Greatest wicket keeper ever?

[bagapath]

what about jock cameron? why did CMJ choose him in his pre WW 2 XI? any interesting stuff on him - apart from his style of stumping akin to flicking a cigarette's ash?

 

[SJS]

what about jock cameron? why did CMJ choose him in his pre WW 2 XI? any interesting stuff on him - apart from his style of stumping akin to flicking a cigarette's ash?

I think we, in the sub-continent suffer from an acute lack of knowledge of the South African greats of the earlier eras. It becomes more so in the case of keepers since the cricket literature is mostly about batsmen and keepers.

But you are right. by all accounts, he was a world class wicket keeper who died at a terribly young age of 28.

 

[a massive zebra]

Here....



If I had to extend that list from top four to a batting order like 11, I would have added Blackham, Strudwick, Ames, Evans, Knott, Marsh and Healy.

I would be interested to know your justification for putting Ames in such esteemed company. I had always been under the impression he was merely a competent keeper who made the England side primarily on the strength of his batting, ala most current international keepers. Also I note that the general consensus in the 1930s appears to have been that George Duckworth, barely ever mentioned in a discussion of all time great keepers, easily outclassed Ames purely as a keeper but usually missed out on England selection due to his comparatively limited batting abilities.

Also who would top your list of non Anglo-Australian keepers?

 

[Days of Grace]

I'm betting on Kirmani.

 

[Craig]

Slight OT to my thread, but something was nagging me today at work, for the life of mine I could not decide who was a better 'keeper Mark Boucher or Dave Richardson.

 

[archie mac]

I would be interested to know your justification for putting Ames in such esteemed company. I had always been under the impression he was merely a competent keeper who made the England side primarily on the strength of his batting, ala most current international keepers. Also I note that the general consensus in the 1930s appears to have been that George Duckworth, barely ever mentioned in a discussion of all time great keepers, easily outclassed Ames purely as a keeper but usually missed out on England selection due to his comparatively limited batting abilities.

Also who would top your list of non Anglo-Australian keepers?

Not to answer for SJS (as I am sure he knows more then the rest of us anyway), but contemporary reports tended to believe that Ames was left out because his batting was so good, and in his day they liked to pick the best glove man regardless. So they tended to feel that because he was such a good bat then he could not be as good a keeper as others

Ames was a great stumper if you look at his efforts with Tich, and did very well during the BL series standing back to the quicks or up to Verity

 

[Richard]

Not to answer for SJS (as I am sure he knows more then the rest of us anyway), but contemporary reports tended to believe that Ames was left out because his batting was so good, and in his day they liked to pick the best glove man regardless. So they tended to feel that because he was such a good bat then he could not be as good a keeper as others

That's far from confined to Ames' day. Even now there is often huge reluctance to acknowledge that the best with bat can also be the best with gloves. See Alec Stewart. And also Adam Gilchrist.

 

[SJS]

I would be interested to know your justification for putting Ames in such esteemed company. I had always been under the impression he was merely a competent keeper who made the England side primarily on the strength of his batting, ala most current international keepers. Also I note that the general consensus in the 1930s appears to have been that George Duckworth, barely ever mentioned in a discussion of all time great keepers, easily outclassed Ames purely as a keeper but usually missed out on England selection due to his comparatively limited batting abilities.

Also who would top your list of non Anglo-Australian keepers?

Two points from your post.
1. I am really sorry for missing Duckworth, a great keeper.
2. Ames was a far better wicket keeper than we give him credit for. The fact that he was such an outstanding batsman (he could have most of the time played for England purely as batsman) made people under-rate his keeping.

I also tend to favour him (in other words I show a bias) when I see the modern tendency to put favour a keeper for his batting talents. When people say Gilchrist is the greatest keeper of all times and others support his inclusion in an all time side because of his batting, I always remember Ames. Surely the finest batsman amongst the really fine wicket-keepers. If an all time world XI is so desperately needing to bolster its batting (strange since you should already have six great batsmen there) by neglecting to pick the best wicket keeper of all times (Tallon, Oldfield, Knott, Taylor, Blackham, whoever) then I think the keeper to pick is Ames.

There are 147 players to have scored fifty or more first class fifties (24 of them have 100 or more) and not one of them is a wicket keeper except Ames who has 102 (including 9 double hundreds. He pased a thousand in England in seventeen different seasons - crossing 2000 five times and once scoring over 3000 !

