Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[AndyZaltzHair]

Keeping is too subjective I reckon. Stats are an almost meaningless measure. Not all bowlers end up with the same % of dismissals stumped or caught behind the wicket, simply as a result of varying MOs. You cant hold it against a keeper for not taking a lot of catches if his bowlers bowl to hit the pads and stumps.

Drop % and byes conceded might give a better picture, but there will be keepers who drop catches that others wouldnt event attempt, and those who have to keep to very erratic attacks.

I dont think any method of rating keeping/fielding ability accurately has been devised yet.

That's true. I think no method yet can measure the difference in keeping ability. If we look in terms of stumpings, keepers like Dujon will miss out because he almost always had to stand back in WI pace domination era. Whereas Syed Kirmani used to keep to spinners mostly. For byes conceded, throughout history many keepers stood up to stumps to fast bowlers even.

 

[Furball]

No Rahul Dravid was not as his peak in that 2011 series, he was long past his peak by that series any fair Indian fan would tell post 2007/08 - Dravid was longer the "great wall" anymore - just as many members of India big 4 middle-order were in decline.

He just summed one last moment of his greatness in that 2011 series, similar to Gordon Greenidge scoring 226 in his penultimate test in 1991 or what Akram did at times post 1997.

Cool, so you don't understand peak performance. No worries.

 

[aussie]

Of course you would

Its not possible that you could, y'know, be wrong?

Of course you would say that you didn't do the stats breakdown, so if Victor Ian does it - its obvious you would jump and take it as potential gospel because you are inclined due to bias to accept what he says.

Not all cricket stats for players or whatever other scenario in cricket reflect accurately on what is the reality of the respective situation.

 

[aussie]

Cool, so you don't understand peak performance. No worries.

It was one of his best series of his career against a high quality pace attack, considering the conditions and fact that he did it as a opener past his overall career peak. But it wasn't his peak career performance.

 

[viriya]

How does one rate a keeper considering there seems to be no information regarding extras let through against their names. It seems the only metric is dismissals. Does this leave keeping as the only area of cricket where statistics really tell you nothing?

Keeping is too subjective I reckon. Stats are an almost meaningless measure. Not all bowlers end up with the same % of dismissals stumped or caught behind the wicket, simply as a result of varying MOs. You cant hold it against a keeper for not taking a lot of catches if his bowlers bowl to hit the pads and stumps.

Drop % and byes conceded might give a better picture, but there will be keepers who drop catches that others wouldnt event attempt, and those who have to keep to very erratic attacks.

I dont think any method of rating keeping/fielding ability accurately has been devised yet.

I've done some work on this, only clear problem is that there is no data pre-2005:
cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Careers
cricrate | Best/Worst Test Fielding Careers

Using just the post-2005 data it seems that Gilly dropped less but Sanga completed more great catches.

 

[aussie]

So based off this logic, you are either claiming every batsman who scored bulk of their runs between 2000-2005 is no good -which is ridiculous- or are saying that every succesful batsman ever was just waiting to be found out, and a guy like Bradman was basically lucky that his career ended before his flaws could be exposed...which is equally ridiculous.

Quite clearly that's not what I'm saying there at all. If that's what you interpreted by that statement I can't help you any further.

 

[aussie]

Yea okay read Aussie's essay - the TLDR is that apparently Gilchrist's flaw was that he never developed a technique to counter bowling that (Aussie claims) he never faced, and that his 'finding out' happened during is natural decline as a cricketer anyways, and as such he isn't an ATG cricketer.

Love this new standard being set here - batsmen must develop techniques to score runs aginst bowling attacks they aren't facing, rather than to score runs against the actual bowlers bowling at them.

TLDR?

Your comprehension and interpretation skills are plummeting in every post - where did i ever say the bold.

And say Gilchrist had a "natural decline" over and over doesn't make it true. He got exposed technically during his peak & this was why his run scoring in tests declined. In fact I'm not even sure if Gilchrist's general batting had skills from his traditional style of playing had deteriorated much in his final days, his keeping did however & he stated that was more why he retired

The trailblazer completes his last act | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I've done some work on this, only clear problem is that there is no data pre-2005:
cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Careers
cricrate | Best/Worst Test Fielding Careers

Using just the post-2005 data it seems that Gilly dropped less but Sanga completed more great catches.

