Wicket-keeper for the All Time Test XI

[adharcric]

Pretty much. The extra runs that Gilly will provide are much more valuable than the (slightly) higher standard of glovework from a superior keeper ie Knott.

 

[archie mac]

Pretty much. The extra runs that Gilly will provide are much more valuable than the (slightly) higher standard of glovework from a superior keeper ie Knott.

Again let me say:

If Gilly scored 35 & 78 and missed a tough stumping off a player when 23 who goes onto score 123.

Compared to Ames who scores 8 & 35 but makes the stumping at 23 that means Ames contributed 30 more, I think

 

[adharcric]

Again let me say:

If Gilly scored 35 & 78 and missed a tough stumping off a player when 23 who goes onto score 123.

Compared to Ames who scores 8 & 35 but makes the stumping at 23 that means Ames contributed 30 more, I think

Just assume that the player would go on to score 63 instead of 123. All of a sudden, Gilly looks better doesn't he? The reality is that Gilchrist will come out on top on the whole.

 

[archie mac]

Just assume that the player would go on to score 63 instead of 123. All of a sudden, Gilly looks better doesn't he? The reality is that Gilchrist will come out on top on the whole.

I don't think so, Ames did average 40 after all, he was no mug with the bat, and I think a better keeper. Also when Ames mistimed a drive in his day he was a good chance of being caught, not of the ball going for six

 

[Perm]

I don't think so, Ames did average 40 after all, he was no mug with the bat, and I think a better keeper. Also when Ames mistimed a drive in his day he was a good chance of being caught, not of the ball going for six

Ames was a very good batsman and his 100 First Class centuries are testament to this, but I think the aggression that Gilchrist brings with his batting is invaluable, especially as he is a better Test batsman that Ames was. Couple this with some very good glovework and he is the best wicketkeeper batsman for mine, as a whole package.

 

[archie mac]

Ames was a very good batsman and his 100 First Class centuries are testament to this, but I think the aggression that Gilchrist brings with his batting is invaluable, especially as he is a better Test batsman that Ames was. Couple this with some very good glovework and he is the best wicketkeeper batsman for mine, as a whole package.

Well lets just see who wins the poll shall we

 

[Perm]

Not looking too good for poor Ames at the moment

 

[Matt79]

My last word on this: I don't think you can get away with having an average or poor keeper just because he's a better batsman. There's no way I'd nominate a Dhoni etc over someone like Knott or Tallon. That said, provided the standard of a guys keeping is "good" or better, then I'll go for the better batsman, even if it means passing on a brilliant keeper. And Gilchrist is definitely in the good-to-very good category as a glovesman. And also, AFAIK Ames was also in the good-to-very good category with the gloves and with the bat, rather than "brilliant" with the gloves. Its not like we're passing on Knott, Tallon or Healy here in favour of an Andy Flower. Game-set-match for me.

 

[adharcric]

I don't think so, Ames did average 40 after all, he was no mug with the bat, and I think a better keeper. Also when Ames mistimed a drive in his day he was a good chance of being caught, not of the ball going for six

Just did some extra research and I am convinced that Ames was in fact a very good batsman. Tough choice tbh.

 

[adharcric]

My last word on this: I don't think you can get away with having an average or poor keeper just because he's a better batsman. There's no way I'd nominate a Dhoni etc over someone like Knott or Tallon. That said, provided the standard of a guys keeping is "good" or better, then I'll go for the better batsman, even if it means passing on a brilliant keeper. And Gilchrist is definitely in the good-to-very good category as a glovesman. And also, AFAIK Ames was also in the good-to-very good category with the gloves and with the bat, rather than "brilliant" with the gloves. Its not like we're passing on Knott, Tallon or Healy here in favour of an Andy Flower. Game-set-match for me.

The argument is now that Ames is (nearly, if not) on par with Gilchrist as a batsman, it seems.

 

[archie mac]

Not looking too good for poor Ames at the moment

True but when people read my magnificant arguments in favour of Ames there will be an avalanche (spelling) of support for LEG And then everyone will support Nth Melb instead of Collingwood, and then Aust will win the next Rugby WC (I thought that would make more sense to you )

 

[Matt79]

The argument is now that Ames is (nearly, if not) on par with Gilchrist as a batsman, it seems.