But we are talking of his keeping.

From all accounts he was one of those wicket-keepers who was so un-spectacular that you wouldn't notice him. Its difficult in today's times to understand how big a compliment that is for a wicket keeper. Wisden wrote early in his career (in 1929, his debut year)

He gets down very low when standing up--he has not yet had the practice of some other wicket-keepers in standing back to fast bowling---and keeps without fuss or attempt at spectacular effect. It has been said of him that he makes wicket-keeping look easy, which appears to be true; it is the greatest compliment which can be paid to a wicket-keeper.​

Sixty three years later on his death, Wisden wrote again :-

On the Bodyline tour he took the thunderbolts of Larwood and Voce with quiet efficiency. His style was unobtrusive; there were no flamboyant gestures. He saw the ball so early that he was invariably in the right position without having to throw himself about. His glove-work was neat and economical, his stumpings almost apologetic.​

He had more than 1000 dismissals behind the stumps of which 418 are stumpings which is a record by a HUGE margin over everyone else.

No Sir, Ames was better than being just a batsman who could also keep wickets. Duckworth may (just may) have been better just as Bob Taylor was better than Knott but Knott was such a fabulous keeper in his own right that with his batting as a bonus, the choice was clear. They were both great keepers but Taylor was better. The difference however was not so much as to ignore Knott's far superior batting. It was the same with Ames and Ducjworth

But there are those who disagree just as there are those who feel Taylor should have always been preferred to Knott.

 

[Swervy]

That's far from confined to Ames' day. Even now there is often huge reluctance to acknowledge that the best with bat can also be the best with gloves. See Alec Stewart. And also Adam Gilchrist.

Jack Russell not better than Stewart?

 

[Richard]

Not after Stewart started to devote as much time to his 'keeping as his batting.

Russell in West Indies in 1998 performed worse than Stewart ever did between 1996/97 and 2002/03.

It was only 1990-1995/96 that Russell was a better gloveman than Stewart. Though it was rather silly that Russell ever lost his place to Richard Blakey and Stephen Rhodes.

 

[Richard]

Two points from your post.
1. I am really sorry for missing Duckworth, a great keeper.
2. Ames was a far better wicket keeper than we give him credit for. The fact that he was such an outstanding batsman (he could have most of the time played for England purely as batsman) made people under-rate his keeping.

I also tend to favour him (in other words I show a bias) when I see the modern tendency to put favour a keeper for his batting talents. When people say Gilchrist is the greatest keeper of all times and others support his inclusion in an all time side because of his batting, I always remember Ames. Surely the finest batsman amongst the really fine wicket-keepers. If an all time world XI is so desperately needing to bolster its batting (strange since you should already have six great batsmen there) by neglecting to pick the best wicket keeper of all times (Tallon, Oldfield, Knott, Taylor, Blackham, whoever) then I think the keeper to pick is Ames.

There are 147 players to have scored fifty or more first class fifties (24 of them have 100 or more) and not one of them is a wicket keeper except Ames who has 102 (including 9 double hundreds. He pased a thousand in England in seventeen different seasons - crossing 2000 five times and once scoring over 3000 !

But we are talking of his keeping.

From all accounts he was one of those wicket-keepers who was so un-spectacular that you wouldn't notice him. Its difficult in today's times to understand how big a compliment that is for a wicket keeper. Wisden wrote early in his career (in 1929, his debut year)

He gets down very low when standing up--he has not yet had the practice of some other wicket-keepers in standing back to fast bowling---and keeps without fuss or attempt at spectacular effect. It has been said of him that he makes wicket-keeping look easy, which appears to be true; it is the greatest compliment which can be paid to a wicket-keeper.​

Sixty three years later on his death, Wisden wrote again :-

On the Bodyline tour he took the thunderbolts of Larwood and Voce with quiet efficiency. His style was unobtrusive; there were no flamboyant gestures. He saw the ball so early that he was invariably in the right position without having to throw himself about. His glove-work was neat and economical, his stumpings almost apologetic.​

He had more than 1000 dismissals behind the stumps of which 418 are stumpings which is a record by a HUGE margin over everyone else.

No Sir, Ames was better than being just a batsman who could also keep wickets. Duckworth may (just may) have been better just as Bob Taylor was better than Knott but Knott was such a fabulous keeper in his own right that with his batting as a bonus, the choice was clear. They were both great keepers but Taylor was better. The difference however was not so much as to ignore Knott's far superior batting. It was the same with Ames and Ducjworth

But there are those who disagree just as there are those who feel Taylor should have always been preferred to Knott.

