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.

 

[Cipher]

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?

I agree when it comes to sub standard keepers dropping more catches than they should. Having watched Matthew Wade with the gloves, I much preferred the trade off in batting average having Peter Nevill in the side. I think Nathan Lyon's bowling improved having a proper keeper in the side. That said the trade off in batting skills should be considered once you meet a certain competency, this is why Alan Knott was arguably selected over Bob Taylor or Gilchrist over Healy. But you do need a certain level of competency with the gloves to warrant selection.

My point is more to the elite level of skill that only the finest keepers possess. The ability to stand up to the stumps to pace bowlers does not generate a huge difference in the taking of wickets. I'm fairly certain Jack Russell only got 2 stumpings in test cricket from pace bowling and that was over 54 matches. You can make arguments for the entertainment value of it but when it comes to winning, having a higher average with the bat has a more consistent impact. The same applies to the concession of byes, my original post had a link that showed the difference between the worst & best keepers was only around 5 byes a match. So purely on this metric a keeper with a batting average 2.5 runs higher covers this small difference.

I would agree that the ability to keep well to spinners is a difference maker for teams that utilise them. I alluded to that idea in my original post in the discrepancies between pace & spin bowling. Certainly Murali is going to perform better with someone like Prasana keeping to him over Boucher who is more pace specialised.

The interesting one for me is where you have the half chances/spectacular catches. They do open an opportunity for saving runs that standard keepers cannot achieve. My question is though, how often do the spectacular catches happen? I feel like they only occur once or twice in a test series but I don't know. If they're only occurring sporadically a difference of say ~5 runs in batting average would have more consistent impact. This for me does raise a question on whether you rely on better consistent results with the bat or one possibly pivotal or inconsequential catch in a series as one reason for your selection of wicketkeeper.

Of course I agree with your point about Stewart & Russell given that I originally mentioned him as an example on the first page. Giving Russell the gloves was a net positive decision because Stewart covered Russell's poorer batting with an improvement in his own & England's keeping quality also improved.

The difference is where you are purely making the choice of your keeper, lets say all other 10 spots are filled so you are just deciding on who gets that final spot & why? In an ATG side you'd be wanting a good keeper because their batting matters less, in a minnow side the batting matters more. I personally think that Zimbabwe team would prefer to have Andy Flower in their XI over Ian Healy if they could only pick one & they had to keep because you simply aren't competitive if you're getting rolled for 150 every game without him. You would certainly argue the opposite for Sri Lanka with Murali bowling & having other good batsmen in the side.

A side point we never seem to hear Bert Oldfield mentioned in ATG sides despite his crazy stumpings record, obviously he was before a lot of our time but still. Batting is clearly considered with ATG selections hence why you're likely to see Gilchrist selected over better keepers but I agree that picking Pant or Flower in your ATG team to keep would be a step too far.

 

[kyear2]

I agree when it comes to sub standard keepers dropping more catches than they should. Having watched Matthew Wade with the gloves, I much preferred the trade off in batting average having Peter Nevill in the side. I think Nathan Lyon's bowling improved having a proper keeper in the side. That said the trade off in batting skills should be considered once you meet a certain competency, this is why Alan Knott was arguably selected over Bob Taylor or Gilchrist over Healy. But you do need a certain level of competency with the gloves to warrant selection.

My point is more to the elite level of skill that only the finest keepers possess. The ability to stand up to the stumps to pace bowlers does not generate a huge difference in the taking of wickets. I'm fairly certain Jack Russell only got 2 stumpings in test cricket from pace bowling and that was over 54 matches. You can make arguments for the entertainment value of it but when it comes to winning, having a higher average with the bat has a more consistent impact. The same applies to the concession of byes, my original post had a link that showed the difference between the worst & best keepers was only around 5 byes a match. So purely on this metric a keeper with a batting average 2.5 runs higher covers this small difference.

I would agree that the ability to keep well to spinners is a difference maker for teams that utilise them. I alluded to that idea in my original post in the discrepancies between pace & spin bowling. Certainly Murali is going to perform better with someone like Prasana keeping to him over Boucher who is more pace specialised.

The interesting one for me is where you have the half chances/spectacular catches. They do open an opportunity for saving runs that standard keepers cannot achieve. My question is though, how often do the spectacular catches happen? I feel like they only occur once or twice in a test series but I don't know. If they're only occurring sporadically a difference of say ~5 runs in batting average would have more consistent impact. This for me does raise a question on whether you rely on better consistent results with the bat or one possibly pivotal or inconsequential catch in a series as one reason for your selection of wicketkeeper.