Just not true IMO. And that's not putting Ames down - he was very very good. But Gilly was clearly great with the bat for a large chunk of his career. And conditions were probably equally batter friendly for a lot of their respective batting careers.

 

[Perm]

My last word on this: I don't think you can get away with having an average or poor keeper just because he's a better batsman. There's no way I'd nominate a Dhoni etc over someone like Knott or Tallon. That said, provided the standard of a guys keeping is "good" or better, then I'll go for the better batsman, even if it means passing on a brilliant keeper. And Gilchrist is definitely in the good-to-very good category as a glovesman. And also, AFAIK Ames was also in the good-to-very good category with the gloves and with the bat, rather than "brilliant" with the gloves. Its not like we're passing on Knott, Tallon or Healy here in favour of an Andy Flower. Game-set-match for me.

Sums it up nicely for me. People usually say "You can't sacrifice wicket keeping for some extra batting" and usually that is not the case, but in this particular instance the opportunity cost is very little in relation to wicket keeping and batting. Gilchrist will score enough runs to make up for the occasional wicket keeping blunder that Ames won't have made whereas somebody like Dhoni would not score enough to make up for the amount of catches he drops compared to somebody like Alan Knott.

 

[archie mac]

Sums it up nicely for me. People usually say "You can't sacrifice wicket keeping for some extra batting" and usually that is not the case, but in this particular instance the opportunity cost is very little in relation to wicket keeping and batting. Gilchrist will score enough runs to make up for the occasional wicket keeping blunder that Ames won't have made whereas somebody like Dhoni would not score enough to make up for the amount of catches he drops compared to somebody like Alan Knott.

I still think we are not giving Ames enough credit as a batsman

 

[Perm]

I still think we are not giving Ames enough credit as a batsman

As I mentioned earlier I think Ames is a very, very fine batsman and his record speaks for itself. To score over 100 FC centuries and keep wicket is an amazing feat and unlikely to be bettered by a wicket keeper, but I simply think Gilchrist was better as a batsman. His aggression and ability to bat with the tail is of great help when his side are in trouble, and when they are on top he can come out and take the game away from his opponents.

 

[adharcric]

Sums it up nicely for me. People usually say "You can't sacrifice wicket keeping for some extra batting" and usually that is not the case, but in this particular instance the opportunity cost is very little in relation to wicket keeping and batting. Gilchrist will score enough runs to make up for the occasional wicket keeping blunder that Ames won't have made whereas somebody like Dhoni would not score enough to make up for the amount of catches he drops compared to somebody like Alan Knott.

Having too much fun with the econ, huh?

 

[Perm]

Having too much fun with the econ, huh?

3 years ago and that is all I remember from the entire year.

 

[Anil]

^ Actually we're not selecting the "greatest glovesman", as defined by your apparent sole criteria of skill at keeping wicket, at all. That's never been what this poll was about. We're picking the strongest team we can, and his batting skill is highly relevant to that question. I think, and from the looks of the results of all the polls like this to date, a solid keeper who's a great batsman is more valuable to the team than a great keeper who's a solid batsman at best. And added to that is that Gilchrist is more than solid as a glovesman - I don't know whether you can categorically say that Ames was any better behind the stumps than him. He's not in the very top bracket (populated by the Knotts, Tallons, etc of the world), but he's one of the better keepers to have played the game.

even so, in an all-time xi, when you have a list of the greatest ever batsmen and the greatest all-rounders(the classic batting-bowling-fielding ones i mean) alongside you, what you look for is the greatest ever 'keeper who would keep brilliantly, not a "solid" keeper who can bat great...if he can bat well, that would be a bonus....agreed that there are definitely better 'keepers than the two in this list and it's sad that the modern generation doesn't consider them in the "gilchrist craze", i just voted for the better one in this...

 

[sideshowtim]

Gilchrist isn't a bad a keeper as some of you are making him out to be....He has kept magnificently to Warne for many years. Has rarely made a mistake that costed his team a single thing. If ever.

 

[Anil]

Gilchrist isn't a bad a keeper as some of you are making him out to be....He has kept magnificently to Warne for many years. Has rarely made a mistake that costed his team a single thing. If ever.

again, who is saying he is bad? this is an all-time xi we are talking about, we should be talking about the all-time greatest 'keepers, and gilly wouldn't make the cut there is all i am saying....