-
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.
Was Healy the last great wicket keeper ?
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
cpr
International Coach
Hmm, have to disagree with Bob Simpson there (yes, i'm arguing with a former test players knowledge of the game....... really out of my comfort zone now).
Taking a ball on the up...... thats got to be the most illogical way of catching i can think of.
Firstly, the physics of it. Taking a ball on the up rather than the down means you must be standing nearer. Which means less time to judge, position and react. Sure the great keepers probably had the best reactions. But just because you are capable of reacting faster, doesnt mean you have to push yourself to react faster each time. Means more errors.
Now onto the ergonomics.
Taking the ball on a down arc is far comfier and less strainfull on the body. Holding your hands cupped at 45 degree's upwards, legs close together (better springing position than spread wide, learnt that from being a goalkeeper), knees slight bent. In this position letting a ball drop into your hands allows your body to follow the ball's path, bringing it down in your hands and slowing it gently, will result in few drops if concentrating properly. Ideally you should be aiming to start a catch about waist height, 2 inches infront of the body, finishing about 4 inches behind your knee, pivoting the body around the hips smoothly throughout. This'll bring the ball slowly to a halt, under control without diverting its path, thus making it unlikely to come out of the hands. Added bonus of this is the ball will NEVER leave your eyeline (if your focused)
Now catching on the up, for one you cant hold your hands in the position above, as the ball will just wrap your knuckles. Which means your hands are going to be cupped at least horizontally, mebbie at an angle pointing down. Just try cupping your hands 45 degrees up to the side of your body, then moving them to a horizontal, possibly slightly pointing down position. Firstly you'll find your elbow is in your stomach/ribs, and your shoulder will be strained.
Following that, tracing the balls trajectory is a damn site harder to. When catching on the down, its a smooth motion if you pivot the body. Following it slightly on the up means its pulling your arms up and behind you. As i've already pointed out, your elbow is already stuck in your ribs, so theres not much movement to be had, pivoting the body doesnt help much, as the ball isnt around the hip area so your point of pivot is not aligned to the ball. You'll find the trajectory of the ball is taking your hands up and away from the body slightly. Naturally, you wont be able to keep your hands pointing downwards or horizontal, because unless your stretch armstrong you'll need to bring the hands back towards the body at some point, which means changing the balls trajectory. Ok your gonna hold it most of the time, but making a ball with pace change path whilst its still moving brings all sorts of forces into the equation. Now anyone with Physics or Maths qualifications can tell you, an object travelling at a speed in one direction needs a force in the opposite direction to make it change path, so to bring the ball back to your body will need you to physically pull it in, rather than just letting it settle into a cup shape as you would taking it on the down.
To put it bluntly, taking the catch on a down trajectory means you can use soft hands to catch, almost letting it land in the hands rather than grabbing it, whereas on the up you'll have to be quite forceful to hold onto it and bring it under control. Like i say, probably can still hold 90-95% of them (if you've not snapped your shoulder) but why bring the risk into it. Theres nothing to be gained from catching the ball a few microseconds earlier.
Taking a ball on the up...... thats got to be the most illogical way of catching i can think of.
Firstly, the physics of it. Taking a ball on the up rather than the down means you must be standing nearer. Which means less time to judge, position and react. Sure the great keepers probably had the best reactions. But just because you are capable of reacting faster, doesnt mean you have to push yourself to react faster each time. Means more errors.
Now onto the ergonomics.
Taking the ball on a down arc is far comfier and less strainfull on the body. Holding your hands cupped at 45 degree's upwards, legs close together (better springing position than spread wide, learnt that from being a goalkeeper), knees slight bent. In this position letting a ball drop into your hands allows your body to follow the ball's path, bringing it down in your hands and slowing it gently, will result in few drops if concentrating properly. Ideally you should be aiming to start a catch about waist height, 2 inches infront of the body, finishing about 4 inches behind your knee, pivoting the body around the hips smoothly throughout. This'll bring the ball slowly to a halt, under control without diverting its path, thus making it unlikely to come out of the hands. Added bonus of this is the ball will NEVER leave your eyeline (if your focused)
Now catching on the up, for one you cant hold your hands in the position above, as the ball will just wrap your knuckles. Which means your hands are going to be cupped at least horizontally, mebbie at an angle pointing down. Just try cupping your hands 45 degrees up to the side of your body, then moving them to a horizontal, possibly slightly pointing down position. Firstly you'll find your elbow is in your stomach/ribs, and your shoulder will be strained.
Following that, tracing the balls trajectory is a damn site harder to. When catching on the down, its a smooth motion if you pivot the body. Following it slightly on the up means its pulling your arms up and behind you. As i've already pointed out, your elbow is already stuck in your ribs, so theres not much movement to be had, pivoting the body doesnt help much, as the ball isnt around the hip area so your point of pivot is not aligned to the ball. You'll find the trajectory of the ball is taking your hands up and away from the body slightly. Naturally, you wont be able to keep your hands pointing downwards or horizontal, because unless your stretch armstrong you'll need to bring the hands back towards the body at some point, which means changing the balls trajectory. Ok your gonna hold it most of the time, but making a ball with pace change path whilst its still moving brings all sorts of forces into the equation. Now anyone with Physics or Maths qualifications can tell you, an object travelling at a speed in one direction needs a force in the opposite direction to make it change path, so to bring the ball back to your body will need you to physically pull it in, rather than just letting it settle into a cup shape as you would taking it on the down.
