Are Specialist Wicketkeepers a Thing of the Past?

[MasterBlaster24]

Over the last decade, we’ve seen a clear shift in how teams pick their wicketkeepers. Players like Pant, Bairstow are chosen more for their batting than their glovework. Even someone like Ben Foakes, arguably the best keeper in the world, has struggled to hold his spot because he doesn’t offer the same firepower with the bat.

Are specialist wicketkeepers—those picked primarily for their glove work—a thing of the past? Or is there still a place for them in modern Test cricket?

 

[Thala_0710]

Things move in cycles. They'll be back in some time

 

[Silver Silva]

I don't think glovework is judged objectively , there seems to be a generalisation that if a keeper can bat he is not good behind the stumps no matter how he performs.

 

[Coronis]

Things move in cycles. They'll be back in some time

What makes you think that?

I don't think glovework is judged objectively , there seems to be a generalisation that if a keeper can bat he is not good behind the stumps no matter how he performs.

I don’t think that’s true. Watling for example was correctly rated highly as a keeper.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don’t think that’s true. Watling for example was correctly rated highly as a keeper.

Atleast true to an extent. There are quite a few people who underrates Gilly's keeping for his batting.

 

[Thala_0710]

What makes you think that?

Let's take an example. Now bowlers and batsmen keep evolving with time (not in the sense of getting purely better). There was a time when the full ball was the primary mode of getting dismissals due to the bowling conditions etc. Batsmen worked that out and started committing more on the front foot. The bowlers in turn pulled their lengths over time. The batsmen in turn worked more on their backfoot game as well. All of this being assisted by the growing technology meanwhile. Recent innovation was the wobble ball, but the new gen batters like Jaiswal and Brook have seemed to counter that and play beautifully to anything that comes straight at them. There's a possibility that bowling swing and wider lines will be back soon to counter them.
A similar thing can happen for wicket keeping too. I don't know exactly what, but that's my best guess.

 

[kyear2]

Things move in cycles. They'll be back in some time

As standards continue to drop, eventually teams will grow weary of the drops and mistakes.

 

[Thala_0710]

As standards continue to drop, eventually teams will grow weary of the drops and mistakes.

Once we're able to develop a proper mathematical model that shows how much exactly a poor keeper is costing in terms of chances missed or byes conceded, it would be a big necessity imo. Currently it's very easy to look at AVGs and SRs and 100s scored and use that to gauge a batsman's value. So teams just maximize that as long as they have anything half decent behind the stumps. Which has resulted in the wkb getting quite better with the bat and much worse with the gloves.

 

[andruid]

YES!

 

[kyear2]

Once we're able to develop a proper mathematical model that shows how much exactly a poor keeper is costing in terms of chances missed or byes conceded, it would be a big necessity imo. Currently it's very easy to look at AVGs and SRs and 100s scored and use that to gauge a batsman's value. So teams just maximize that as long as they have anything half decent behind the stumps. Which has resulted in the wkb getting quite better with the bat and much worse with the gloves.

Shouldn't take that though. We still have eyes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Let's take an example. Now bowlers and batsmen keep evolving with time (not in the sense of getting purely better). There was a time when the full ball was the primary mode of getting dismissals due to the bowling conditions etc. Batsmen worked that out and started committing more on the front foot. The bowlers in turn pulled their lengths over time. The batsmen in turn worked more on their backfoot game as well. All of this being assisted by the growing technology meanwhile. Recent innovation was the wobble ball, but the new gen batters like Jaiswal and Brook have seemed to counter that and play beautifully to anything that comes straight at them. There's a possibility that bowling swing and wider lines will be back soon to counter them.
A similar thing can happen for wicket keeping too. I don't know exactly what, but that's my best guess.

I am not really sure tbh it's the same for keeping. The development in keeping has been very linear in this regard. Like Pilling and Strudwick were among the first choices for their role despite being proper no 10/11s. This shifted somewhat in the mid War to the early 50s with the arrivals of Ames and Cameron, were you still had your occasional Duckworths and Langleys but the general sentiment being you need to average close to 20 odd to have some security at your job. Then in the 70s Knott came and kinda pushed it a degree were you were expecting your keeper to be a high 20s bay who could bat at 7, Australia selected Marsh and India Engineer. Still had the occasional Baris and Taylors, but they far rarer than before. And finally in the early 2000s came Gilchrist and the Final shift, causing every team to search for a keeper who could lay a claim as a batsman alone. I can see a somewhat compromise being made or the keepers getting more rigorous keeping training to somewhat improve the keeping standards; I can't see going back to a time were we would want Saha for Pant in the team.

Summary: Unlike the cycle of batting or bowling, batting/keeping has been a linear development always.

 

[Ali TT]

Ignorant question but cricket management is increasingly dominated by analysis, so aren't selectors already looking at analysis of the costs and benefits of specialist keeping skills vs batting ability?

A few other points:
- international cricket is only part of the game. I can't speak for all domestic leagues but the concept of a "specialist keeper" disappeared in the county game years ago. I did a quick tally of county keepers last week and I think the majority averaged over 35. England couldn't select a "specialist keeper" from their domestic first class game even if they wanted to.
- it's not just batting ability in terms of runs scored but also how they are scored. Keeper-bats are counter-attackers, capable of scoring quickly and taking the game away from the bowling side. This is the trend Gilchrist really initiated - we've not seen many blockers coming in at 7 in the modern international game, even before T20 really took off.
- this trend is more than ten years old. Gilly replaced Healy in 1999 and before then England were constantly flip-flopping between Russell and Stewart. Also what @capt_Luffy says in his post.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

Let's take an example. Now bowlers and batsmen keep evolving with time (not in the sense of getting purely better). There was a time when the full ball was the primary mode of getting dismissals due to the bowling conditions etc. Batsmen worked that out and started committing more on the front foot. The bowlers in turn pulled their lengths over time. The batsmen in turn worked more on their backfoot game as well. All of this being assisted by the growing technology meanwhile. Recent innovation was the wobble ball, but the new gen batters like Jaiswal and Brook have seemed to counter that and play beautifully to anything that comes straight at them. There's a possibility that bowling swing and wider lines will be back soon to counter them.
A similar thing can happen for wicket keeping too. I don't know exactly what, but that's my best guess.

