Will we ever see a pure wicket-keeper selected to play tests for Australia again?

[Howe_zat]

It's just that you lot have been spoiled with the likes of Healy, Gilchrist and Haddin - leaving Stewart out of the argument since Knotty we've always had to compromise

Even Knott was a reasonable bat, and it's arguable that's what got him picked over Bob Taylor.

~

If every professional team in the world is turning away from the specialist keeper for good, it's probably time to start admitting that they just aren't that valuable at the top level.

 

[honestbharani]

I just think almost all upcoming players in the major cricketing nations today almost NEED a decent secondary skill, so odds are, even the best keeper around in FC scene would be a decent to good batsman for any country.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah fair enough. I remember Glen McGrath in an interview saying how he opened the bowling and batting for his club team as a youngster and felt every player good enough for FC cricket probably did as well. When I was a teen playing reps it felt like 90% of us identified as all-rounders

Wicket-Keeping is way too much of a niche for someone to neglect batting development

 

[Tangles]

Watching the ball closely and foot movement are both required for both skills. A gun keeper should have the skill set to develop their batting.

 

[mr_mister]

sometimes keepers are small and agile with great reflexes and catchinc ability but they're really weak and cant smash the ball hard

 

[Tangles]

That's different. Now your describing a keeper that can hit big to fit in with the short formats. Timing, placement and strike rotation would all a gun keeper should need for FC. All the states may not agree though due to the focus on the short formats.

 

[SteveNZ]

No chance. Even if said keeper is the greatest of all-time, he can't create his own chances like a bowler can. The only way I'd ever envisage it happening is if Warne 2.0 came along, and his domestic keeper (or whoever) was the only person capable of keeping to him effectively. That guy might get a bit of an armchair ride without offering runs.

 

[BeeGee]

Won't even see them at FC level.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's no such thing as a wicketkeeper. They just toss the gloves to a batsman and hope he'll be bordering on adequate within a couple of years. The England ODI team will have 3 keepers in it and they're all pants.

 

[Jono]

why does a pure wicket keeper have to be a crap bat? That is the inference of some of the posts here.

 

[Riggins]

why does a pure wicket keeper have to be a crap bat? That is the inference of some of the posts here.

Because guys are either pure wicketkeepers or batsman who happen to wear the gloves and there is no grey area ever.

 

[Red]

why does a pure wicket keeper have to be a crap bat? That is the inference of some of the posts here.

Exactly. I get on my bandwagon about this a bit, but Gilly was a ****ing good keeper.

 

[cnerd123]

If you have a pure keeper who can bat well then there is no debate.

The debate is a pure keeper who can't bat vs. a batsman who can keep.

Personally I think the pure keeper who can't bat is a trope that no longer exists. Cricket is so professional now that, by the time you reach FC level, every keeper will be a decent bat. The distinction now is between a keeper-batsman averaging 20-30 lower down, or a batsman-keeper averaging 30-40 or more and can bat in the Top 6.

 

[mr_mister]

Gilchrist was a great keeper. Healy was still better imo

 

[Tangles]

What's more interesting is after Gilly and Rad does a keeper have to be capable of big hitting so they can play all 3 formats? If they can't will states not pick them?

 

[Red]

I

Gilchrist was a great keeper. Healy was still better imo

Sure, but we're talking marginally.

Sort of recall there were rumblings (probably from Warne) that Darren Berry should play over Gilchrist (or that Gilchrist would still play but as a batsman). That's kinda what we are talking about in this thread I guess.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah Warne had a hard-on for Berry. Gilchrist forever changed the role of the keeper(I know everyone says this but it's a weird thought)

 

[Howe_zat]

why does a pure wicket keeper have to be a crap bat? That is the inference of some of the posts here.

The OP defines it as someone 'who bats as well as the bowlers'. So for the purposes of discussion that's what people mean.

 

[SteveNZ]

why does a pure wicket keeper have to be a crap bat? That is the inference of some of the posts here.

I thought the inference was that a pure keeper was purely a keeper, and a sub 15-20 average batsman. Not a pure keeper as in gee he takes it so pure.

Example - Adam Parore. An exquisite gloveman, especially near the end. I wouldn't call him a pure keeper though given he had Test hundreds against major opposition and averaged around 30-35 from memory (and batted at 3 for extended periods).

But will an exquisite gloveman play Tests for Australia? That's a fair question. I can't see why not, although when guys who graduated to full-time glovemen like Watling, Buttler/Bairstow are becoming more common, it's not as likely.

 

[Jono]

The OP defines it as someone 'who bats as well as the bowlers'. So for the purposes of discussion that's what people mean.

Yeah but the inference is that that is the definition of a pure WK