Do you think Brad Haddin will be as a good a Test batsman as Ian Healy?

[Richard]

People need to wtfu and realise that he ISN'T going to do a Gilchrist and average around 50 for the majority of his test career.

Gilchrist actually didn't average around 50 for the majority of his Test career - he averaged 61 for the first just-under-half of it (42 games) and mid-20s for most of the rest of it (40 games) with a spot in the middle of the second half where he went better still (8 games averaging 107).

Incidentally, I specifically pointed-out in the opening post of this thread that to expect Haddin or anyone to do a Gilchrist is wholly unrealistic, hence the more sensible comparison with people like Healy and Marsh.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why did Rodney Marsh play when he was known as Irongloves then?

Because he could bat quite a bit better than any alternatives. And you'd be crazy not to take account of that.
If there's such a big account placed on how well a wicketkeeper can bat, it seems rather strange that the likes of Hartley, Crosthwaite and Clingeleffer have\had such long state careers despite not being anything other than useful lower-order bats.

Haddin happens to be a very good batsman as well as an acceptable wicketkeeper. I expect Haddin to be above average as a Test wicketkeeper-batsman as well TBH. I don't, however, think Australia will be able to have someone of the calibre of a Haddin all the time from now on, however much "emphasis" is put on it. Because if the ability isn't there, there's nothing any emphasis being put on it can do.

He was only known as 'Irongloves' after his test debut when he was so nervous he dropped nearly everything. He wasn't picked as someone who couldn't keep but could bat a little bit. Before he debuted, and then in his tests afterwards he was quite a brilliant keeper. He was picked because his could keep, his batting was a bonus.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why did Rodney Marsh play when he was known as Irongloves then?

Because he could bat quite a bit better than any alternatives. And you'd be crazy not to take account of that.

If there's such a big account placed on how well a wicketkeeper can bat, it seems rather strange that the likes of Hartley, Crosthwaite and Clingeleffer have\had such long state careers despite not being anything other than useful lower-order bats.

Haddin happens to be a very good batsman as well as an acceptable wicketkeeper. I expect Haddin to be above average as a Test wicketkeeper-batsman as well TBH. I don't, however, think Australia will be able to have someone of the calibre of a Haddin all the time from now on, however much "emphasis" is put on it. Because if the ability isn't there, there's nothing any emphasis being put on it can do.

Well, Wade is often picked for Victoria and from what I can understand from the papers down there it's because they consider him more useful in the two-day form of the game because he can bat a bit. Hartley's not bad either. A keeper's role has changed...

I think you're confusing 'an emphasis on the keeper being able to bat' with 'being able to bat like Gilchrist'...that's not going to happen very often. It has become important though, and your use of Marsh as an example for greater batting ability over keeping betrays the fact that you seem to have not watched him at all.

 

[Richard]

I obviously didn't watch Marsh's career as I wasn't born, but I've read plenty about him and know more than enough about him.

As I say, he's far from the only example - Wayne Phillips is an even more extreme one. He was certainly far from a natural or good wicketkeeper, yet he was given the gloves in Tests because the importance of the wicketkeeper being able to bat was realised, even back then.

I don't think the likes of Hartley and Crosthwaite are any better than most wicketkeeper-batsmen you'd see around domestic scenes in the 1980s. Even people like Alec Stewart, Brad Haddin and (later in his career) Ian Healy aren't players you're going to have every day.

Mostly the best you can expect is someone like Mark Boucher, Ridley Jacobs or Prasanna Jayawardene. And these are international wicketkeeper-batsmen. The best their country has.

Gilchrists certainly are going to occur no more than once every few generations, on average.

 

[zaremba]

I expect Haddin to end up with a Test average in the mid-30s.
If he's averaging as little as 27 he'll struggle to keep his place in the team.

So would Healy have done if he'd averaged that all his career.

But Healy's Test average didn't even reach 27 for the first time until his 68th Test!

 

[Richard]

But between his 48th Test and his 106th, he averaged almost 36.

