• 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.

Best Wicket keeper ever

C_C

International Captain
which C_C would seek - without any idea of what he's on about - to talk down
quit chatting rubbish richard.
I blast batsmen and bowlers of the past because their record is relative- batting record or bowling record is based on how good your opposition are and in the older times they had a few professionals boosting their record by playing in a field that had amatuers in it. I wouldnt do the same with wicketkeeping as how well you catch a ball is solely your domain.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
There are several exceptional wicketkeepers I've seen:
Jack Russell, Rashid Latif, Khaled Mashud (not watched him that much, but I've barely seen him fumble a single ball), Ian Healy, Chris Read, Keith Piper, Moin Khan, Romesh Kaluwitharana, Adam Parore, Tatenda Taibu.
Of the best of all-time, there's always talk of Don Tallon, Bert Oldfield, Godfrey Evans \ Keith Andrew, Bob Taylor (the only one I've seen extensively, and he was sensational - especially given that 32 of his Test-caps - over half his career - came after his 40th birthday), Wally Grout, George Duckworth, Deryk Murray, Wasim Bari, Ian Smith, Rodney Marsh and probably quite a few others.
The outstanding wicketkeeper by some consent was Jack Blackham, who stood-up to the pace of Frederick Spofforth (which C_C would seek - without any idea of what he's on about - to talk down) and others on the evil pitches of the 10th-century with wicketkeeping equipment that, frankly, was unacceptible for such a job.
Bit surprised no-one mentioned him yet.
Regarding Spofforth, I am sure I have seen it suggested by a few people that he was actually only a medium pacer (well maybe fast medium)
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I read a Wisden article some years back about how some of the best keepers may not have even played the game because their batting was not good enough. It goes on to name a few players in this regard too. Russell is a best recent example who hardly played as much as his keeping skills warranted. If Healy and Gilly were playing at the same time, whom would you play, the best keeper or the adequate keeper who adds more to the team?

One of the dilemnas of cricket never likely to be resolved.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
In terms of quitting chatting rubbish, why don't you start by doing so yourself?

What do you mean by "in the older times they had a few professionals boosting their record by playing in a field that had amatuers in it."

Please expain this statement with particular reference to the fact that Bradman was an amateur. I look forward with great interest to your explanation of how professional bowlers boosted their averages by bowling at the Don.

Cheers,

Mike
 
Last edited:

C_C

International Captain
badgerhair said:
In terms of quitting chatting rubbish, why don't you start by doing so yourself?

What do you mean by "in the older times they had a few professionals boosting their record by playing in a field that had amatuers in it."

Please expain this statement with particular reference to the fact that Bradman was an amateur. I look forward with great interest to your explanation of how professional bowlers boosted their averages by bowling at the Don.

Cheers,

Mike

Cheers,
This is not about Bradman- i've said that Bradman is the best ever batsman but he wont average as much as he did in his era- because how much you average(as a bowler and as a bat) has two components- how good you are and how good the opposition is.
The field up until the late 1950s or so was mixed with amatuers who took cricket very lightly. Wishy washy 'lets play for fun' idea.
Cricket was lacking the intensity it has today or in the past 30-40 years.
Its like a student-work team versus a design team. The latter is lot more intense as all members are up to the par and much better.

As a result, you have instances where past players massively boosted their averages, as part of their runs scored/wickets taken were against hopeless cricketers who wouldnt even make the bangladesh side, let alone their own team.

Any sport in its embryonic stage (and cricket was in embryonic stage until the late 50s, when professionalism entered the fray) has excellent eprformers- performers who wouldnt measure up to the modern day standards as the game was much more relaxed and recreational back then.

I dont see a single cricketer averaging as much as they averaged in the pre-60s era if they played in the post 60s era. Simply because the field is a lot more bunched up and not spread apart.

If you look at the evolution of tennis in the past 30 years, you might get what i mean.
In 1970s or 1980s, the top 10/15 were a 'class apart' and they routinely made tournament finals- today the top players are much less likely to make the finals.
Why ? because the field is a lot closer. The gap between #50 and #1 is much smaller today than it was in the 70s and 80s.
Do not dispute this- this is common knowledge as far as tennis goes.

In short, the field was nowhere as competitive as its now and competition means success is harder.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Pratyush said:
If Healy and Gilly were playing at the same time, whom would you play, the best keeper or the adequate keeper who adds more to the team?
Both.

Gilly at 6, Healy at 7.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
Both.

Gilly at 6, Healy at 7.
Easier said than done. Considering they are now looking for an all rounder who can bowl (thats why they are picking Watson) it would be all the more difficult.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
No, the Watson pick was for a specific match, not a long term tactic.
There is no way to prove that. Watson is a sort of all rounder Australia would love to play. The Sydney match, he was played because just 2 pacers were played but 5 bowlers are always better than 4. And Giclhrist is a sixth batsman already, not that Watson is any mug with a bat.

So with Watson playing, they have a fifth bowler option. Katich played a lot of matches not only because he could bat too. So they have always felt the urge to play some one who could give them a fifth bowler option. Watson is an answer to that.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
C_C said:
This is not about Bradman- i've said that Bradman is the best ever batsman but he wont average as much as he did in his era- because how much you average(as a bowler and as a bat) has two components- how good you are and how good the opposition is.
The field up until the late 1950s or so was mixed with amatuers who took cricket very lightly. Wishy washy 'lets play for fun' idea.
Cricket was lacking the intensity it has today or in the past 30-40 years.
The depths of ignorance displayed by this drivel are simply too abyssal to be worth engaging with. It is, however, useful to have the demonstration that your opinions abolut the past are so riddled with misconception that it is hardly surprising you spout little but codswallop on the subject.

