The value of a specialist keeper vs a wicketkeeper batsman

[kyear2]

I have a suspicion there is some data on it but it isn't privy to the public. Opta Sports have people recording fielding actions.
Given that the English have been continually picking WK batters despite some criticisms there must be some reasoning behind it.
That's why Gilchrist is such a gem, for most other keepers there is a trade off between keeping skill & batting. Les Ames may have been another.

Make no mistake, Gilly was a world class keeper, perhaps even great. He wasn't in the same league as Healy, so there's always a trade off, just his was minimal and his batting made it more than palatable.

I prefer though where we set a minimal standard of at least world class, before we even start to suggest batting.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

How many legitimately great wicket-keepers have ever averaged over 35?

I know I overrate a few Kiwis, but watch out for Mitch Hay. He's quality to both pace and spin (can't recall seeing such a good NZ keeper at stumping or sprinting catches to the boundary in white ball). He is yet to debut in tests but averaging about 46/47 in 1st class and 41 in ODIs. Aged 24

 

[honestbharani]

I know I overrate a few Kiwis

I would say a tad...

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Good Lord, this is a travesty.

Okay so if you are saying that Healy is better or equal to Flower as a cricketer because of his quality wicketkeeping than the likes of Rizwan, Watling must be in a different league to Flower as cricketers, coz they are amazing wicketkeepers and far better batsman than Healy( when i say healy I am including all the other specialist fielders like Knott, Russell, Foakes, Saha).

According to the logic used in this Thread
De Kock, Rizwan, Watling >> Healy >> Flower

Everyone and their dog knows this is wrong.

 

[kyear2]

Good Lord, this is a travesty.

Okay so if you are saying that Healy is better or equal to Flower as a cricketer because of his quality wicketkeeping than the likes of Rizwan, Watling must be in a different league to Flower as cricketers, coz they are amazing wicketkeepers and far better batsman than Healy( when i say healy I am including all the other specialist fielders like Knott, Russell, Foakes, Saha).

According to the logic used in this Thread
De Kock, Rizwan, Watling >> Healy >> Flower

Everyone and their dog knows this is wrong.

I'm not ranking them as "cricketers" though, I'm rating them as how they benefit a team as a wicketkeeper.

The wicketkeeper position is one of only two slots that are by definition all rounder position, but everyone has their own weighting as to how to balance the skills.

All I'm saying that there isn't a keeper outside of Gilchrist that I'm taking ahead of Knott.

If the bowler to whom Gilly is keeping isn't Warne, even that changes the equation.

Knott is an ATG elite gloveman and a more than capable no. 7 batsman.

That's exceptionally useful and incredibly rare.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Good Lord, this is a travesty.

Okay so if you are saying that Healy is better or equal to Flower as a cricketer because of his quality wicketkeeping than the likes of Rizwan, Watling must be in a different league to Flower as cricketers, coz they are amazing wicketkeepers and far better batsman than Healy( when i say healy I am including all the other specialist fielders like Knott, Russell, Foakes, Saha).

According to the logic used in this Thread
De Kock, Rizwan, Watling >> Healy >> Flower

Everyone and their dog knows this is wrong.

Flower is a better cricketer than all of these, but it has nothing to do with his keeping

 

[kyear2]

Flower is a better cricketer than all of these, but it has nothing to do with his keeping

He's a better batsman, but was he better at his primary craft than Knott, I think not.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not ranking them as "cricketers" though, I'm rating them as how they benefit a team as a wicketkeeper.

The wicketkeeper position is one of only two slots that are by definition all rounder position, but everyone has their own weighting as to how to balance the skills.

All I'm saying that there isn't a keeper outside of Gilchrist that I'm taking ahead of Knott.

If the bowler to whom Gilly is keeping isn't Warne, even that changes the equation.

Knott is an ATG elite gloveman and a more than capable no. 7 batsman.

That's exceptionally useful and incredibly rare.

This is just saying Knott is the second best wicket keeper/batsman of all time, which I didn't think was controversial at all?