I see your point about the game moving in cycles. Perhaps if a high-scoring, flat-pitch era returns in the future, teams might once again prefer specialist wicketkeepers over good batters who can also keep. But for now, I believe teams are unlikely to prioritize specialist keepers over capable batters who can do the job behind the stumps.

In today's extremely bowling-friendly era in Test cricket, teams place a high value on the runs that wicketkeepers contribute with the bat. For example, in the 2000s, when pitches were often flat and high-scoring, a dropped catch by someone like Kamran Akmal could cost a team 200 or 300 runs if the batter went on to score a big hundred. In contrast, in today’s conditions, even if a batter is dropped, they're less likely to cash in heavily, as another chance to dismiss them usually comes soon.

So, in a high-scoring era like the 2000s, a team like India might have chosen someone like Wriddhiman Saha over Rishabh Pant for his superior wicketkeeping. But in the current era, that’s unlikely to happen.

 

[Ali TT]

I see your point about the game moving in cycles. Perhaps if a high-scoring, flat-pitch era returns in the future, teams might once again prefer specialist wicketkeepers over good batters who can also keep. But for now, I believe teams are unlikely to prioritize specialist keepers over capable batters who can do the job behind the stumps.

In today's extremely bowling-friendly era in Test cricket, teams place a high value on the runs that wicketkeepers contribute with the bat. For example, in the 2000s, when pitches were often flat and high-scoring, a dropped catch by someone like Kamran Akmal could cost a team 200 or 300 runs if the batter went on to score a big hundred. In contrast, in today’s conditions, even if a batter is dropped, they're less likely to cash in heavily, as another chance to dismiss them usually comes soon.

So, in a high-scoring era like the 2000s, a team like India might have chosen someone like Wriddhiman Saha over Rishabh Pant for his superior wicketkeeping. But in the current era, that’s unlikely to happen.

I believe India ended up with someone called MS Dhoni...

The 2000s was not the era of the specialist keeper

 

[Son Of Coco]

Let's take an example. Now bowlers and batsmen keep evolving with time (not in the sense of getting purely better). There was a time when the full ball was the primary mode of getting dismissals due to the bowling conditions etc. Batsmen worked that out and started committing more on the front foot. The bowlers in turn pulled their lengths over time. The batsmen in turn worked more on their backfoot game as well. All of this being assisted by the growing technology meanwhile. Recent innovation was the wobble ball, but the new gen batters like Jaiswal and Brook have seemed to counter that and play beautifully to anything that comes straight at them. There's a possibility that bowling swing and wider lines will be back soon to counter them.
A similar thing can happen for wicket keeping too. I don't know exactly what, but that's my best guess.

Most of these things happen over the course of a single game.

 

[Coronis]

- international cricket is only part of the game. I can't speak for all domestic leagues but the concept of a "specialist keeper" disappeared in the county game years ago. I did a quick tally of county keepers last week and I think the majority averaged over 35. England couldn't select a "specialist keeper" from their domestic first class game even if they wanted to.

This is important here too. Keepers are now being taught at the lower levels how important batting is as a part of their position. They’ll never make it domestically, let alone internationally, without being a decent enough bat.

 

[ataraxia]

Once we're able to develop a proper mathematical model that shows how much exactly a poor keeper is costing in terms of chances missed or byes conceded, it would be a big necessity imo. Currently it's very easy to look at AVGs and SRs and 100s scored and use that to gauge a batsman's value. So teams just maximize that as long as they have anything half decent behind the stumps. Which has resulted in the wkb getting quite better with the bat and much worse with the gloves.

Yeah I'd be completely shocked if big nations didn't already have this. It would take 10 minutes to create. Whether they follow the analysis or not (Pant keeping over Jurel, Bairstow, Blundell) is another matter since teams appear to emphasise consistency over effectiveness in the WK position – which in my opinion underrates the importance of their all-round role.

 

[shortpitched713]

Atleast true to an extent. There are quite a few people who underrates Gilly's keeping for his batting.

Or Sanga's. Both were very good, to excellent at specific things.

 

[sayon basak]

Let's take an example. Now bowlers and batsmen keep evolving with time (not in the sense of getting purely better). There was a time when the full ball was the primary mode of getting dismissals due to the bowling conditions etc. Batsmen worked that out and started committing more on the front foot. The bowlers in turn pulled their lengths over time. The batsmen in turn worked more on their backfoot game as well. All of this being assisted by the growing technology meanwhile. Recent innovation was the wobble ball, but the new gen batters like Jaiswal and Brook have seemed to counter that and play beautifully to anything that comes straight at them. There's a possibility that bowling swing and wider lines will be back soon to counter them.
A similar thing can happen for wicket keeping too. I don't know exactly what, but that's my best guess.

It won't be the same for keeping.

 

[Thala_0710]

Yeah I'd be completely shocked if big nations didn't already have this. It would take 10 minutes to create.

I don't know what exactly they do have, but I'm pretty sure it's not nearly as sophisticated as the analysis for batsmen and bowlers.