How do you define great catches? It has been discussed plenty of times before I think; some keepers will make a catch look like difficult and some will not. About dropping, there can be an easy catch drop or a hard one or some keeper will do good enough to even get a touch on the ball. While it's good to represent some stats to give some sort of idea but the gaps in these are too big to consider these seriously.

 

[viriya]

How do you define great catches? It has been discussed plenty of times before I think; some keepers will make a catch look like difficult and some will not. About dropping, there can be an easy catch drop or a hard one or some keeper will do good enough to even get a touch on the ball. While it's good to represent some stats to give some sort of idea but the gaps in these are too big to consider these seriously.

It's based on text commentary data.

Methodology: cricrate | Test Fielding Ratings

If you want to discuss this further: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach-14.html

 

[aussie]

Don't forget that he says Akram's great innings in his decline period are just aberrations, yet Gilchrist's series against New Zealand is not an aberration. I partly accept that Gilchrist had a flaw in his technique exposed.I just don't accept that it was not his age and diminishing skills that made it ongoing.

So I'm ask you too - when Dravid scored 3 hundreds in ENG 2011, was that Dravid in his best days or Dravid producing a aberration one final great series during the declining phase of his career?

Also whether you fully or partly accept he had a flaw or not - can you point out in your opinion or understanding of Gilchrist's test career, which point before the 2005 Ashes, did you see any pace attack (preferably good) targeting the flaw you partly accept he had during the PAK 99 - NZ 2005 period?

 

[Contra]

And regarding Gilchrist that question was asked before & I said if he had actually retired before Ashes 2005 magically - we indeed would have never seen him struggle or exposed the way he was. At best given how other players of the decade such a Graeme Smith, Sehwag, Hayden, Sangakkara, Jaywardene, Samaraweera, Younis Khan, M Yousuf, C'Paul, Gambhir etc etc who plundered runs during the FTB 2000-2005 era either failed or adjusted well to the improved quality pace bowling post 2005 - we would just be left wondering if Gilly would have prospered or struggled.

Gambhir was barely in the team during 2000-2005 time period....

 

[Pratters]

But if Gambhir was in the team 2000-2005, he would have made runs as it was flat track era. Thus, he was no good. Simple.

 

[cnerd123]

Not all cricket stats for players or whatever other scenario in cricket reflect accurately on what is the reality of the respective situation.

"MY stats make sense, and any stats or performances that back MY claims are right. If your stats prove me wrong, well then they are obviously false. Any performances that contradict my theory are also quite clearly abberations. Therefore I am always right, you are always wrong, and this discussion isnt worth having, but I am going to continue anyways because it feels good everytime I manage to convince myself that I am smarter than other people, regardless of what the truth actually is."

 

[Furball]

It was one of his best series of his career against a high quality pace attack, considering the conditions and fact that he did it as a opener past his overall career peak. But it wasn't his peak career performance.

What was then?

 

[Victor Ian]

So I'm ask you too - when Dravid scored 3 hundreds in ENG 2011, was that Dravid in his best days or Dravid producing a aberration one final great series during the declining phase of his career?

Also whether you fully or partly accept he had a flaw or not - can you point out in your opinion or understanding of Gilchrist's test career, which point before the 2005 Ashes, did you see any pace attack (preferably good) targeting the flaw you partly accept he had during the PAK 99 - NZ 2005 period?

You will not accept that Gilchrist was ageing and keep throwing out New Zealand as proof. Why do you refuse to see that New Zealand is exactly the same case as England for Dravid? Once my Grandmother turned 90 she no longer had the reflexes to defend her left side so, naturally, this was where I always roundhouse kicked her to the ground from then on.

 

[aussie]

Gambhir was barely in the team during 2000-2005 time period....

Yes slight mistake there, not sure why I mentioned his name. Gambhir was more a FTB in the 2007-2010 period when he was recalled and used to be charging fast bowlers and stuff. Then as soon as ran into first good pace attack in S Africa 2010, when Morkel found his weakness to his around the wicket angle, his career completely fell away.

 

[aussie]

What was then?

Possibly in back to back series vs AUS & PAK circa 2003/04 - given the context that draw in AUS & win in PAK meant for IND cricket at the time.

Then earlier in his career he had very impressive away tours to WI & SA 96/97 vs Donald/Pollock, Ambi/Walsh.