Depending on exact team balance I'd consider Sanga and Waite as possibilities but I largely agree with you.

Flower was obviously a much better batsman and it's a toss up for mine as to who the better cricketer was, but for most teams if they were told they had to have either Flower or Knott bat and keep for them, they would/should take Knott.

I think a lot of teams at the moment are putting up with sub standard keepers who are borderline Test standard on batting alone not because they actually think the poor keeping is acceptable long term, but because they think the skills can be learned with practice and coaching and they'll end up with a Watling or Rizwan standard player down the line. It's an investment rather than a pure trade off. England for example are taking a punt on the idea that Jamie Smith will get better - we know now that Flower didn't.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is just saying Knott is the second best wicket keeper/batsman of all time, which I didn't think was controversial at all?

Depending on exact team balance I'd consider Sanga and Waite as possibilities but I largely agree with you.

Flower was obviously a much better batsman and it's a toss up for mine as to who the better cricketer was, but for most teams if they were told they had to have either Flower or Knott bat and keep for them, they would/should take Knott.

I think a lot of teams at the moment are putting up with sub standard keepers who are borderline Test standard on batting alone not because they actually think the poor keeping is acceptable long term, but because they think the skills can be learned with practice and coaching and they'll end up with a Watling or Rizwan standard player down the line. It's an investment rather than a pure trade off. England for example are taking a punt on the idea that Jamie Smith will get better - we know now that Flower didn't.

Highly doubt it tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Highly doubt it tbh.

It's always a bit of a silly question because anyone that has Andy Flower and a decent keeper/bat would play both. You're not going to leave Flower out of the team just because you have a keeper. He would just play as a batsman. Likewise you're not going to leave a very good keeper out of the side (unless his batting average is like 10) just because Andy Flower can stand behind the stumps with gloves on and stop a few balls

 

[kyear2]

This is just saying Knott is the second best wicket keeper/batsman of all time, which I didn't think was controversial at all?

Depending on exact team balance I'd consider Sanga and Waite as possibilities but I largely agree with you.

Flower was obviously a much better batsman and it's a toss up for mine as to who the better cricketer was, but for most teams if they were told they had to have either Flower or Knott bat and keep for them, they would/should take Knott.

I think a lot of teams at the moment are putting up with sub standard keepers who are borderline Test standard on batting alone not because they actually think the poor keeping is acceptable long term, but because they think the skills can be learned with practice and coaching and they'll end up with a Watling or Rizwan standard player down the line. It's an investment rather than a pure trade off. England for example are taking a punt on the idea that Jamie Smith will get better - we know now that Flower didn't.

Fully agree with all of this, my only add on would be the current sad state if batting teams and the added desperation to solidify them somehow.

And no, you can't make a great keeper any more than you can a great batsman.

The standard of keeping as a result is just as bad as the general standard of batting at the moment.

 

[kyear2]

It's always a bit of a silly question because anyone that has Andy Flower and a decent keeper/bat would play both. You're not going to leave Flower out of the team just because you have a keeper. He would just play as a batsman. Likewise you're not going to leave a very good keeper out of the side (unless his batting average is like 10) just because Andy Flower can stand behind the stumps with gloves on and stop a few balls

I struggle to grasp when the notion arose that Flower was a good keeper.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think a lot of teams at the moment are putting up with sub standard keepers who are borderline Test standard on batting alone not because they actually think the poor keeping is acceptable long term, but because they think the skills can be learned with practice and coaching and they'll end up with a Watling or Rizwan standard player down the line. It's an investment rather than a pure trade off. England for example are taking a punt on the idea that Jamie Smith will get better - we know now that Flower didn't.

It's not just this but I firmly believe that a lot of teams feel the extra batting is worth it because this era is so bowler friendly. In a flatter pitch era, those missed chances by sub-par keepers would hurt far more knowing the next chance the bowler creates might take ages. Scores are so volatile these days that the counter attacking ability of a Pant with the bat is more than worth it. Healy would be less valuable in this era, Pant would be less valuable in the flat deck era imo.

And this is exactly why Gilchrist was gold-dust.