How fascinating. I had never known of Ames' calibre with the gloves, having always heard nothing but the line amz mentioned about how Duckworth was obviously the better gloveman.

 

[Debris]

Healy of those who I have seen.

Sadly it has been shown lately that great keeping on it's own is not that valuable. A competent wicketkeeper who is a decent (and fast-scoring) bat is more valuable.

 

[SJS]

How fascinating. I had never known of Ames' calibre with the gloves, having always heard nothing but the line amz mentioned about how Duckworth was obviously the better gloveman.

There is a very interesting piece on wicket keepers by AA Thomson where he states that Ames was so very good as a batsman that it was almost impossible (for the selectors) to believe that someone who bats so well could also be England's best wicket keeper. He is writing about Ames and Evans and suggests that similarly, Evans keeping is underestimated due to its sheer brilliance (as against the sedate keeping that is considered the hallmark of solidity).

There was..... Ames who might called England's greatest batsman-wicket-keeper, just as his successor, Evans, might be called England's most brilliant wicket-keeper-batsman. It is arguable that Lilley in an age of giants, was more valuable to England of his day than either of these would have been in theirs, but then this could be no more than a pleasantly academic argument between elderly friends.

In a sense and in slightly varying ways both Ames and Evans have been handicapped by their own virtuosity. It is a policy clear to sage selectors that you should chose the best wicket-keeper available, even if he does not know one end of the bat from the other. True, but even this soundest of principals can be carried to excess, as I believe it was, when Ames was later than he should have been in receiving his England cap.

It was almost impossible to believe that he was also the best wicket-keeper available when he was making two and even three thousand runs a season, and at a cracking pace too, yet his (keeping) records at the time (121 victims in 1928 and 127 in 1929) were fantastic.

Another immutable law of selection is that you must pick a wicket-keeper who is sound rather than showy. True again and manifestly proved by such seasoned choices as Lilley, Strudwick and "Tiger" Smith. But Godfrey Evans made hey of convention, for he was both sound as a bell and spectacular as a catherine wheel. The truth about Evans is that he has been a quicksilver character in a suet pudding age. His darting movements flow from his exuberance. He enjoys wicket keeping as do few wicket-keepers, a sober race as a rule, devoted to duty rather than fun. He does not play to the gallery. He would be his mercurial self even if only one spectator were present. And when he retired from behind England's stumps, another rare cavalier's plume was laid to rest in the hat box.

Perhaps the meteoric rise of Evans across the cricketing skies proves nothing except that the exception proves the rule. With such brilliance running loose. it was hard on the next man. It always is. During Evans glorious reign there were others, notably McIntyre, who might be reckoned equally sound, or even sounder, county wicket-keepers, but Evans was always able to , in Tests, bring that extra something that is genius, and was on that account rightly chosen.​

 

[BhupinderSingh]

but Rashid Latif was more over a controversy man....

Not in my books though.

 

[SJS]

Some more about Geoge Duckworth

There are several points regarding the fallacy of the argument that Ames played before Duckworth because of his batting rather than his keeping. These are :-

1. Duckworth was not really appreciated by the purists of the day because of his unconventional style of keeping. Ames was more orthodox.
   
2. Duckworth still played before Ames for quite sometime till his keeping let England down very badly on some crucial occasions bringing his unconventional style even more into the forefront and subject of criticism. It was only after that, that Ames' orthodox keeping got preferred.
   
3. Batting was not a criteria for preferring a keeper in those days and there were other keepers who batted very well (though not in Ames' class) and were far better than those who played for England at that time and yet did not get selected.

His unconventional style
Its generally held that wicket keeping styles changed a lot after the end of the second world war. The wicket keepers became more flamboyant, The keeping looked more spectacular with keepers standing back a lot and diving a lot more. However, there was one major wicket keeper who played before the second world war who style was like that. His name - George Duckworth.

By general consent he was at his best when standing back ...

Duckworth was not the most stylish of keepers - Cardus accorded that privilege to Oldfield and to Henry Martyn, who stood up to the fierce pace of Knox, Brearley and Kortright - but he was rapid, accurate and ever vigilant.

