The thing is though, keepers were on average taking no more than 2 dismissals an innings in the 20th century.
Even for all the plaudits for guys like Knott & Healy how often & how much is the their keeping skill actually impacting a game compared to a standard keeper? Considering that Andy Flower had a higher D/I rate (1.572) than Alan Knott or that Jack Russell only had a higher D/I rate of 0.009 over Alec Stewart are these unaccounted qualities even that important?
I would be interested to hear what qualities an outstanding keeper brings that occurs at the same consistency/impact that a WK Batsman's runs would bring. Certainly you don't want a mug behind the stumps but is a big sacrifice in batting ability worth the trade off in elite keeping skill?
Of course, both great cricketers in their own right. I suspect you would pick Flower if your team's batting was weak or your bowlers were not reliant on wicketkeeper assisted dismissals. Vice-versa for Healy. For ATG sides I think you would rather have Knott over Pant as an example.
As I've stated above, it's drops, taking half chances, creating chances, standing up to the stumps to the medium pacers, byes, covering 1st slip.
Watch Knott standing up to Deadly and tell me 8 extra runs an innings is worth that? Not a chance.
Even watch someone like Boucher try to keep to Murali, it was a **** show.
If you're dropping chances, you're losing matches, it's that simple. We've had our fair share, Courtney Brown and Junior Murray sunk our chances on multiple occasions.
There's a certain poster who speaks to Pant's ability to make up for missed chances with the bat. What happens when he doesn't? Didn't...
No one, given half a choice is keeping Flower as their primary keeper. It was borne out of necessity. Even the English experiment with Stewart and Russell was a disaster.
When Alec took the gloves, England was worse in front of and behind the stumps. He was the worse keeper and his batting dropped off. Where was the benefit?
