Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And Darren Berry off Paul Reiffel. And Jack Russell off Gladstone Small etc.
-
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.
Alright here it is. CW chooses the best ever keeper. 32 men duke it out
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ponting > Rhodes as an all round fielder btw.
Confining the statement to infielding to avoid the argument you see sometimes from Australians
cnerd123
likes this
So the way I see it, is that there are essentially 6 dimensions to wicket-keeping:
Standing back to pace
Standing back to swing
Standing up to medium pace
Standing up to spin
Collecting throws from fielders
Fielding the ball
In each of these aspects, a keeper is assesed on:
Technique
Athleticism
Reflexes
Consistency/Reliability
Presence of mind/Situational awareness
I'm not a 'keeping expert, so I wouldn't know how to evaluate on these measures, but I figure any effort to seriously evaluate a keeper's quality would measure them on these skillsets (or something similar)
Standing back to pace
Standing back to swing
Standing up to medium pace
Standing up to spin
Collecting throws from fielders
Fielding the ball
In each of these aspects, a keeper is assesed on:
Technique
Athleticism
Reflexes
Consistency/Reliability
Presence of mind/Situational awareness
I'm not a 'keeping expert, so I wouldn't know how to evaluate on these measures, but I figure any effort to seriously evaluate a keeper's quality would measure them on these skillsets (or something similar)
Very good list indeed. Having been a keeper for many years, I can add a few minor ones. Soon as I get back.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One being reading the type of delivery it is going to be as it leaves the bowler's end?
Borges
International Regular
The most important part of wicket keeping. The rest of it is based on pure technique, which easier to learn and to refine.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd say Hadlee and Bedser were slow enough as well.
So, I'll post a few wkeeper attributes that may seem minor, but may have a dramatic affect on the game
Appealing. The wkeeper must appeal vociferously and enthusiastically when they know the batsman has edged or on LBW.
They are at the center of activity and have one of the best views.
Here's a Youtube at 2:16 when the 'keeper does not appeal or seems unsure of himself. Steve Waugh survives a definite edge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39N4eE-Rqj4
Appealing. The wkeeper must appeal vociferously and enthusiastically when they know the batsman has edged or on LBW.
They are at the center of activity and have one of the best views.
Here's a Youtube at 2:16 when the 'keeper does not appeal or seems unsure of himself. Steve Waugh survives a definite edge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39N4eE-Rqj4
Bedster was probably slow enough to justify standing up because there is a reasonable expectation of bats using their feet to him. I tend not to think of him as an ATG quick though, firstly because he wasn't really a quick and secondly because he was a product of conditions.
McGrath and Hadlee were both too quick to be standing up to. No matter how good the keeper is, you are sacrificing an amount of catching power because it's not physically possible to react fast enough. Maybe worth it for late career McGrath on occasion because some bats tried using their feet a lot. I'm not sure this happened with Hadlee. Felt like Hadlee was a bit quicker as well, but I'm not 100%.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Both of them were pretty damn quick early career but in the last couple of years or so slowed down a bit (I imagine being in your late 30s and having bowled quick for over a decade does that).
But yeah, don't want your 'keeper standing up to them generally.
Also, just curious how Bedser was a product of conditions?
Most of the top quicks are fast for a significant portion of their career, and then drop down to fast medium. I'm not sure McGrath was ever a genuine fast, but if he was it was for a very small portion of his career.
I think the cutter had a lot to do with bedsters success. He played in an era that was good to fast spin. Less grip today. Medium fast swing, his other weapon, is of fairly limited use in modern cricket. The top tier of quicks succeed irrespective of conditions.
I think the cutter had a lot to do with bedsters success. He played in an era that was good to fast spin. Less grip today. Medium fast swing, his other weapon, is of fairly limited use in modern cricket. The top tier of quicks succeed irrespective of conditions.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well Hadlee became fast-medium after an ankle injury. He shortened his run-up because of the injury in a county game and realised he could actually bowl longer and better that way so he stuck with it. McGrath was 140+ for the most part and became a trundler in the twilight of his career.
Im not sure, but my feeling is early 140s for the 1st third of his career, late 130s for the second third and mid to early 130s for the end.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Keeping up to the stumps to guys like McGrath, Hadlee or Bedser has very little to do with their pace, it's almost entirely to do with their accuracy. Those three are three of the most accurate test quicks ever.
No one would keep up to the stumps to Starc or Johnson, but with very accurate bowlers it's quite do-able, regardless of the fact you might not glove some edges at that range. Can be advantageous however if the batsman has tried to break up the bowler's accuracy/line and length by walking at them.
Accuracy is another factor. Byes will get expensive to the wilder bowlers.
You lose catches regardless of the accuracy. You have to trade this against the benefit derived from restricting the footwork. The benefits are limited against genuine quicks because bats don't advance to knock them off a length much. If a bowler is wild enough there is no need to knock them off a length, so accuracy plays another role.
You lose catches regardless of the accuracy. You have to trade this against the benefit derived from restricting the footwork. The benefits are limited against genuine quicks because bats don't advance to knock them off a length much. If a bowler is wild enough there is no need to knock them off a length, so accuracy plays another role.
There's a psychological ploy at play here, when the 'keeper walks up to the stumps.
There's a match I recall where the batsman was flaying the fasties at will. He roamed around the crease knowing full well the 'keeper could not stump him from a distance.
So, I walk up to the stumps. He looks at me flabbergasted as if to say WTF are you doing so close.
Very next ball, he spoons a dolly catch to mid-off. His dominance and rhythm was disturbed noticeably from his prior superior stroke playing ways.
Amazingly, the bowler, fielder and others run up to me to congratulate - saying that this was the 'keeper's wicket rather than the bowler/catcher's wicket.
There's a match I recall where the batsman was flaying the fasties at will. He roamed around the crease knowing full well the 'keeper could not stump him from a distance.
So, I walk up to the stumps. He looks at me flabbergasted as if to say WTF are you doing so close.
Very next ball, he spoons a dolly catch to mid-off. His dominance and rhythm was disturbed noticeably from his prior superior stroke playing ways.
Amazingly, the bowler, fielder and others run up to me to congratulate - saying that this was the 'keeper's wicket rather than the bowler/catcher's wicket.