Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
CricInfo regulars are familiar with this. I have noticed some of the wicketkeepers of old times talk about technique of wicketkeeping and its absence in modern-day cricket. Dereyk Murray said it may have to do with the absence of quality spinners. Former India wicketkeeper Narendra Tamhane disliked diving, because it is only glamorous, but does little more. Murray and Farrokh Engineer are not really happy with Gilchrist and Stewart as wicketkeepers, saying that they're not great technically.
Perhaps the need for a batting wicketkeeper has also resulted in a decline in wicketkeeping. It started with Australia's Adam Gilchrist, a wicketkeeper whose batting was of top-6 quality and at present, is the most effective batsman in international cricket. Every other team wanted an Adam Gilchrist. They tried sevral experiments, such as opening the batting with a keeper, or getting a batsman to don the gloves, without much success. In a search for a wicketkeeper-batsman, they have forgotten about a wicketkeeper's main job.
In the Ashes series of 2002-03, Alec Stewart's 'keeping had its weaknesses, at least according to Ian Botham and Ian Chapell, though his batting was still good. Ian Chapell was highly critical of Stewart's wicketkeeping, through the home series against SA in the summer of 2003 and emphasised more on the need for a wicketkeeper who can do the job behind the stumps. Runs are a bonus. Stewart has lasted for a very long time in the team.
One team that is rather badly affected by this is the Indian team. They have tried several glovemen in the recent past and failed to come up with a gloveman who can get runs. Either they can't score much, or if the can, they drop the ball when it isn't needed. Deep Dasgupta's batting was decent, if not great, but in the home series v/s England, the trouble started, as he dropped as many as 5 catches. This continued against Zim, especially in Delhi. The Carl Hooper drop in Guyana was the last straw. Worse, they just look at one or 2 tournaments, then if the keeper doesn't score, they drop him. Who can forget the Rahul Dravid experiment? There was at least 1 dropped catch an innings!
Then there is Kumar Sangakkara. Started off well in Tests, but though his batting was quite good, his keeping was not that great. Whether his sledging had anything to do with this, it is not known, but he made several horrendous mistakes in the World Cup, where he even missed the stumps when Gilchrist was far out of the crease! They dropped him, got someone named Prasanna who could not bat, then got back to Romesh, whose batting is not that great, then gone back to Sangakkara in Tests.
Countless other examples exist. I think a wicketkeeper has to do his main job well. If he can bat as well as a top-6 batsman, it;s a bonus, though at least 20-30 runs are needed. He should help the in-form batsman get runs and make a partnership. This is what will make him effective. Your opinion?
Perhaps the need for a batting wicketkeeper has also resulted in a decline in wicketkeeping. It started with Australia's Adam Gilchrist, a wicketkeeper whose batting was of top-6 quality and at present, is the most effective batsman in international cricket. Every other team wanted an Adam Gilchrist. They tried sevral experiments, such as opening the batting with a keeper, or getting a batsman to don the gloves, without much success. In a search for a wicketkeeper-batsman, they have forgotten about a wicketkeeper's main job.
In the Ashes series of 2002-03, Alec Stewart's 'keeping had its weaknesses, at least according to Ian Botham and Ian Chapell, though his batting was still good. Ian Chapell was highly critical of Stewart's wicketkeeping, through the home series against SA in the summer of 2003 and emphasised more on the need for a wicketkeeper who can do the job behind the stumps. Runs are a bonus. Stewart has lasted for a very long time in the team.
One team that is rather badly affected by this is the Indian team. They have tried several glovemen in the recent past and failed to come up with a gloveman who can get runs. Either they can't score much, or if the can, they drop the ball when it isn't needed. Deep Dasgupta's batting was decent, if not great, but in the home series v/s England, the trouble started, as he dropped as many as 5 catches. This continued against Zim, especially in Delhi. The Carl Hooper drop in Guyana was the last straw. Worse, they just look at one or 2 tournaments, then if the keeper doesn't score, they drop him. Who can forget the Rahul Dravid experiment? There was at least 1 dropped catch an innings!
Then there is Kumar Sangakkara. Started off well in Tests, but though his batting was quite good, his keeping was not that great. Whether his sledging had anything to do with this, it is not known, but he made several horrendous mistakes in the World Cup, where he even missed the stumps when Gilchrist was far out of the crease! They dropped him, got someone named Prasanna who could not bat, then got back to Romesh, whose batting is not that great, then gone back to Sangakkara in Tests.
Countless other examples exist. I think a wicketkeeper has to do his main job well. If he can bat as well as a top-6 batsman, it;s a bonus, though at least 20-30 runs are needed. He should help the in-form batsman get runs and make a partnership. This is what will make him effective. Your opinion?