Had he not done this, I have no doubt he'd not have played all 59 of those games. He'd have been replaced possibly midway through.

As I say, in his first 47 games he averaged less than 22. Had that sort of form continued between the Tests named above (48 and 106), I cannot conceive he'd have played anywhere near the number of games he did.

 

[Top_Cat]

But between his 48th Test and his 106th, he averaged almost 36.

Had he not done this, I have no doubt he'd not have played all 59 of those games. He'd have been replaced possibly midway through.

As I say, in his first 47 games he averaged less than 22. Had that sort of form continued between the Tests named above (48 and 106), I cannot conceive he'd have played anywhere near the number of games he did.

He might not have held off Gilchrist for as long but the other options (Emery, Berry, Seccombe, Nielsen) weren't much of a threat to him because although they were reasonable 'keepers with Seccombe and Berry possibly his equal with the gloves, Healy was still better than all of them with the bat.

 

[Richard]

He was - because, eventually, he started to score the runs.

However, had he not done that, he wouldn't have been superior to them with the bat. I'd back Berry and the earlier-career Seccombe (he too became a pretty useful TSTL batsman later on, didn't he?) to have been able to average 22 in Tests, but not 36.

Seriously, how much better are the likes of Hartley, Crosthwaite and Clingeleffer as batsmen than the Emerys, Nielsens and Berrys? Not much.

Healy and Haddin are\were both clearly far better than any of the above as batsmen.

 

[Ikki]

OT, but was just looking at Gilchrist's record...the team that really drags his average down is India. Every team bar India he averages 54 - with India 47. And he only averages under 40 against India away. Awesome record.

 

[Richard]

1999/2000 to 2003 (43 games):
vs England: 61.18
vs India home: 55.25
vs India away: 24.80
vs New Zealand: 50.50
vs Pakistan: 64.33
vs South Africa: 94.33 (though this is inflated due to one dropped catch)
vs West Indies: 58.11
Did not play Sri Lanka, the last series before his debut was against them.

2003/04 to 2007/08:
vs New Zealand: 129.75
vs Pakistan: 76.66
vs England: 31.53
vs India: 23.20
vs South Africa: 18.80
vs Sri Lanka: 42.55
vs West Indies: 17.33

What really drags Gilchrist's average down is that he didn't retire after the West Indies tour of 2003.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, between the Windies series in 03 and until the Windies series in 05 he averaged 47 (India included of course). It's after that he starts to pull low numbers and is clearly in the last bend of his career. It's from the WIndies series in 05 till the end of his career that he averages 31. (22 tests)

 

[Top_Cat]

He was - because, eventually, he started to score the runs.

However, had he not done that, he wouldn't have been superior to them with the bat. I'd back Berry and the earlier-career Seccombe (he too became a pretty useful TSTL batsman later on, didn't he?) to have been able to average 22 in Tests, but not 36.

Seccombe was the lesser of the keeper/batters. Would barely average 22 for QLD, let alone as a Test 'keeper. Berry was mildly above him and Emery was the front-runner for Heals' spot because he was the best batsman of the state 'keepers. Even still, he would have to have batted awfully well to be seriously in line for a Test spot because, as we've said before, 'keeping ability at the time was paramount.

Further proof? Tim Zohrer. Fair bit better bat and slightly inferior 'keeper. Got one ODI in the 90's against SA when Heals was injured and an Ashes tour in 1993 as Healy's back-up when he batted the house down but that was it.

 

[Richard]

Nah, between the Windies series in 03 and until the Windies series in 05 he averaged 47 (India included of course). It's after that he starts to pull low numbers and is clearly in the last bend of his career. It's from the WIndies series in 05 till the end of his career that he averages 31. (22 tests)

Not true, his figures between 2003/04 and the start of 2004/05 were poor as well. He happened to play only against India and Sri Lanka in that time, but had he played against anyone else there's no reason to think things would've been any different.

Gilchrist had one last hurrah against New Zealand and Pakistan between Nov04 and Mar05, but that was merely a wave against the tide. The tide had started to go out in December 2003.

