Alright here it is. CW chooses the best ever keeper. 32 men duke it out

[Lillian Thomson]

There is a point of diminishing returns to all skills IMO. Glichrist was at the level of wicketkeeping where any improvement to it would have yielded marginal improvements in his actual match performance, but Knott's batting wasn't.. So even if the gap between their batting and their glovework was equal (a premise which I disagree with FTR cuz GIlly was an excellent keeper), in terms of actual match performance Gilly would be far more useful. Like, if Knott was 25% a better batsman it would add so much more to his side than if Gilly was 25% a better keeper.

Do what? Does your auntie have male genitals?

 

[zaremba]

Gilly, or Knott? Gilly.

(wth apologies to W. Shakespeare)

 

[jimmy101]

That is the question.

 

[trundler]

What's the final ****ing score?!

 

[a massive zebra]

Alan Knott

 

[fredfertang]

Sarah Taylor

 

[Borges]

How did this Gilly character manage to get into the final of a 'the best ever keeper' debate? Even if it were on CricketWeb?

 

[Zinzan]

Knott

 

[Red]

How did this Gilly character manage to get into the final of a 'the best ever keeper' debate? Even if it were on CricketWeb?

The opening post explains it pretty clearly

 

[stephen]

*****' comment was on point.

Gilchrist was a very good keeper. He kept to a prime Warne and McGrath and I remember very few errors coming from him. Healy was better, yes, but Healy was one of the best pure keepers I've seen (at least in the middle/end of his career).

Gilchrist was a very good batsman. Just a shade below a true all time great bat, Gilly would make any side in history based on his batting alone and in many sides would be the best bat. That definitely means he was the complete package.

It's a bit like the McGrath vs Hadlee debate we sometimes see in ATG team picking. From a purist technical perspective, McGrath was probably better than Hadlee as a bowler. But as a complete package, Hadlee would add so much more to a real team that you'd pick him in most sides if given the choice between the two.

And I think that picking the guy who would feature above the other in most teams is the guy who I'll pick for the purposes of this contest.

So Gilchrist it is.

 

[Borges]

Knott

So my ATG team will score 682 (Knott) instead of 696 (Gilcrisht). But I would have a very good keeper behind the stumps.
When keeping to, say, Steyn, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali, having the best keeper (and it is debatable if Knott is the best) is worth a lot more than those 14 runs.

 

[trundler]

Gilchrist because his batting is a level above. It's not just the 14 runs difference. It's how quickly he scored them. He could win a game in a session. Impact player. Quality stumper too. High quality.

 

[Engle]

I'd imagine Gilly's explosiveness would be pegged down a notch or two when facing ATG bowling.
Knott on the other hand, was called upon many a time to play the rescue act when their batting folded. A wicket-keeper's wicket-keeper.

 

[trundler]

It would be but then Knott's batting would come down too.

 

[marc71178]

Unlike Stephen to go overboard in his gushing about an Australian.

 

[Bolo]

Gilchrist was 28 before he made his Test debut and couldn't displace Healy who was inferior to Knott with gloves and bat. I agree there is no way Knott would replace a prime Gilchrist if he's already established in the team. It would have been interesting to see Gilchrist propping up a weak batting line up at number 7, which is something Knott often had to do.

If he wasn't seen as good enough to get a game early career and consequently spent most of his career playing while in his batting prime, should we think less of his test average as a result? His first class average is closer to 40. See Voges.

He did manage a pretty lengthy career though- 8 years, so I wouldn't want to push this point too hard.

 

[Coronis]

What's the final ****ing score?!

5 down for not much.

 

[Red]

I actually think Gilly inadvertently tarnished Healy's legacy somewhat when he became ubiquitous in ATG teams a few years into his career. Healy was named in the Australian team of the century in 2000 a year after retirement, and was referred to at the time as the greatest keeper ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/1999/oct/21/cricket

Healy is surely the greatest gloveman ever to squat behind the stumps, with a world-record 364 dismissals from 119 Tests. And his timing with the bat at No. 7 used to be unimpeachable. All four of his Test centuries were made in the first matches of series which Australia went on to win - the 1993 and 1998-99 Ashes, plus home rubbers against New Zealand in 1993-94 and West Indies in 1996-97.

 

[Bolo]

I actually think Gilly inadvertently tarnished Healy's legacy somewhat when he became ubiquitous in ATG teams a few years into his career. Healy was named in the Australian team of the century in 2000 a year after retirement, and was referred to at the time as the greatest keeper ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/1999/oct/21/cricket

There's definitely some hyperbole in the claim considering Knott came before Healy, but it was easier to make that type of claim when Healy retired a with the most dismissals and as a pretty decent standard of bat for the time. Gilchrist and Boucher, as well as more recent wk bats definitely chipped at his legacy.

 

[Red]

There's definitely some hyperbole in the claim considering Knott came before Healy, but it was easier to make that type of claim when Healy retired a with the most dismissals and as a pretty decent standard of bat for the time. Gilchrist and Boucher, as well as more recent wk bats definitely chipped at his legacy.

I dont know how you judge the best pure keeper overall tbh, and how you could decide if Healy was "better" than Knott or vice versa, but I do think Healy got forgotten because of how influential Gilchrist was with the bat immediately after Healy, and the fact that Gilchrist was a critical part of probably the strongest team ever assembled.