'Keepers - How much can you compromise keeping for batting?

[social]

If his 'keeping had been faultless this Test he'd have been said to have had a generally excellent first summer.

Get some perspective!

The correct perspective on Prior is that he's largely been crap - dropping straightfoward chances and allowing mountains of byes PLUS the first time he faces a test attack his batting average plummets to near single figures

 

[Ikki]

Disagree on two counts TBH (you may be surprised to hear).

For one, saying "Gilchrist's averages 40 in his last 47 games" is a fallacy and tells no real story. For most of the time since 2003\04 he's actually been decidedly average. Including Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could help disguise that for those who are desperate enough to do so, as could ignoring the fact it's been two periods of considerable barren, one (short) one of extreme fertility.

For two, a batsman who averages 55 with a SR of 42 > one who averages 48 with a SR of 82 anyday (and in any case, Kallis and Gilchrists careers cannot be summed-up by overall career records, they're both far too extensive). Test cricket lasts 5 days, there's absolutely no need to score anywhere near as fast as 82-per-100-balls. Winning in three days is no different to winning in the last session of the fifth. So long as the SR isn't obscenely low, almost invariably the more runs the better.

Well, disagree with the first point if you must but the 2nd one is irrefutable. In cricket, in both forms of the game, the quicker you score runs the better. Batting is more a team effort than an individual one. In every scenario, scoring quicker is better than scoring slowly. Just because one may also win test games in 4 tests doesn't make it better, in actual fact it is a risk to bat longer whilst scoring comparatively less. You are wasting the most precious commodity: balls.

The thing is, however, trying to score so quickly in itself is a dangerous thing. It means taking risks. But that is the very reason why I rate Gilchrist - and a guy like Richards - so much. They were of the rare few that did so with unrelenting success. But, whilst you are/can scoring runs at that rate, it is always best for the team.

 

[Richard]

What's up with the dislike of Flintoff's batting? He's averaging above 30.

Thing is, though, only fairly rarely has he scored many against what I'd call a "good" attack. SA in 2003, Aus in 2005 and Ind in 2005\06. Otherwise - zip. His batting has never really convinced me.

BTW, random place to ask, but do you use MSN?

 

[Richard]

Hey, do you guys reckon any International players read the forums on this site? Be cool if they did.

Actually...

Howgate, you're off the hook.

 

[Richard]

The correct perspective on Prior is that he's largely been crap - dropping straightfoward chances and allowing mountains of byes PLUS the first time he faces a test attack his batting average plummets to near single figures

His batting has never convinced me, but your assessment of his wicketkeeping is not accurate.

 

[Richard]

Well, disagree with the first point if you must but the 2nd one is irrefutable. In cricket, in both forms of the game, the quicker you score runs the better. Batting is more a team effort than an individual one. In every scenario, scoring quicker is better than scoring slowly. Just because one may also win test games in 4 tests doesn't make it better, in actual fact it is a risk to bat longer whilst scoring comparatively less. You are wasting the most precious commodity: balls.

The thing is, however, trying to score so quickly in itself is a dangerous thing. It means taking risks. But that is the very reason why I rate Gilchrist - and a guy like Richards - so much. They were of the rare few that did so with unrelenting success. But, whilst you are/can scoring runs at that rate, it is always best for the team.

The quicker you score runs, the better, yes. But unless you score your runs at an absurdly slow rate, you can still score "slowly" (eg, about 45-per-100-balls) and put your team into a position from which they're likely to win the game.

Score 650 off 200 overs and you are still a very good bet to win the game.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Actually...

Howgate, you're off the hook.

 

[Richard]

Wait and see. I was deliberately vague so as not to give the game away.

 

[Ikki]

The quicker you score runs, the better, yes. But unless you score your runs at an absurdly slow rate, you can still score "slowly" (eg, about 45-per-100-balls) and put your team into a position from which they're likely to win the game.

Score 650 off 200 overs and you are still a very good bet to win the game.

You can win a test match by taking 0 wickets and outscoring the other team, but the main emphasis is on bowling the opposition out as quickly as possible. To improve strike-rate.

The batting is the same. I am not saying batsmen are crap if they are scoring at 45-per-100-balls, I am arguing that if you are averaging almost 50 with a strike-rate twice as fast as that then you are a machine.

If you have two batsmen that are averaging 50 but one scores twice as fast, then it's a no-brainer. And I fail to see why a 7 run difference, especially in consideration of the position of the two batters, is much at all. It would still be more beneficial to take the guy with the better strike-rate. Why? Because he is more valuable to the team.

 

[roseboy64]

Thing is, though, only fairly rarely has he scored many against what I'd call a "good" attack. SA in 2003, Aus in 2005 and Ind in 2005\06. Otherwise - zip. His batting has never really convinced me.