 

[Richard]

Seccombe was the lesser of the keeper/batters. Would barely average 22 for QLD, let alone as a Test 'keeper. Berry was mildly above him and Emery was the front-runner for Heals' spot because he was the best batsman of the state 'keepers. Even still, he would have to have batted awfully well to be seriously in line for a Test spot because, as we've said before, 'keeping ability at the time was paramount.

Further proof? Tim Zohrer. Fair bit better bat and slightly inferior 'keeper. Got one ODI in the 90's against SA when Heals was injured and an Ashes tour in 1993 as Healy's back-up when he batted the house down but that was it.

Zoehrer a better batsman than Healy?

 

[Top_Cat]

Zoehrer a better batsman than Healy?

Yeah. He went the same way as Marsh; started off as a very promising batsman-keeper whose batting tailed-off as time went on. Timmy was even given a go opening the innings in a ODI against the WI, I believe. Was rated as a far better bat early on. Weird he was so good considering how bad his eyes were. Plus, he started bowling too. Was a decent leggie too, unpickable wrong'un.

 

[Richard]

"Early on" wasn't really 1993 and onwards though, was it?

And it's not like Zoehrer wasn't given a chance in Tests - he was and he fared little better than the likes of Greg Dyer and the early Healy.

 

[Ikki]

Not true, his figures between 2003/04 and the start of 2004/05 were poor as well. He happened to play only against India and Sri Lanka in that time, but had he played against anyone else there's no reason to think things would've been any different.

Gilchrist had one last hurrah against New Zealand and Pakistan between Nov04 and Mar05, but that was merely a wave against the tide. The tide had started to go out in December 2003.

Nah. Disagree. Here are his series records in between that time:

WI vs Aus - 70.50
Aus vs Ban - 43.00
Aus vs Zim - 133.00
Aus vs Ind - 16
SL vs Aus - 40.20
Aus vs SL - 28.75
Ind vs Aus - 31.14
Aus vs NZ - 88.00
Aus vs Pak - 76.66
NZ vs Aus - 171.50
Eng vs Aus - 22.62
Aus vs ICC - 47.50
------------------------
Avg. 46.95 SR 82.83

 

[Richard]

As I say - started to struggle in 2003/04. The series in West Indies in 2003 was his last hurrah as the player he'd once been (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are obviously not worthy of Test status so are irrelevant) and from the home series against India he was on the decline, though the 8 Tests at home and in New Zealand in 2004/05 were a temporary reversal.

Between West Indies in 2003 and New Zealand\Pakistan in 2004/05, India and Sri Lanka (home and away for both teams) were the only teams he faced, but his record in that time was poor and that'd almost certainly have been the case regardless of which teams were involved.

 

[Top_Cat]

"Early on" wasn't really 1993 and onwards though, was it?

He was average with the bat for a long time but averaged 50 or near it in 1993 or so which got him on the tour to England ahead of Emery as Healy's back-up.

And it's not like Zoehrer wasn't given a chance in Tests - he was and he fared little better than the likes of Greg Dyer and the early Healy.

With the bat, yeah. It was only when Healy's capital with the gloves rose above Zoerher's that Healy was given a shot. That and Zoehrer's rather difficult personality counted against him (if you believe his autobio, Bobby Simpson had it in for him and was in love with Dyer).

 

[aussie]

As I say - started to struggle in 2003/04. The series in West Indies in 2003 was his last hurrah as the player he'd once been (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are obviously not worthy of Test status so are irrelevant) and from the home series against India he was on the decline, though the 8 Tests at home and in New Zealand in 2004/05 were a temporary reversal.

Between West Indies in 2003 and New Zealand\Pakistan in 2004/05, India and Sri Lanka (home and away for both teams) were the only teams he faced, but his record in that time was poor and that'd almost certainly have been the case regardless of which teams were involved.

. Nonsense, we had this argument before and as i told you & i'm sure everyone else on CW & beyond who has seen Gilly's career, his decline as test batsman began in the 2005 Ashes & not a moment sooner.