To put it bluntly, taking the catch on a down trajectory means you can use soft hands to catch, almost letting it land in the hands rather than grabbing it, whereas on the up you'll have to be quite forceful to hold onto it and bring it under control. Like i say, probably can still hold 90-95% of them (if you've not snapped your shoulder) but why bring the risk into it. Theres nothing to be gained from catching the ball a few microseconds earlier.
The Argonaut
State Vice-Captain
Did you see him last night in the 20-20. He was very sloppy. He may get as good as Gilly but not Healy.
pup11
International Coach
I think Gilly's glove-work gets overshadowed at time by his batting, but i think Gilly's glove-work is top-notch, its him and Boucher that i rate as the best keepers of this era, but i rate Gilly ahead of Boucher since Gilly kept wickets to some very good spin bowlers and Boucher never had to do that.
I think Healy is definitely a very good keeper but as a complete package Gilly is just great, one of the greatest (or probably the greatest) wicket-keeper batsman ever.
I think Healy is definitely a very good keeper but as a complete package Gilly is just great, one of the greatest (or probably the greatest) wicket-keeper batsman ever.
haroon510
International 12th Man
it was only one match... even gily and healy had matches that they couldn't perform handred percent...
bond21
Banned
I agree with Bob Simpson on this one.
I am an aussie and have watched Healy and Gilly keep for australia, here is my view.
Healy was the better keeper, no doubt. Healy is probably the best of all time, he took ridiculous catches that i dont think any keeper today could take. He was good with the bat as well and had useful input in the field as well as being vice captain.
Gilchrist...really who are we kidding? He could walk into the team on his batting alone. He hits some amazing shots and can basically win matches for us. He is above average with the gloves, hes very good but hes not Healy's class.
I have seen many all time XIs picked by various people, even the official one and Gilchrist almost always gets in ahead of Healy.
I am an aussie and have watched Healy and Gilly keep for australia, here is my view.
Healy was the better keeper, no doubt. Healy is probably the best of all time, he took ridiculous catches that i dont think any keeper today could take. He was good with the bat as well and had useful input in the field as well as being vice captain.
Gilchrist...really who are we kidding? He could walk into the team on his batting alone. He hits some amazing shots and can basically win matches for us. He is above average with the gloves, hes very good but hes not Healy's class.
I have seen many all time XIs picked by various people, even the official one and Gilchrist almost always gets in ahead of Healy.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
One.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... he could have done back in t' day. Don't really think he's been good enough the last 4 years to do so.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Brad Hogg and Stuart MacGill to name two others.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hogg who's played 4 Tests and MacGill whose average against Test-class teams is over 30.
Brilliant.
Matt79
Global Moderator
Because obviously wicket-keeping is a completely different skill in ODIs, with reference to Hogg. And MacGill is three times the spinner than anyone Boucher would have kept to. The original comment was "very good spinners", and I don't think anyone, well almost anyone, would argue that MacGill has not been "very good" in many of his performances for Australia. I recall your opinion of him, but the reality is that aside from Warne, Murali and probably Kumble, there's not been a better spinner in recent times.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I agree about the quality of spinners named. What I was saying was just keeping to quality spinners is not enough. How good you are when you keep to quality spinners is what matters.
Enginner and Budhi Kunderan both kept wickets to quality spinners (at the same time) and Engineer kept better. Kunderan can not be called a great keeper just because he kept wickets to great keepers.
Matt79
Global Moderator
Certainly doesn't make you a quality keeper in itself, but you're exaggerating the argument being made here. Someone compared Boucher's keeping to Gilchrist's, and it was suggested it was difficult to rate Boucher above Gilly based on performance as Boucher had never had to keep to a decent spinner - something that I think would be generally agreed to be perhaps the hardest part of a keeper's job. I added to the point by saying that while MacGill and Hogg are probably never going to be considered "brilliant" or all-time greats, they are quite good spinners who would be harder to keep to than Nicholas Boje.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I honestly don't think keeping to MacGill is that much of a challenge. So what if he's the best spinner after Murali, Warne and Kumble? That just says there's no great depth of spin talent around of late.
And yes, keeping to a spinner in ODIs is hugely different to keeping in Tests. For starters, you only have to face 10 overs (tops).
And yes, keeping to a spinner in ODIs is hugely different to keeping in Tests. For starters, you only have to face 10 overs (tops).
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I am sorry.
I was only responding to the post which seemed to state what I responded to.. I may have not got the context. Serves me right for jumping into someone else's argument.
Matt79
Global Moderator
I'd wager every single wicket-keeper ever would disagree with you regarding the difficulty of keeping to a bowler who spins it as much as MacGill.
You say for starters, so I hope the rest of your arguments are better, because that's one of the poorest arguments I've ever seen you, or any other non-troll, advance.