Of course I agree with your point about Stewart & Russell given that I originally mentioned him as an example on the first page. Giving Russell the gloves was a net positive decision because Stewart covered Russell's poorer batting with an improvement in his own & England's keeping quality also improved.

The difference is where you are purely making the choice of your keeper, lets say all other 10 spots are filled so you are just deciding on who gets that final spot & why? In an ATG side you'd be wanting a good keeper because their batting matters less, in a minnow side the batting matters more. I personally think that Zimbabwe team would prefer to have Andy Flower in their XI over Ian Healy if they could only pick one & they had to keep because you simply aren't competitive if you're getting rolled for 150 every game without him. You would certainly argue the opposite for Sri Lanka with Murali bowling & having other good batsmen in the side.

A side point we never seem to hear Bert Oldfield mentioned in ATG sides despite his crazy stumpings record, obviously he was before a lot of our time but still. Batting is clearly considered with ATG selections hence why you're likely to see Gilchrist selected over better keepers but I agree that picking Pant or Flower in your ATG team to keep would be a step too far.

The main reason England even got close today was dropped catches, including by the keeper. England too had missed chances behind the stumps.

It really does matter.

 

[Ali TT]

I agree when it comes to sub standard keepers dropping more catches than they should. Having watched Matthew Wade with the gloves, I much preferred the trade off in batting average having Peter Nevill in the side. I think Nathan Lyon's bowling improved having a proper keeper in the side. That said the trade off in batting skills should be considered once you meet a certain competency, this is why Alan Knott was arguably selected over Bob Taylor or Gilchrist over Healy. But you do need a certain level of competency with the gloves to warrant selection.

My point is more to the elite level of skill that only the finest keepers possess. The ability to stand up to the stumps to pace bowlers does not generate a huge difference in the taking of wickets. I'm fairly certain Jack Russell only got 2 stumpings in test cricket from pace bowling and that was over 54 matches. You can make arguments for the entertainment value of it but when it comes to winning, having a higher average with the bat has a more consistent impact. The same applies to the concession of byes, my original post had a link that showed the difference between the worst & best keepers was only around 5 byes a match. So purely on this metric a keeper with a batting average 2.5 runs higher covers this small difference.

I would agree that the ability to keep well to spinners is a difference maker for teams that utilise them. I alluded to that idea in my original post in the discrepancies between pace & spin bowling. Certainly Murali is going to perform better with someone like Prasana keeping to him over Boucher who is more pace specialised.

The interesting one for me is where you have the half chances/spectacular catches. They do open an opportunity for saving runs that standard keepers cannot achieve. My question is though, how often do the spectacular catches happen? I feel like they only occur once or twice in a test series but I don't know. If they're only occurring sporadically a difference of say ~5 runs in batting average would have more consistent impact. This for me does raise a question on whether you rely on better consistent results with the bat or one possibly pivotal or inconsequential catch in a series as one reason for your selection of wicketkeeper.

Of course I agree with your point about Stewart & Russell given that I originally mentioned him as an example on the first page. Giving Russell the gloves was a net positive decision because Stewart covered Russell's poorer batting with an improvement in his own & England's keeping quality also improved.

The difference is where you are purely making the choice of your keeper, lets say all other 10 spots are filled so you are just deciding on who gets that final spot & why? In an ATG side you'd be wanting a good keeper because their batting matters less, in a minnow side the batting matters more. I personally think that Zimbabwe team would prefer to have Andy Flower in their XI over Ian Healy if they could only pick one & they had to keep because you simply aren't competitive if you're getting rolled for 150 every game without him. You would certainly argue the opposite for Sri Lanka with Murali bowling & having other good batsmen in the side.

A side point we never seem to hear Bert Oldfield mentioned in ATG sides despite his crazy stumpings record, obviously he was before a lot of our time but still. Batting is clearly considered with ATG selections hence why you're likely to see Gilchrist selected over better keepers but I agree that picking Pant or Flower in your ATG team to keep would be a step too far.

Not sure spectacular catches are a defining characteristic. Elite cricketers will all have amazing reactions and being able to pull off spectacular catches. What differentiates more is getting the mundane parts of the job done over and over again without error.