Oldfield, so pure and effortless in all he did, was somewhat bemused by Duckworth when he arrived in Australia in 1928-29. He took to his rich warm character, but his style of wicket-keeping raised doubts in his mind.​

writes David Lemmon in his delightful book , "The Great Wicketkeepers"

Oldfield described Duckworth in action:

It was not an unusual sight to see Duckworth, never still for a moment, trying to roll up his gloved hands, at the same time casting quick glances at the slips and then at the bowler. A moment later he would be bringing off an amazing stop offa wide delivery. In so doing, however, he frequently revealed a weakness in footwork as, in endeavouring to take such a ball, he would finish up full length on the ground with outstretched arms, having just managed to stop it.​

2. Ames wasn't always preferred to Duckworth inspite of his superior batting

1928 against Windies at home :After a solitary test in 1924 against the visiting South Africans, Duckworth played his next Test against The West Indians visiting in the second half on 1928. Ames had already scored over 1200 runs the previous year and was sensational that summer (ending up finally with an amazing 1919 runs the highest till then by an English wicket keeper). Yet he wasn't England's keeper in any match. It was Harry Smith in the first Test, Harry Smith in the second and Duckworth in the third. None of those three could hold a candle to Ames as a batsman even then and yet he was not played.

1928-29 : In Australia : As indicated above Duckwotrth was the number one keeper, he played all the five tests.Ames was on the tour, got very few opportunities yet managed to average 59 in the tour games. Duckworth averaged 12 thanks to his highest test score of 39 not out. Otherwise it would have been halved. Yet Ames wasn't preferred.

1929 : South Africa at Home
Duckworth played four of the five Test. His selection for the side was not without argument while Ames made his Test debut in the last test.
according to Lemmon. Duckworth keeping by this time was drawing quite a bit of negative comment due to his flamboyance and some resulting inconsistency. Ames made his debut in the last test if this series and scored a DUCK!

In 1929-30, MCC took a team to NZland for 4 Tsets. They rested Duckworth but took Cornford with Barratt as deputy.

In 1929-30 they then toured Windies. This time they took Ames and he played all four Test matches, had 12 victims behind the stumps including 5 stumpings. He also scored 417 runs with two centuries and a batting average of 59.6!!

Yet when the Ashes series came around a just a month later, Ames had no place in the side. This gives again gives the lie to the argument that his batting influenced his selection.

1930 : Australians at Home Now came the series in which the wicket-keepers selection became a big issue.

Chapman was captain in the first four tests and Duckworth again the wicket keeper. For the final test, at Oval, Wyatt took over as captain.

The selectors took the unprecedented step of taking two wicket-keepers to Oval and not deciding until the last minute, which one was to play. They settled (once again) on Duckworth, whom Wyatt considered the better keeper. and Ames was omitted.

It was a fateful decision. Wyatt's selection as captain had been controversial and he and Duckworth bore the brunt of the criticism when Australia regained the Ashes by an innings victory.​

This is what happened.

As Australia began their reply to England's 405, Duckworth droped Woodfull at 6. Woodfull went on to score 54. He then dropped Ponsford at 23 and again at 45. He went on to score 110 and the two put on 159 for the first wicket !

Bradman walked in at the fall of Woodfull and was batting sedately at 82, when Duckworth dropped him too. Bradman went on to score 232 !

Cardus argued that Duckworth 'created' chances by his acrobatics that others would not have anticipated.... but Wyatt and others were adamant that but for Duckworth's lapses, England might have won.

His detractors downplay Cardus' well known 'adoration' of Duckworth (a Lancastrian) and maintain that rather than creating chances, by resorting to acrobatics rather than relying on footwork, Duckworth actually made the chances appear more difficult than they were. And by being airborne or with very little of his body grounded, he reduced his chances of safely holding on to the catch.

Ames, of course,played no match in this series too inspite of his run geting in West Indies where the second of his two centuries in the Test matches was scored in the first week of April! Just 4 weeks before Australia began their tour on the 30th of the same month!!.

In fact, he wasn't played in any game against the Australians although there was an MCC versus Australia game early on the tour. His lone game against The Aussies was for Kent. By then the Test series was fininshed.

Just for the scored just 8 runs.

1930-31 : In South Africa He went to South Africa and played the first three tests before being injured. Ames wasn;t even taken as his deputy which was Farrimond who was his deputy at Lancashire !!

1932-32 : Australia and bodylineThis was the first time Ames went on a tour as England's first keeper. Duckworth was his deputy. Ames keeping against the thunderbolts of Larwood and company has been widely written about by various writers. This spelt the begining of the end for Duckworth.