 

[aussie]

You will not accept that Gilchrist was ageing and keep throwing out New Zealand as proof. Why do you refuse to see that New Zealand is exactly the same case as England for Dravid? Once my Grandmother turned 90 she no longer had the reflexes to defend her left side so, naturally, this was where I always roundhouse kicked her to the ground from then on.

Its incomparable with Dravid.

There was no talk in March 2005 about Gilchrist ageing, in fact people hardly noticed he was 34 then. As i mentioned before that was the point in his career when his average was at 55 & people were praising him to the god's of being a truly next level keeper in cricket history. Up until NZ 2005, Gilchrist didn't have a bad series/or series he didn't contribute other than vs IND in 03/04 & that wasn't because he was exposed technically.

Dravid was no longer the "great wall" after about 2008. expect for vs ENG 2011, he pretty much struggle vs every good attack he faced in this period. His reputation is why IND kept playing him.

Also you or nobody aint't address my point regarding Hayden. If you don't believe the aforementioned was how Gilly's evolved, how do you explain the similar situation with Hayden where he also had technique exposed by ENG throughout the Ashes 05 - but adjusted unlike Gilly with his career saving Oval century & vs other good attacks in SA 05/06, super test (if you want to consider this game) and vs Zaheer Khan in 08, who targeted that known weakness of his - however Hayden still scored centuries vs them all?

 

[aussie]

"MY stats make sense, and any stats or performances that back MY claims are right. If your stats prove me wrong, well then they are obviously false. Any performances that contradict my theory are also quite clearly abberations. Therefore I am always right, you are always wrong, and this discussion isnt worth having, but I am going to continue anyways because it feels good everytime I manage to convince myself that I am smarter than other people, regardless of what the truth actually is."

Right since you believe every stat is a accurate reflection of everything. Let me throw some at you:

- Mark Waugh averaged 41, was that a accurate reflection of how good a player he was?

- Lance Klusener averaged 37 with the ball in tests, that an accurate reflection of how good a bowler he was in tests?

- Ben Hilfenhaus averaged 52 with the ball when AUS beat S Africa 2-1 in 2009, did that average reflect how well he bowled?

- Lee averaged around 40 with the ball in Ashes 05, accurate reflection?

- Samaraweera for large parts of his career averaged 50, accurate reflection of his ability?

- NZ drew 0-0 in AUS 2001, only team outside IND 03/04 to leave AUS in glory days without being defeated - that was a accurate reflection of how competitive or not that series was?

- Andy Ganteaume averages 112 in test cricket - what does this mean?

 

[Furball]

Right since you believe every stat is a accurate reflection of everything. Let me throw some at you:

- Mark Waugh averaged 41, was that a accurate reflection of how good a player he was?

- Lance Klusener averaged 37 with the ball in tests, that an accurate reflection of how good a bowler he was in tests?

- Ben Hilfenhaus averaged 52 with the ball when AUS beat S Africa 2-1 in 2009, did that average reflect how well he bowled?

- Lee averaged around 40 with the ball in Ashes 05, accurate reflection?

- Samaraweera for large parts of his career averaged 50, accurate reflection of his ability?

- NZ drew 0-0 in AUS 2001, only team outside IND 03/04 to leave AUS in glory days without being defeated - that was a accurate reflection of how competitive or not that series was?

- Andy Ganteaume averages 112 in test cricket - what does this mean?

1. Yes. Waugh's top score is 156, without looking it up? Sure, he might have been pretty to watch, but he was rarely a batsman who put the opposition to the sword. Most batsmen who fit that description tend to average early 40s.

2. Yes. Klusener wasn't a particularly brilliant bowler in either format.

3. Too short a sample size to fully reflect things. What the average does tell you is that he didn't take many wickets.

4. Lee spent most of that series bowling absolute trash, with the odd decent performance (2nd innings at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge) thrown in. An average of 40 probably flatters him.

5. Yes. Average almost certainly flattered by playing a lot of his Test cricket in Asia, however a player is most useful to his side if he's able to bat or bowl best in the conditions he'll face most often. There's also much less of a disparity between his home and away records than several of his Australian contemporaries.

6. No idea.

7. An average is the number of runs scored by a batsman divided by the number of dismissals. So this means that Ganteaume averaged 112 runs before he was dismissed when he played Test cricket.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Better knock up one of your quizzes.