-
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.
Brad Haddin good enough to be Australian Team
- Thread starter 2sw33t
- Start date
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Odd comment with him averaging 37 in test cricket.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Yeah, his batting is better than his keeping. Think he'll be OK. Will do better on Aus decks.
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
That's a myth. No team has a wicketkeeper-batsman even close to Adam Gilchrist in all-round ability, and he'll be impossible to replace. You have to have your best wicketkeeper in the team, as it's a crucial position that gets your team a huge chunk of the 20 wickets to win the match. They can manage just well with Haddin, as long as he does his job well behind the stumps. Let Watson or another newcomer do the all-round role now.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
'Tis the burden of expectation - all Aussies keepers will suffer from it for years until another great emerges - a bit like what every English all rounder between Botham and Flintoff had to endure
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd just like to point-out (again) that Haddin has actually performed quite a bit better (yes, with the bat) in his few Tests so far than Gilchrist did for most of his last 4 years in Test cricket.
How on Earth someone can make a modestly excellent start to their Test career and have people calling for their head is beyond me.
How on Earth someone can make a modestly excellent start to their Test career and have people calling for their head is beyond me.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Given he's only played a few Tests, all of them away from home and having come in with the bat a couple of times in really testing situations, I think he's been perfectly fine. He's looked a bit "hacky" for lack of a better word at times but he's got the job done really.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Have no problem with Haddin. He is clearly the best option atm, and as someone has already said, will have more confidence in Australia. Hasn't looked out of his depth in either role. Pretty sure he'll grow with confidence and we'll see his performances improve.
Precambrian
Banned
It is no secret that he has struggled against good quality spin from Indians, but which Australian has not in recent times? He's still the best for Australia
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Indeed. There is only one man fit to wear the title of "National Team". Step forward Luca...
Furball
Evil Scotsman
For me it's why Adam Gilchrist should be a certainty to be named one of the cricketers of this century.
He's so utterly redefined the expected role of the wicketkeeper to the point where most cricket fans, not just Australians, have completely unrealistic expectations of what their wicketkeepers should be able to accomplish.
As far as I can see, Haddin has no absolutely glaring deficiencies in his wicketkeeping which would mark him as not being Test Class, and I dare say he's probably a more technically accomplished batsman than Gilchrist ever was.
He's so utterly redefined the expected role of the wicketkeeper to the point where most cricket fans, not just Australians, have completely unrealistic expectations of what their wicketkeepers should be able to accomplish.
As far as I can see, Haddin has no absolutely glaring deficiencies in his wicketkeeping which would mark him as not being Test Class, and I dare say he's probably a more technically accomplished batsman than Gilchrist ever was.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
No chance.
Gilchrist has totally re-defined the role of the wicketkeeper. As unrealistic as that may be.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
How did he re-define it, though? I think people tend to get confused because what Gilchrist was best at was taking the game away from the opposition with explosive hitting. You can get any batsman (well, quick hitting batsman) to fill that role, rather than expecting the wicket-keeper to do it.
Gilchrist was a bit of a freak of nature. Not only was he a pretty damn fine gloveman (which I think a lot of people underrate) he was able to turn a test match with quick hitting. There aren't many people around who can do that, let alone keeprs who can do that.
Gilchrist was a bit of a freak of nature. Not only was he a pretty damn fine gloveman (which I think a lot of people underrate) he was able to turn a test match with quick hitting. There aren't many people around who can do that, let alone keeprs who can do that.
Julian87
State Captain
Yeah, let's get rid of him and get Ronchi in there ASAP.
The crowds will love his 20 ball forties when we need him to bat for a couple of hours. Seriously, this is the worst bandwagon to be on.
Julian87
State Captain
I think you've summed it up in one sentence.
It has me confused as well.
Couldn't agree more.
tooextracool
International Coach
Dont think he really redefined the role tbh. He was one of the keepers in an era dominated by quality batsman- wicket keepers such as Stewart, Flower,himself and Sangakkara. The issue about selecting a wicket keeper who can hold his own with the bat dates well before Gilchrist and has been a cause for concern for many sides in the past.