Are Specialist Wicketkeepers a Thing of the Past?

[ataraxia]

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.

It doesn't need to be sophisticated! WKB value = Expected runs scored - expected chances missed * 30 is an excellent formula and that's really simple. Any extra minor considerations (e.g. SR, byes) are very easy to add.

It's much more difficult to quantify bowling value.

 

[sayon basak]

It doesn't need to be sophisticated! WKB value = Expected runs scored - expected chances missed * 30 is an excellent formula and that's really simple. Any extra minor considerations (e.g. SR, byes) are very easy to add.

It's much more difficult to quantify bowling value.

Too simplistic imo. Should take into account how easy/hard the chances were.

Which is almost impossible. I'm just here to complain.

 

[Johan]

You are a thing of the past, and so is your face

 

[Thala_0710]

It doesn't need to be sophisticated! WKB value = Expected runs scored - expected chances missed * 30 is an excellent formula and that's really simple. Any extra minor considerations (e.g. SR, byes) are very easy to add.

It's much more difficult to quantify bowling value.

I don't think such an easy system works tbh. Also the more I've myself worked on these simpler models, wicket keeping ability seems to be favoured much more than it is in the modern day. So I'm not sure how exactly are they using it.

 

[sayon basak]

I don't think such an easy system works tbh. Also the more I've myself worked on these simpler models, wicket keeping ability seems to be favoured much more than it is in the modern day. So I'm not sure how exactly are they using it.

The index he introduced is a good first step though. If the index is positive, that'd indicate a net positive contribution as a keeper batter. I'd suggest indroducing the ratio between Drooped catches and taken catches or total chances somehow. But I'm not sure whether the number 30 is an accurate representation of runs cost for dropping a catch. Also, the formula might vary based on how much weightage one gives to judge a keeper batsman.

 

[Thala_0710]

The index he introduced is a good first step though. If the index is positive, that'd indicate a net positive contribution as a keeper batter. I'd suggest indroducing the ratio between Drooped catches and taken catches or total chances somehow. But I'm not sure whether the number 30 is an accurate representation of runs cost for dropping a catch. Also, the formula might vary based on how much weightage one gives to judge a keeper batsman.

That's the thing. How'd you give the weightage changes everything. And to get an accurate weightage you'll need historic data, on chances missed, difficulty of those chances, byes conceded and their difficulty.
There needs to be an equivalent of the xG logic in football which could be really helpful.

 

[sayon basak]

That's the thing. How'd you give the weightage changes everything.

Pretty sure modern analysts use something like @capt_Luffy's weightage.

 

[Daemon]

It’s one thing to have models like that and a completely different beast to convince people in charge to pay any attention to them

 

[DrWolverine]

Are specialist wicketkeepers—those picked primarily for their glove work—a thing of the past?

Yes

Is there still a place for them in modern Test cricket?

A pure keeper can survive in modern Tests but only if they are exceptional with the gloves and the team can afford that trade-off.

 

[DrWolverine]

Most teams today would prefer to have Andy Flower in their test team over a Bob Taylor or Jack Russell.

 

[Thala_0710]

It’s one thing to have models like that and a completely different beast to convince people in charge to pay any attention to them

If you're able to make something that good, it will eventually get picked up. Maybe at some local team to begin with and slowly at the FC level and then at test level, but it would definitely happen sooner or later

 

[MasterBlaster24]

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

The 2000s was not the era of the specialist keeper

Yes, I’m aware that India had MS Dhoni during the 2000s. But Dhoni was already a very good keeper along with being an excellent batter, so there was no reason to replace him with a pure specialist.

What I was really trying to say is that the role of the wicketkeeper has evolved significantly since Adam Gilchrist changed the game in the late '90s. Post-Gilchrist, teams started expecting their keepers to contribute significantly with the bat, and that trend only solidified in the 2000s.

In fact, apart from someone like Prasanna Jayawardene or maybe Mark Boucher—who both offered elite glove work and held their place primarily for that—not many pure specialist keepers were persisted with for long during that decade.

My broader point is this: in today's bowling-dominated Test environment, where big scores are rare, the priority is usually to have a keeper who can bat well—even if they are slightly inferior behind the stumps. Dropped chances don’t hurt quite as much when run-making is tough across the board.

Only if the game swings back to a high-scoring, flat-pitch era—where a single drop could cost 200+ runs—might we see specialist keepers regain importance. Until then, unless someone is seriously subpar with the gloves, teams will likely continue preferring batters who can keep decently well.

 

[Coronis]

Most teams today would prefer to have Andy Flower in their test team over a Bob Taylor or Jack Russell.

Silly thing is, Flower makes almost every test team in history as a batsman alone.

 

[Johan]

My take is pitches flattening out around 2000s had an impact over Wicket keeping dynamic, when the pitches are easy paced and the bounce is true it becomes a lot easier to keep and bat, but when the bounce is inconsisent and the pace is uneven it becomes harder to keep.

The 1930s was flat, but they had a bunch of sticky wickets and they were difficult to keep on and thus specialist keepers were required, same way in the 1960s the keepers were still picked on skill but by the end of the decade, Farokh Engineer and Alan Knott were actively picked for batting, the trend kept in the 1970s and the 1980s as well, Dujon and Healy made teams and while they were better batsmen then the likes of Evans and Taylor, their batting didn't exactly make much of a difference usually, Dujon was in the team after 1985 when he was a tail ender for multiple years, by 1990s stickies were long gone and when the wickets started getting flat by the turn of the millenium, it became a norm to have keeper bats.