 

[Cipher]

Not sure spectacular catches are a defining characteristic. Elite cricketers will all have amazing reactions and being able to pull off spectacular catches. What differentiates more is getting the mundane parts of the job done over and over again without error.

Fair point, which would go back to my original post's link about the best keepers having a good drop rate because that indicates consistency.
I'm curious to know if posters would be happy with a wicketkeeper who averaged 0 with the bat but took every single chance that came their way? I'd definitely consider having them in my team.

 

[Coronis]

Fair point, which would go back to my original post's link about the best keepers having a good drop rate because that indicates consistency.
I'm curious to know if posters would be happy with a wicketkeeper who averaged 0 with the bat but took every single chance that came their way? I'd definitely consider having them in my team.

Define chance

 

[peterhrt]

Prolific author David Lemmon writing about One-Day Cricket in 1988:

"There have been occasions when the significance of a top-rate wicket-keeper has been underestimated and sides have elected to take the field with a lesser keeper who had the potential to score more runs than the first choice. This proved to be a false economy. The run contribution turned out to be minimal, and the loss in expertise costly.

Some would argue that with most wicket-keepers spending their time standing back to medium-pace bowlers, the job of the keeper has been replaced by that of a catcher with gloves on, but that is far from the case. With slips withdrawn, the keeper often has to cover an area far in excess of what was once expected. The full-length dive to take a catch somewhere in the position of third slip or wide down the leg side has now become the norm rather than the sensational, and the keeper remains the hub of the side.

While many keepers do spend most of their time standing back, there are those like Downton, Rhodes and, before his retirement, Taylor who inhibit batsmen by standing up and attacking from the rear. In some ways the wicket-keeper's job has become more varied, but it also has become, of necessity, more athletic."

At that point several editions of the MCC Coaching Manual had urged selectors at all levels to pick their best wicket-keeper, and ignore batting. It was still the orthodox view, and had been reinforced by researcher and statistician Derek Lodge in 1982:

"One should always go for the best 'keeper, irrespective of batting ability - a missed chance takes a great deal of cancelling out."

So when did the orthodox view change? The English national selectors moved faster than the media. When Illingworth favoured Alec Stewart over Jack Russell during the 1990s, the press said he had got it wrong. And the same during the following decade when Duncan Fletcher overlooked Chris Read. In this instance the selectors themselves were divided, with successive captains supporting Fletcher and Rod Marsh firmly advocating Read. Marsh himself had been the first Australian keeper in nearly a hundred years to be selected for his batting.

 

[JBMAC]

Prolific author David Lemmon writing about One-Day Cricket in 1988:

"There have been occasions when the significance of a top-rate wicket-keeper has been underestimated and sides have elected to take the field with a lesser keeper who had the potential to score more runs than the first choice. This proved to be a false economy. The run contribution turned out to be minimal, and the loss in expertise costly.

Some would argue that with most wicket-keepers spending their time standing back to medium-pace bowlers, the job of the keeper has been replaced by that of a catcher with gloves on, but that is far from the case. With slips withdrawn, the keeper often has to cover an area far in excess of what was once expected. The full-length dive to take a catch somewhere in the position of third slip or wide down the leg side has now become the norm rather than the sensational, and the keeper remains the hub of the side.

While many keepers do spend most of their time standing back, there are those like Downton, Rhodes and, before his retirement, Taylor who inhibit batsmen by standing up and attacking from the rear. In some ways the wicket-keeper's job has become more varied, but it also has become, of necessity, more athletic."

At that point several editions of the MCC Coaching Manual had urged selectors at all levels to pick their best wicket-keeper, and ignore batting. It was still the orthodox view, and had been reinforced by researcher and statistician Derek Lodge in 1982:

"One should always go for the best 'keeper, irrespective of batting ability - a missed chance takes a great deal of cancelling out."

So when did the orthodox view change? The English national selectors moved faster than the media. When Illingworth favoured Alec Stewart over Jack Russell during the 1990s, the press said he had got it wrong. And the same during the following decade when Duncan Fletcher overlooked Chris Read. In this instance the selectors themselves were divided, with successive captains supporting Fletcher and Rod Marsh firmly advocating Read. Marsh himself had been the first Australian keeper in nearly a hundred years to be selected for his batting.

That nails it right on the head better than this old fella could have done.