He played one consolation Test in NZland after the bodyline series and another in South Africa in 1935 when Ames was injured. Besides he he played 3 Tests against India in 1936
​

3. Preference for batsman wicket keeper.This has not been seen in England even till well after the second world war. The only case of a player being selected in a touring side by MCC who might not be taken purely for keeping was Whysall in 1924-25 when he was taken as an understudy to Strudwick. Even that was to bolster the batting rather than to be a second choice keeper. In fact all the four tests that Whysall played for England, he never kept wickets and played purely as batsman.

The days of Alec Stewart were not foreseen in those times.​

 

[haroon510]

kumara sangakara.. but since he doesn't keep in test matches soo my voted goes to Gilly

 

[archie mac]

Some more about Geoge Duckworth

There are several points regarding the fallacy of the argument that Ames played before Duckworth because of his batting rather than his keeping. These are :-

1. Duckworth was not really appreciated by the purists of the day because of his unconventional style of keeping. Ames was more orthodox.
   
2. Duckworth still played before Ames for quite sometime till his keeping let England down very badly on some crucial occasions bringing his unconventional style even more into the forefront and subject of criticism. It was only after that, that Ames' orthodox keeping got preferred.
   
3. Batting was not a criteria for preferring a keeper in those days and there were other keepers who batted very well (though not in Ames' class) and were far better than those who played for England at that time and yet did not get selected.

His unconventional style
Its generally held that wicket keeping styles changed a lot after the end of the second world war. The wicket keepers became more flamboyant, The keeping looked more spectacular with keepers standing back a lot and diving a lot more. However, there was one major wicket keeper who played before the second world war who style was like that. His name - George Duckworth.

By general consent he was at his best when standing back ...

Duckworth was not the most stylish of keepers - Cardus accorded that privilege to Oldfield and to Henry Martyn, who stood up to the fierce pace of Knox, Brearley and Kortright - but he was rapid, accurate and ever vigilant.

Oldfield, so pure and effortless in all he did, was somewhat bemused by Duckworth when he arrived in Australia in 1928-29. He took to his rich warm character, but his style of wicket-keeping raised doubts in his mind.​

writes David Lemmon in his delightful book , "The Great Wicketkeepers"

Oldfield described Duckworth in action:

It was not an unusual sight to see Duckworth, never still for a moment, trying to roll up his gloved hands, at the same time casting quick glances at the slips and then at the bowler. A moment later he would be bringing off an amazing stop offa wide delivery. In so doing, however, he frequently revealed a weakness in footwork as, in endeavouring to take such a ball, he would finish up full length on the ground with outstretched arms, having just managed to stop it.​

2. Ames wasn't always preferred to Duckworth inspite of his superior batting

1928 against Windies at home :After a solitary test in 1924 against the visiting South Africans, Duckworth played his next Test against The West Indians visiting in the second half on 1928. Ames had already scored over 1200 runs the previous year and was sensational that summer (ending up finally with an amazing 1919 runs the highest till then by an English wicket keeper). Yet he wasn't England's keeper in any match. It was Harry Smith in the first Test, Harry Smith in the second and Duckworth in the third. None of those three could hold a candle to Ames as a batsman even then and yet he was not played.

1928-29 : In Australia : As indicated above Duckwotrth was the number one keeper, he played all the five tests.Ames was on the tour, got very few opportunities yet managed to average 59 in the tour games. Duckworth averaged 12 thanks to his highest test score of 39 not out. Otherwise it would have been halved. Yet Ames wasn't preferred.

1929 : South Africa at Home
Duckworth played four of the five Test. His selection for the side was not without argument while Ames made his Test debut in the last test.
according to Lemmon. Duckworth keeping by this time was drawing quite a bit of negative comment due to his flamboyance and some resulting inconsistency. Ames made his debut in the last test if this series and scored a DUCK!

In 1929-30, MCC took a team to NZland for 4 Tsets. They rested Duckworth but took Cornford with Barratt as deputy.

In 1929-30 they then toured Windies. This time they took Ames and he played all four Test matches, had 12 victims behind the stumps including 5 stumpings. He also scored 417 runs with two centuries and a batting average of 59.6!!

Yet when the Ashes series came around a just a month later, Ames had no place in the side. This gives again gives the lie to the argument that his batting influenced his selection.

