Based on purely WK skills - Boucher Or Gilchrist?

[cnerd123]

Gilchrist was actually pretty average when he started out iirc, had a rough first Ashes in particular. But by the end he was pretty close to flawless, and imo was probably a tad more athletic behind the stumps than Boucher.

I tend to evaluate the 'quality' of a player based on how good they were at the peak of their skills. Peak Gilly behind the stumps was pretty much flawless as far as I remember, as was peak Boucher, but Boucher never kept to a big turning spinner.

Having said that, Gilly did dive around more, and diving is usually a result of having to compensate for poor footwork. Which is why I think someone more knowledgeable about the technical aspects of wicketkeeping would be able to tell who is better. For us plebs we're just going off incomplete stats and highlight reel dismissals.

 

[adub]

I tend to evaluate the 'quality' of a player based on how good they were at the peak of their skills. Peak Gilly behind the stumps was pretty much flawless as far as I remember, as was peak Boucher, but Boucher never kept to a big turning spinner.

Having said that, Gilly did dive around more, and diving is usually a result of having to compensate for poor footwork. Which is why I think someone more knowledgeable about the technical aspects of wicketkeeping would be able to tell who is better. For us plebs we're just going off incomplete stats and highlight reel dismissals.

There are pointless dives that better keepers would have got to on their feet, and then there are dives that are the only way any keeper would haul a take in. Dujon was more the former, Gilly more the later. Being able to cover more territory than others is part of the explanation of his high dismissals/test.

 

[adub]

A lot of Haddin's diving was not moving his feet brilliantly, but down the leg side to the quicks he generally moved quite well.

 

[SeamUp]

I thought both were good. Easy to knock one for dismissals per innings or they stand-up to Warne etc

My opinion is that if you asked them both , could they teach/coach what they did then I would say Boucher would do it better.

At the beginning of Boucher's career, he made a few errors and that was because he was mainly a batsman who kept. He made a conscious effort with Woolmer to improve his keeping and he worked tirelessly to know everything about the art and lost a bit of his batting. Technically I thought Boucher took the ball better and moved his legs better than Gilly. It's funny that with his knowledge of what a technically good keeper he became he got his message across to Qdk when he first worked with him 12-18 months ago and QdK is a much improved keeper.

To me Gilly was more of hand-eye freak and that doesn't take away what he achieved. Because he was a very good keeper and had built an aura with his batting that people took his keeping for granted. I remember an interview with Langer, where he said he asked Gilly to come down and work with some players for the Bash and Gilly told him he didn't what to do. Langer said just take them through what you did in your career and Gilly replied I still don't know how I did it, I guess I just watched the ball.

 

[cnerd123]

Gilly is known to be very self deprecating tho. He downplays all his achievements all the time. If you were to hear him speak of his own cricket you'd think he was some club cricket failure and not arguably the greatest keeper-batsman of all time.

 

[adub]

There are pointless dives that better keepers would have got to on their feet, and then there are dives that are the only way any keeper would haul a take in. Dujon was more the former, Gilly more the later. Being able to cover more territory than others is part of the explanation of his high dismissals/test.

For instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhi4DPjEtB8

Not many keepers ever would have even got one hand to that. Gilly got both. Great feet, great athleticism, and being a bit taller than most keepers didn't hurt at all.

This one is 4 with almost any other keeper ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBHL_vRCtc
Not just really high but also up around 100mph, but Gilly got enough on it to then turn and dive another mile to get it one handed. Both dives were the only way any human could possibly reach that.

But it wasn't just spectacular diving. A leg side take to a spinner is about as hard as the job gets for a keeper. Gilly was lightning with them and rock solid. You don't get to them as well as he did if you aren't great at getting your feet moving to get your head over the ball as it goes behind the batsman. https://youtu.be/AuFjJour0UU?t=54s (just superb this one)

He was seriously seriously good with the gloves.

