Healy or Marsh

[Ford_GTHO351]

Who do you all think was the better wicketkeeper, Ian Healy or Rodney Marsh?

IMO I felt that Healy was the better wicketkeeper.

[NikhilN]

I would say Rodney Marsh because if you compare his match-catch stats to Ian they are much better

[Ford_GTHO351]

Healy's Test wicketkeeping stats
119 Matches, Catches: 366, Stumpings: 29

Marsh's Test wicketkeeping stats
96 Matches, Catches: 343, Stumpings: 12


Healy's ODI wicketkeeping stats
168 Matches, Catches: 194, Stumpings: 39

Marsh's ODI wicketkeeping stats
92 Matches, Catches: 120, Stumpings: 4

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Proud Indian

I would say Rodney Marsh because if he compare his match-catch stats to Ian they are much better

Match-Catch stats are the worst statistical tools ever.

[NikhilN]

Healy took 3 catches each match in tests while Marsh took 4 catches each match in tests.

In ODIs Healy took 1 catche each match while March also took 1

[NikhilN]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Match-Catch stats are the worst statistical tools ever.

not for me

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Proud Indian

not for me

Give me one good reason why they show anything at all about a wicketkeeper's ability?!

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Proud Indian

Healy took 3 catches each match in tests while Marsh took 4 catches each match in tests.

But Marsh kept to Lillee where Heay kept to Warne (a lot of edges there going to slip rather than the keeper)

[Ford_GTHO351]

Originally Posted by Proud Indian

I would say Rodney Marsh because if you compare his match-catch stats to Ian they are much better

Marsh played in a era when it was easier for the bowlers to set up and take wickets, so there was more of a chance that Marsh would get a catch/stumping.

Healy played more in a era where the batsmen usually set the tone of the match, so therefore there was less of an chance for Healy to get a catch/stumping.

So you can't really use match-catch stats to assess ones keeping ability.

Healy was IMO the better keeper and to add, he is also in my best ever Test XI.

[Ford_GTHO351]

Originally Posted by marc71178

But Marsh kept to Lillee where Heay kept to Warne (a lot of edges there going to slip rather than the keeper)

Quite true.

[a massive zebra]

I would say Healy because Marsh never proved himself to be a good keeper of spin bowling. His stumpings per match ratio is testimony to that. Im not saying he could not keep to spinners, just that Healy proved his ability to do so and Marsh did not.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

I would say Healy because Marsh never proved himself to be a good keeper of spin bowling. His stumpings per match ratio is testimony to that. Im not saying he could not keep to spinners, just that Healy proved his ability to do so and Marsh did not.

That proves nothing, it just shows that Healy played with better spinners who gave him more CHANCE to stump.

The only true way to prove who is the better keeper is to have stats like Percentage of catches took to catches they dropped and the same with stumpings. It would also help if you saw both keepers play and made for long periods and then you could make an informed view.

[krkode]

What you really need is the match-drop statistic. Or the match-byes statistic.

Like Neil expounded, match-catch statistics are worthless. They show nothing of the keeper's ability which is the point in question here. Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis were fast bowlers hence giving Moin Khan way way more catches than he would have had had he been playing for a primarily spin team like India. That said, Nayan Mongia probably has a lot fewer catches/match than Moin Khan. But it doesn't necessarily tell you who is the better keeper.
Giving your wicket keeper catches shows the bowler's ability (composition) more than it does the keeper's. If wicket keeper A got 100 chances and took 100 catches in 100 matches, and wicket keeper B got 100 chances and took 100 catches in 101 matches, does B suddenly become the lesser keeper because he has a lower catch/match ratio? No!

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by Ford_GTHO351

Marsh played in a era when it was easier for the bowlers to set up and take wickets, so there was more of a chance that Marsh would get a catch/stumping.

Healy played more in a era where the batsmen usually set the tone of the match, so therefore there was less of an chance for Healy to get a catch/stumping.

So you can't really use match-catch stats to assess ones keeping ability.

Healy was IMO the better keeper and to add, he is also in my best ever Test XI.

You'll have to run that one by me again. Are you saying that the bowlers of the 1970's were better than in the 80's and 90's yet the batters were worse or more gullible? Not being funny, just don't follow the argument.

My gut feeling is that, of the two Healy, was the better wicket-keeper, and that's a judgment I make having watched them both on many occasions, not based on any statistic. He just looked neater, more compact, less scruffy, less likely to chisel a bookie when out for a stroll with Lillee - the usual criteria.

I'd actually rate Healy as about the third or fourth-best keeper I've ever seen, so he wouldn't get near my all-time XI, but still a hell of a glove man.

[Ford_GTHO351]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

You'll have to run that one by me again. Are you saying that the bowlers of the 1970's were better than in the 80's and 90's yet the batters were worse or more gullible? Not being funny, just don't follow the argument.

What I meant was that when Marsh was playing, most batsmen were less attacking than when Healy (especially in the latter part of his career) was playing. So you would of had batsmen in Marsh's era mainly playing defensively and there lies more of an opportunity for a edge. In Healy's era (mainly the second half of his career), batsmen would attack more and therefore there would be more of an opportunity they would either hold out to a fielder or be bowled.