.



One scenario would mean Jack Russell would beat someone like Andy Flower in the votes, the other scenario would obviously mean the opposite.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
oh and yeah, 10 noms per user - once a day.

5 noms to qualify for the 32
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Gilchrist
Lindsay
Oldfield
Strudwick
Kirmani
Bari
Watling
McCullum
Blackham
Dolphin
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Let people vote based on whatever criteria they want to vote based on. If someone reckons batting factors into the equation, let them vote that way. If people want to vote on glovework alone, so be it.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
yeah that might be the best option. allows me to avoid a potentially very divisive decision
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Keith Andrew
Bob Taylor
Alan Knott
Bert Oldfield
Godfrey Evans
Syed Kirmani
Ian Healy
Don Tallon
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prasanna Jayawardene
Kumar Sangakkara
Farrokh Engineer
Les Ames
Wally Grout
Jock Cameron
Herbert Strudwick
Keith Andrew (coz he sucked with the bat which means he could put more ability points into his keeping skill right?)
Rashid Latif
George Duckworth
 
Last edited:

Stace

First Class Debutant
Ian Healy
Alan Knott
Adam Gilchrist
Alec Stewart
Les Ames
Jack Russell
Matt Prior (yes he had a **** start but improved massively and was gun with the bat especially with the tail)
Bob Taylor
AB de Villiers
Kumar Sangakkara

Clear bias towards English and modern day keepers I know.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Do it on keeping alone.

Herbert Strudwick
Ian Smith
Wasim Bari
John Murray
Rashid Latif
Adam Parore
Mark Boucher
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Jack Russell

This must be on keeping ability only, didn't use batting ability when discussing bowlers or fielding when looking at batsmen so why is it any different here?
 

cnerd123

likes this
Jack Russell

This must be on keeping ability only, didn't use batting ability when discussing bowlers or fielding when looking at batsmen so why is it any different here?
Becauase bowlers who can bat and batsmen who can bowl are called Allrounders, but WicketKeepers are called WicketKeepers regardless of their batting ability.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Becauase bowlers who can bat and batsmen who can bowl are called Allrounders, but WicketKeepers are called WicketKeepers regardless of their batting ability.
Yes, but they're being rated for best ever keeper not best ever keeper-batsman.
 

Top