 

[Bijed]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eG_t4YswPw[/URL]

7:30 for how real bowlers react to a dropped catch.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Gilchrist for me, never thought Boucher the keeper was that good really. Just my view but he seemed to have a poor series whenever England played them and that was the most I saw of him. Gilchrist you never noticed him which is as big a compliment as you can give as he just hardly seemed to make a mistake when I saw him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The more I think about it, the more I remember how much better Gilchrist really was. Such an underrated keeper.

 

[Victor Ian]

which is the better attack for a keeper? McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, M Waugh vs Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Adams? I can't split them

 

[TheJediBrah]

which is the better attack for a keeper? McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, M Waugh vs Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Adams? I can't split them

depends what you mean by "better for a keeper". Easier to keep to? Give you more dismissals?

Either way I don't think there's much significantly different between them in that way. Btw not sure how much Gilchrist kept to Mark Waugh's bowling, but I don't think it'd be much.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Adams wouldn't (and didn't) bowl as many overs as Warne, thus not quite testing boucher's ability to keep to spin as much as Gilchrist.

 

[Marius]

Adams wouldn't (and didn't) bowl as many overs as Warne, thus not quite testing boucher's ability to keep to spin as much as Gilchrist.

I think Adams was far easier to read than Warne too.

 

[Victor Ian]

for most of that era M Waugh is replacable with any part timer. That was the era if a 4 man attack. Both attacks are worth just over 9 wickets per innings. Basic point is that for most of the Gilly period where both keepers were still playing, the attacks are identical. South Africa was not more prone to spraying balls or getting less wickets. The reason Australia was superior in that time was that they also had a better batting line up. The fact that Gilly lets through less byes and takes more dismissals is significant.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think Adams was far easier to read than Warne too.

By the time that Gilchrist kept to Warne, he was really just bowling leg breaks and sliders.

 

[srbhkshk]

I honestly don't know who was better - but I seem to remember that the general consensus at that time was that Boucher was the better keeper (and Gilly obviously the better player). It doesn't matter anyway - the difference in their keeping abilities was so little that you'd always take Gilchrist in your team if given the choice.

 

[Stefan9]

Boucher was the better keeper imho, gilly was close but bouch has the edge.

 

[Furball]

Adams wouldn't (and didn't) bowl as many overs as Warne, thus not quite testing boucher's ability to keep to spin as much as Gilchrist.

Warne's accuracy was legendary, surely that makes him easier to keep to?

Although I'm just playing devil's advocate, there's no way the answer to this question isn't Gilchrist.

 

[Red]

I've only kept in low level cricket but to me leg-spinners are the hardest bowlers to keep to because as a keeper you lose sight of the ball behind the batsman. I'd imagine Warne and MacGill posed as big a challenge to a keeper as there has been since wickets have been covered and not rain affected.

 

[adub]

I've only kept in low level cricket but to me leg-spinners are the hardest bowlers to keep to because as a keeper you lose sight of the ball behind the batsman. I'd imagine Warne and MacGill posed as big a challenge to a keeper as there has been since wickets have been covered and not rain affected.

This.

A Kumble type wouldn't be so hard because he's not spinning it a mile, get good at following the bounce up and you should be able to keep to him pretty tidily.

But when you've got a guy who's turning it square and pitching it behind the batsmen to beat the outside edge? That's a nightmare to stand up to. You have to start well outside off to get a good view of it and even then you can lose it. On top of that you have to pick the ones that are going down leg AND get there. Pick wrong and you look like a dick. Added to that Warne on dusty pitches used to go really wide, turn it back a mile, but the ball would barely get over ankle height. So you have to stay low whilst still being able to move quickly laterally. That's the **** that separates the men from the boys. Gilly did it near flawlessly, Bouch was never really tested to the same level of difficulty. Therefore Gilly must rate higher as we can only speculate how Boucher would have handled it whereas we know Gilchrist had it down to a fine art.

Standing back to quicks is a piece of piss in comparison. You get a good look at the ball even when it goes down leg, and you have far more time to get to it. Even standing up to slow medium bowlers is easier than leggies (unless the **** spears it down leg without giving you the heads up first).