Amateurs were those who were not paid directly by the county club to play cricket. Very few of them, at least post WW1, were the kind of dilettantes you seem to believe infested the game: in fact, most "amateurs" were anything but amateur - for social reasons they were given jobs as assistant secretaries and assistant coaches with duties so light as to be unobservable, with plenty of time off to play cricket for the county XI. Others combined journalism or their business with their sport anyway (running sports shops or writing cricket articles for newspapers), and others had complaisant employers who allowed them enough time off to play.

In other words, they were about as amateur as the Australian amateurs who toured England and played Test matches.

Cheers,

Mike
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Pratyush said:
There is no way to prove that.
Apart from what the selectors said of course.

They're only going to do that when they need 2 spinners - which is definitely not every game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
Tenth Century?

Wessex 128-8
ATR Aethelred 36*, CK Grõdenson 4-27
Jorvik 130-6
NS Sigþórsson 52, MJ Egwin 3-42
Take a look at your keyboard.
Notice the "9" and "0" key are adjacent.
Still - be some interesting games at hand there... :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
Regarding Spofforth, I am sure I have seen it suggested by a few people that he was actually only a medium pacer (well maybe fast medium)
He could bowl fast off-breaks if he wanted to - but he also bowled by most estimations faster than most others around at the time.
Of course we can't take that for gospel but it was certain that he was amongst the quickest in the early days of Test-cricket.
 

C_C

International Captain
The depths of ignorance displayed by this drivel are simply too abyssal to be worth engaging with. It is, however, useful to have the demonstration that your opinions abolut the past are so riddled with misconception that it is hardly surprising you spout little but codswallop on the subject.
the only codswallop thats being sprouted here is by those who think that pre 60s players could HOPE to maintain the same average if they played in the post 60s era.
Like i have said before, i can point you to several sources where you can educate yourself on the level of the game played before late 1950s/1960s.

Amateurs were those who were not paid directly by the county club to play cricket. Very few of them, at least post WW1, were the kind of dilettantes you seem to believe infested the game: in fact, most "amateurs" were anything but amateur - for social reasons they were given jobs as assistant secretaries and assistant coaches with duties so light as to be unobservable, with plenty of time off to play cricket for the county XI. Others combined journalism or their business with their sport anyway (running sports shops or writing cricket articles for newspapers), and others had complaisant employers who allowed them enough time off to play.
incorrect.
I would ask you to and familise yourself with what precisely is the term 'shamatuer'.
As per social reasons, again, thats irrelevant and quite a big generalisation, given that you had some professionals who depended on cricket to make their living.
If you take Wilfred Rhodes' last test for example, out of the playing eleven, five players played past their forties(test cricket) and three of them were close to their overall career averages while into their forties.
Can you tell me why ?
No-dont quote anomalies like Gooch and Boycott......we are talking nearly 50% here.
you will find that case quiete common in the pre-late 50s era.
I will give you one hint: intensity.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
Apart from what the selectors said of course.

They're only going to do that when they need 2 spinners - which is definitely not every game.
Well its not definite. If Watson bats well and ends up securing the spot above some one else in the line up, it would give an extra bowling option which the selectors would definitely not mind.
 

Galactic_Soap

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
In my OPINION:

1) Jack Russel - Fortunate enough to see him play at the Wanderers that fateful day in 1995, as a South African supporter it was very painful. :D

2) Ian Healy - I'm suprised Warne didn't have a *** scandle with him, all the same great keeper.

3) Rashid Latif - Quality behind the stumps.

4) Dave Richardson - I grew up watching the man, so I'm abit biased :P

Cheers
Soapy
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
the only codswallop thats being sprouted here is by those who think that pre 60s players could HOPE to maintain the same average if they played in the post 60s era.
Like i have said before, i can point you to several sources where you can educate yourself on the level of the game played before late 1950s/1960s.



incorrect.
I would ask you to and familise yourself with what precisely is the term 'shamatuer'.
As per social reasons, again, thats irrelevant and quite a big generalisation, given that you had some professionals who depended on cricket to make their living.
If you take Wilfred Rhodes' last test for example, out of the playing eleven, five players played past their forties(test cricket) and three of them were close to their overall career averages while into their forties.
Can you tell me why ?
No-dont quote anomalies like Gooch and Boycott......we are talking nearly 50% here.
you will find that case quiete common in the pre-late 50s era.
I will give you one hint: intensity.
Since you keep harping non-stop about quoting 'sources', why dont you put your money where your mouth is rather than using your foot all the time.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about Benaud's XI or something, where I had requested you to let me have your sources. Unfortunately you seemed to go on a 'vacation' immediately after that.

For your convinience, I am going to put in another request there and get that thread up front to save you the trouble.

Regards.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Pratyush said:
Well its not definite. If Watson bats well and ends up securing the spot above some one else in the line up, it would give an extra bowling option which the selectors would definitely not mind.
In which case he wouldn't be playing as part of a 3 seamer 2 spinner, but as a occasional 4th seamer.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
In which case he wouldn't be playing as part of a 3 seamer 2 spinner, but as a occasional 4th seamer.
EDIT - he would not be ocassional bowler. He would bowl atleast 5-10 overs a match if not more..
 

Top