Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Yes he was. That said Bob Taylor should still have been in the semifinals.
-
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.
Alright here it is. CW chooses the best ever keeper. 32 men duke it out
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah he was the best keeper-bat. Not the best keeper.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I think he was the best keeper as well, but I wouldn't vehemently argue with anyone who thought Taylor was. At least there's a debate to be had, unlike the Russell/Stewart debate where you have a world class keeper and a dud.
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
I haven't posted in this thread yet, but since were voting for, as the OP puts it "CW chooses the best ever keeper" then I'm going to have to throw a vote in for Knott.
Adam Gilchrist is not the greatest wicketkeeper of all time. Not trying to Gilly bash here, but when Gilchrist first came into the Test side there was lots of contention over whether Australia should pick a keeper-batsman or a pure wicketkeeper in their team. Heals or Gilly?
It was pretty unanimous, even in 1999, that Healy was grades above Gilly.
Knotty, on the other hand, deserves this mantle. Just check out some of his magic in watson's Historical footage: Impressions of some greats thread for some rock solid proof.
Adam Gilchrist is not the greatest wicketkeeper of all time. Not trying to Gilly bash here, but when Gilchrist first came into the Test side there was lots of contention over whether Australia should pick a keeper-batsman or a pure wicketkeeper in their team. Heals or Gilly?
It was pretty unanimous, even in 1999, that Healy was grades above Gilly.
Knotty, on the other hand, deserves this mantle. Just check out some of his magic in watson's Historical footage: Impressions of some greats thread for some rock solid proof.
Gob
International Coach
OP is not about the greatest keeper though
kingkallis
International Coach
Alan Knott.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
There seems to be this opinion around that Bob Taylor was some sort of magical keeper. That he was better than Knott.
Now I'm not disputing it necessarily, but if Knott was as good as we know he was (on ****** wickets to Underwood etc), then Taylor must've been godlike.
Not disputing it mind you, just my gut instinct says that Taylor being ahead of Knott as a keeper is a bit of a myth that's grown over time.
Now I'm not disputing it necessarily, but if Knott was as good as we know he was (on ****** wickets to Underwood etc), then Taylor must've been godlike.
Not disputing it mind you, just my gut instinct says that Taylor being ahead of Knott as a keeper is a bit of a myth that's grown over time.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Knotty
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
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.
Cricketinsights
Cricket Spectator
80s -Dujon
90s - Healy
00s - Gilchrist
Thsi decade - Most likely De Kock I think by the end of the decade.
Gilchrist the best out of the lot.
90s - Healy
00s - Gilchrist
Thsi decade - Most likely De Kock I think by the end of the decade.
Gilchrist the best out of the lot.
watson
Banned
Knott averaged 36.40 during the 74/75 Ashes series with this sequence of scores.
12
19
51
18
52
4
82
10
5
106*
5
29*
To be honest, against such quality fast bowling (plus Mallett and Jenner who were very good spinners) I don't think that Gilchrist would have done much better. Especially if Lillee went around the wicket and targeted his off-stump.
Knott averaged 32.75 after his 95 Tests and rarely failed when England were 5 down for not much. Gilchrist was definitely the better batsman and could change a game in a couple of hours if he got going, but there is a lot of difference between facing Harmison and Flintoff as opposed to Lillee and Thomo at their absolute best. Knott also averaged 30.00 against Holding and Roberts at their absolute best in 1976.
So Gilchrist's average of 47 sounds a lot more than Knott's average of 32 but I don't think that too much should be made of the difference because both keepers were highly talented batsman and Knott did play some superb innings under very difficult circumstances.
I would probably pick Gilchrist in my ATG team as a general rule because he was so destructively good with the bat, but in an ATG context where the opposing bowlers are the best-of-the-best, and the keeper might be standing-up to O'Reilly or Barnes on a turner then the perceived gap narrows considerably.
12
19
51
18
52
4
82
10
5
106*
5
29*
To be honest, against such quality fast bowling (plus Mallett and Jenner who were very good spinners) I don't think that Gilchrist would have done much better. Especially if Lillee went around the wicket and targeted his off-stump.
Knott averaged 32.75 after his 95 Tests and rarely failed when England were 5 down for not much. Gilchrist was definitely the better batsman and could change a game in a couple of hours if he got going, but there is a lot of difference between facing Harmison and Flintoff as opposed to Lillee and Thomo at their absolute best. Knott also averaged 30.00 against Holding and Roberts at their absolute best in 1976.
So Gilchrist's average of 47 sounds a lot more than Knott's average of 32 but I don't think that too much should be made of the difference because both keepers were highly talented batsman and Knott did play some superb innings under very difficult circumstances.
I would probably pick Gilchrist in my ATG team as a general rule because he was so destructively good with the bat, but in an ATG context where the opposing bowlers are the best-of-the-best, and the keeper might be standing-up to O'Reilly or Barnes on a turner then the perceived gap narrows considerably.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
Is the gap between them as gloveman as big as the gap between them as batsman? Probably.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
To be reasonable you need to add Wasim, Shoaib, Mushtaq, Donald, Pollock, Kumble & Murali to Gilchrist's list....
cnerd123
likes this
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.