1930 : Australians at Home Now came the series in which the wicket-keepers selection became a big issue.

Chapman was captain in the first four tests and Duckworth again the wicket keeper. For the final test, at Oval, Wyatt took over as captain.

The selectors took the unprecedented step of taking two wicket-keepers to Oval and not deciding until the last minute, which one was to play. They settled (once again) on Duckworth, whom Wyatt considered the better keeper. and Ames was omitted.

It was a fateful decision. Wyatt's selection as captain had been controversial and he and Duckworth bore the brunt of the criticism when Australia regained the Ashes by an innings victory.​

This is what happened.

As Australia began their reply to England's 405, Duckworth droped Woodfull at 6. Woodfull went on to score 54. He then dropped Ponsford at 23 and again at 45. He went on to score 110 and the two put on 159 for the first wicket !

Bradman walked in at the fall of Woodfull and was batting sedately at 82, when Duckworth dropped him too. Bradman went on to score 232 !

Cardus argued that Duckworth 'created' chances by his acrobatics that others would not have anticipated.... but Wyatt and others were adamant that but for Duckworth's lapses, England might have won.

His detractors downplay Cardus' well known 'adoration' of Duckworth (a Lancastrian) and maintain that rather than creating chances, by resorting to acrobatics rather than relying on footwork, Duckworth actually made the chances appear more difficult than they were. And by being airborne or with very little of his body grounded, he reduced his chances of safely holding on to the catch.

Ames, of course,played no match in this series too inspite of his run geting in West Indies where the second of his two centuries in the Test matches was scored in the first week of April! Just 4 weeks before Australia began their tour on the 30th of the same month!!.

In fact, he wasn't played in any game against the Australians although there was an MCC versus Australia game early on the tour. His lone game against The Aussies was for Kent. By then the Test series was fininshed.

Just for the scored just 8 runs.

1930-31 : In South Africa He went to South Africa and played the first three tests before being injured. Ames wasn;t even taken as his deputy which was Farrimond who was his deputy at Lancashire !!

1932-32 : Australia and bodylineThis was the first time Ames went on a tour as England's first keeper. Duckworth was his deputy. Ames keeping against the thunderbolts of Larwood and company has been widely written about by various writers. This spelt the begining of the end for Duckworth.

He played one consolation Test in NZland after the bodyline series and another in South Africa in 1935 when Ames was injured. Besides he he played 3 Tests against India in 1936
​

3. Preference for batsman wicket keeper.This has not been seen in England even till well after the second world war. The only case of a player being selected in a touring side by MCC who might not be taken purely for keeping was Whysall in 1924-25 when he was taken as an understudy to Strudwick. Even that was to bolster the batting rather than to be a second choice keeper. In fact all the four tests that Whysall played for England, he never kept wickets and played purely as batsman.

The days of Alec Stewart were not foreseen in those times.​

I read in a bio of Don Bradman by Charles Williams (from memory) that Duckworth was the better keeper during the 1928/29 series. I can not remember reading that anywhere else, but it suggests that he was a pretty decent keeper if he can be compared to Oldfield

 

[Isura]

whoa SJS, you should write a book

 

[SJS]

I read in a bio of Don Bradman by Charles Williams (from memory) that Duckworth was the better keeper during the 1928/29 series. I can not remember reading that anywhere else, but it suggests that he was a pretty decent keeper if he can be compared to Oldfield

Oh he was a fabulous keeper without doubt.

I am sure you have read this book of David Lemon.It has individual chapters devoted to the following keepers and is a great little book for anyone fascinated by keeping.

1. Blackahm
2. Dick Lilley
3. Tiger Smith
4. Strudwick
5. Oldfield
6. Duckworth
7. Les Ames
8. Jock Cameron
9. Don Tallon
10. Langley and Grout
11. Godfrey Evans
12. Murray and Parks
13. Alan Knott
14. Bob Taylor
15. Rodney Marsh
16. Wasim Bari
17. Engineer and Kirmani

I think that covers all the top wicket keepers of the world till 1984 when that book was first published with the exception of Keith Andrews. He does write about Andrews in the book, of course.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can't recall this being done, but then again my brain has been playing games with me. So who is he? Batting not included.

If it has been done, well I give up.

kumara sangakara.. but since he doesn't keep in test matches soo my voted goes to Gilly.

As it's "batting not included" neither of those two have even the slightest case for being the greatest wicketkeeper ever.