BTW, random place to ask, but do you use MSN?

Was going great going in 2004 & 2005 though AFAIR. Yeah I do.

 

[aussie]

No way Jose.

I'm basing it on what i've seen of both of them @ international level. Ramdin has impressed with his batting & keeping even though he had that lean batch at the end of 2005 to the home season vs the Indians. But since seems to have gotten himself back in order.

Baugh other than a few crips shots hasn't done anything worth bragging about..

 

[andyc]

Hey, do you guys reckon any International players read the forums on this site? Be cool if they did.

Your bound to get players who would. It's a public forum discussing and often criticising the career, and sometimes life, of players, so yeah, I'd expect that a number have at least visited, some of whom may even do so regularly. Plus, you hear things...

 

[Richard]

You can win a test match by taking 0 wickets and outscoring the other team, but the main emphasis is on bowling the opposition out as quickly as possible. To improve strike-rate.

The batting is the same. I am not saying batsmen are crap if they are scoring at 45-per-100-balls, I am arguing that if you are averaging almost 50 with a strike-rate twice as fast as that then you are a machine.

If you have two batsmen that are averaging 50 but one scores twice as fast, then it's a no-brainer. And I fail to see why a 7 run difference, especially in consideration of the position of the two batters, is much at all. It would still be more beneficial to take the guy with the better strike-rate. Why? Because he is more valuable to the team.

7 runs is a massive, massive difference. And I mean, massive.

Obviously if you have two batsmen doing exactly the same in terms of run-scoring, the one scoring faster is a better bet, but there honestly isn't much in it if it's, say, a SR of 60 or 80, both are equally likely to get you into positions to win games. The one with the SR of 80 is better, but not by as much as some would have you believe.

A difference in SR would have to be collossal to offset an increase in average of as much as 7 runs.

 

[Richard]

Was going great going in 2004 & 2005 though AFAIR.

Was going great in 2004 indeed, against the might of Chris Martin, Daryl Tuffey, Jacob Oram, Daniel Vettori, Tino Best, Fidel Edwards, Corey Collymore, Omari Banks, Dave Mohammed etc. Wasn't so flash in 2004\05 against the likes of Pollock and Ntini.

Yeah I do.

Would you mind giving me your addy? (I'm trying to get pretty much everyone who's everyone on CW TBH)

 

[social]

His batting has never convinced me, but your assessment of his wicketkeeping is not accurate.

He dropped a no. of easy chances and averaged nearly 25 byes per test against India - that's worse than crap, it's downright incompetent!

I've played with keepers in grade cricket that were absolutely mortified to let though 1 bye per innings. Mind you, they were better keepers than Prior so maybe they were right to have higher standards

 

[Perm]

He dropped a no. of easy chances and averaged nearly 25 byes per test against India - that's worse than crap, it's downright incompetent!

I've played with keepers in grade cricket that were absolutely mortified to let though 1 bye per innings. Mind you, they were better keepers than Prior so maybe they were right to have higher standards

The number of byes given was a poor reflection of the wicket keeping, from both sides. There were a lot of balls way down the leg side given as byes instead of wides that contributed greatly to the number of byes.

 

[Richard]

He dropped a no. of easy chances and averaged nearly 25 byes per test against India - that's worse than crap, it's downright incompetent!

I've played with keepers in grade cricket that were absolutely mortified to let though 1 bye per innings. Mind you, they were better keepers than Prior so maybe they were right to have higher standards

As I say, byes really don't particularly bother me. Prior has gone through countless limited-over games without letting through any byes, though, FYI.

He's missed no more than 2 or 3 chances before this Test, and simply had 1 shocker.

I repeat, you are offering an unduly harsh assessment of his wicketkeeping credibilities.

 

[Ikki]

7 runs is a massive, massive difference. And I mean, massive.

Obviously if you have two batsmen doing exactly the same in terms of run-scoring, the one scoring faster is a better bet, but there honestly isn't much in it if it's, say, a SR of 60 or 80, both are equally likely to get you into positions to win games. The one with the SR of 80 is better, but not by as much as some would have you believe.

A difference in SR would have to be collossal to offset an increase in average of as much as 7 runs.

Sure, an S/R of 60 is something, we're talking of 45 here. Tendulkar and Dravid have 55. It's almost a 30 ball difference compared to Gilchrist. Now that IS massive.

 

[Richard]

Undoubtedly, I'd have the 1999\2000-2003 Gilchrist ahead of the 2001\02-current day Kallis. But these are extreme cases.

 

[Ikki]

Undoubtedly, I'd have the 1999\2000-2003 Gilchrist ahead of the 2001\02-current day Kallis. But these are extreme cases.

Extreme? Why even that Gilchrist? How about if Gilchrist and Kallis retired tomorrow, who would you have with the figures they currently have - regarding how they actually played too.