If you see in recent years, with more competitive pitches, keepers are again struggling, Pant barely managed to keep on a flat pitch, Smith is not great either and dropped the series in Pakistan when he dropped Salman Ali Agha, Carey dropped some absolute sitters on that fast uneven bounce Bridgetown wicket from the last test and so forth. At one point, if the pitches remain this way, the world isn't exactly drowning in batting talent to the point that someone cannot replace the likes of Pant and Jamie as keepers, Jamie would likely be replaced once he moves up the order and Stokes is gone, would play as a Batsman with a better keeper at 7 and Pant would likely drop the gloves to Jurel at some point if he bends his knee.

All in all, I'm in more agreement with Thala here, I think keeping is getting harder to do and if that happens then I think specialist keepers would and should return.

 

[ataraxia]

Silly thing is, Flower makes almost every test team in history as a batsman alone.

Almost?

 

[Johan]

Almost?

that semi professional amateur cricketer won't make the current English team as a Batsman /s

 

[Coronis]

Almost?

I was thinking about his earlier career point, where he may not have made some of the best teams.

 

[kyear2]

My take is pitches flattening out around 2000s had an impact over Wicket keeping dynamic, when the pitches are easy paced and the bounce is true it becomes a lot easier to keep and bat, but when the bounce is inconsisent and the pace is uneven it becomes harder to keep.

The 1930s was flat, but they had a bunch of sticky wickets and they were difficult to keep on and thus specialist keepers were required, same way in the 1960s the keepers were still picked on skill but by the end of the decade, Farokh Engineer and Alan Knott were actively picked for batting, the trend kept in the 1970s and the 1980s as well, Dujon and Healy made teams and while they were better batsmen then the likes of Evans and Taylor, their batting didn't exactly make much of a difference usually, Dujon was in the team after 1985 when he was a tail ender for multiple years, by 1990s stickies were long gone and when the wickets started getting flat by the turn of the millenium, it became a norm to have keeper bats.

If you see in recent years, with more competitive pitches, keepers are again struggling, Pant barely managed to keep on a flat pitch, Smith is not great either and dropped the series in Pakistan when he dropped Salman Ali Agha, Carey dropped some absolute sitters on that fast uneven bounce Bridgetown wicket from the last test and so forth. At one point, if the pitches remain this way, the world isn't exactly drowning in batting talent to the point that someone cannot replace the likes of Pant and Jamie as keepers, Jamie would likely be replaced once he moves up the order and Stokes is gone, would play as a Batsman with a better keeper at 7 and Pant would likely drop the gloves to Jurel at some point if he bends his knee.

All in all, I'm in more agreement with Thala here, I think keeping is getting harder to do and if that happens then I think specialist keepers would and should return.

I agree. The chances are becoming costly again as well.

Watched two videos both sides of my nocturnal slumber where Flower was first choice all time as a keeper bat in one, and Pant was called an ATG in the other and all but anointed as the future GOAT.
Pant is comparatively abysmally bad at the supposedly primary and more heavily weighted part of his job, but it's the scores.that appear on score / spread sheets and not the drops. Flower was even worse.

What people consistently miss about Gilly is that while he wasn't Healy, he was pretty damn good. He wasn't elite / ATG, but he was good to Warne and the pacers. Without that base, the rest of it would have been irrelevant.

So I agree with you and Thala that once the statistal cost of these errors are quantified it would make a difference.

But it also shouldn't require that, because anyone with eyes can see how bad Pant is and would recall how poor Flower was.

Peer rating is seen as a bad word around here by some, but this is what happens when you spend more time looking at spread sheets and less time reading and understanding the context of the game..

There is no context where I would select Pant over Knott or even Healy, but we've become so wrapped up in numbers and there's no numbers to support how absolutely brilliant Healy was. It's constantly framed that Gilly replaced Heal's, but it's slightly more accurate to suggest that Healy kept Gilly out of the side.

Specialist keepers will return once teams get tired of dropping matches, that doesn't mean the batting part of the equation would be irrelevant either. Just raise the damn bar at this point.

 

[Migara]

Most teams today would prefer to have Andy Flower in their test team over a Bob Taylor or Jack Russell.

They'd take a Prasanna Jayawardane over all of them.

 

[govinda indian fan]

I agree. The chances are becoming costly again as well.

Watched two videos both sides of my nocturnal slumber where Flower was first choice all time as a keeper bat in one, and Pant was called an ATG in the other and all but anointed as the future GOAT.
Pant is comparatively abysmally bad at the supposedly primary and more heavily weighted part of his job, but it's the scores.that appear on score / spread sheets and not the drops. Flower was even worse.

What people consistently miss about Gilly is that while he wasn't Healy, he was pretty damn good. He wasn't elite / ATG, but he was good to Warne and the pacers. Without that base, the rest of it would have been irrelevant.

So I agree with you and Thala that once the statistal cost of these errors are quantified it would make a difference.

But it also shouldn't require that, because anyone with eyes can see how bad Pant is and would recall how poor Flower was.

Peer rating is seen as a bad word around here by some, but this is what happens when you spend more time looking at spread sheets and less time reading and understanding the context of the game..

There is no context where I would select Pant over Knott or even Healy, but we've become so wrapped up in numbers and there's no numbers to support how absolutely brilliant Healy was. It's constantly framed that Gilly replaced Heal's, but it's slightly more accurate to suggest that Healy kept Gilly out of the side.

Specialist keepers will return once teams get tired of dropping matches, that doesn't mean the batting part of the equation would be irrelevant either. Just raise the damn bar at this point.

Pant pre accident was terrific vs spin and decent vs fast bowling. He is unfortunate that post accident his knees have given up. We still have jurel who is terrfic keeper and good bat(not as good as pant) at some point he might give his gloves and be specialist batter