World wicket keepers, your rankings.

[SJS]

, shocking statement mate, not by a long shot anyway

To say that keeping to Akhtar "is not easy" and is used as a criteria to determine the best keeper in the world shows a depth of knowledge about the art of wicketkeeping I would have never suspected amongst a member of the aristocracy

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Most keeper can take spectacular catches, on Geriant Jones's CricInfo page is a shot of him taking a spectacular catch. Concentration does count for a lot, but in terms of taking chances, keeping to the Zimbabwe bowling attack is like batting aganist a bowler who can bowl one wicket taking ball once a session.

Not all 'keepers take spectacular catches regularly though. You said it perfectly with the last line - that's why Taibu's job isn't easy. He knows that he's going to get a minimal amount of catches and thus there is that pressure whereby he MUST take it.

 

[aussie]

Are you serious? Andy Roberts, the man considered to be one of the most influential bowlers in West Indies history. He was one of the bowlers who inspired what is largely considered the finest pace battery of all-time. Gillespie is a very good bowler, but I don't think he's quite as good, quite as yet.

quite true liam, and the amount of batsmen roberts injured in his career made him a very fearsome bowler, which dizzy isn't quite

 

[chaminda_00]

Not all 'keepers take spectacular catches regularly though. You said it perfectly with the last line - that's why Taibu's job isn't easy. He knows that he's going to get a minimal amount of catches and thus there is that pressure whereby he MUST take it.

Yeah but if you look at his whole career as a keeper not just the last couple of Tests when he has no quality bowlers, he has made more mistakes as a keeper when he kept to bowlers who create chances. The mistakes that Boucher makes are the odd catches and stumpings, not keeping to bowls that go down leg side (wayward bowling). Most keepers at this level keep well to wayward bowling, but the ones that aren't at the top make mistakes in taking chances, like Taibu did when more chances were created.

It a lot harder to keep to bowlers that create frequent chances then it is to bowler that create less chances, even if they are wayward.

 

[Dasa]

It a lot harder to keep to bowlers that create frequent chances then it is to bowler that create less chances, even if they are wayward.

I don't think so. A 'keeper is expecting chances, he is not (or probably shouldn't be) expecting wayward balls all over the place.

IMO, the best 'keepers are hardly even noticed. They don't take spectacular takes and the like because they don't need to. They do the job so well that it is hardly even noticed how good they are.

 

[chaminda_00]

I don't think so. A 'keeper is expecting chances, he is not (or probably shouldn't be) expecting wayward balls all over the place.

IMO, the best 'keepers are hardly even noticed. They don't take spectacular takes and the like because they don't need to. They do the job so well that it is hardly even noticed how good they are.

Yeah but what seperates Jones, Browne and Sangakkara from the rest, the fact taht they drop too many chances. When Taibu kept to bowlers that created more chances he droped or miss the odd chance like Boucher and sometimes Akmal and Gilchrist do. People seem to forget this fact as he hasn't droped many chances lately cus not many have been created.

You are right when it comes to the best keepers are the one that aren't hardly noticed

 

[social]

exactly, every comparison between the 2 inevitably comes down to this: "Ponting is a far better ODI batsman", even though the claim was actually that dravid is so far ahead of him in tests that its insane.

gross exaggeration as to the relative merits of both players

BTW, Ponting must be really ordinary when you consider how much better Brian Lara is than Dravid.

 

[social]

Now THAT smacks bias. Not because of any esteem you may have for Gilchrist, but rather because both Taibu and Read are superb wicketkeepers.

The fact that he is exceptional in managing a crap attack can be safely disregarded I gather?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Read's wicketkeeping there though. If there's any slight on it, it's highly laughable.

That's clever. Judge a man on one series. This may be shocking, but based on the performance of Ricky Ponting in India, he wouldn't even play FC cricket in India... or Bangladesh.

this thread should be entitled "Let's grasp at straws to downplay Gilchrist's ability"

Or perhaps some people genuinely consider other wicketkeepers better than Gilchrist?
It is very likely that this may be the case. Not only are people simply entitled to their opinions, but there are some outstanding glovemen about these days.[/QUOTE]

I simply find it mystifying as to why this is almost the only forum (including media, etc) in the world where Taibu is rated as anything above good. He's very competent but hardly brilliant.

And Read is still incredibly overrated. Better than Jones - yes. Second coming of Knott - no.

In general, the standard of wicket-keeping is not all that flash at the moment.

McCullum and Jones have performed poorly of late.

Boucher is showing signs of decline.

Karthik and Akhmal are promising but still unproven.

Sangakkara is erratic.

Only Gilchrist has been consistently good over an extended period of time AND is still performing at a a high level.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I simply find it mystifying as to why this is almost the only forum (including media, etc) in the world where Taibu is rated as anything above good. He's very competent but hardly brilliant.

You think maybe because this is one of the few popular cricket forums in the world?

And Read is still incredibly overrated. Better than Jones - yes. Second coming of Knott - no.

You've not seen much of Read, have you?

In general, the standard of wicket-keeping is not all that flash at the moment.

McCullum and Jones have performed poorly of late.

Boucher is showing signs of decline.

Karthik and Akhmal are promising but still unproven.

Sangakkara is erratic.

Only Gilchrist has been consistently good over an extended period of time AND is still performing at a a high level.

Akmal, Taibu and Read are well above average wicketkeepers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

gross exaggeration as to the relative merits of both players

BTW, Ponting must be really ordinary when you consider how much better Brian Lara is than Dravid.

Brian Lara is not better than Dravid. IMO Dravid is the best batsman in the world without a shadow of doubt. At best Lara matches him as the best.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't think so. A 'keeper is expecting chances, he is not (or probably shouldn't be) expecting wayward balls all over the place.

IMO, the best 'keepers are hardly even noticed. They don't take spectacular takes and the like because they don't need to. They do the job so well that it is hardly even noticed how good they are.

Well said.

 

[tooextracool]

gross exaggeration as to the relative merits of both players

BTW, Ponting must be really ordinary when you consider how much better Brian Lara is than Dravid.

lara is not better than dravid. dravid is a better player than lara. it looks like this:
dravid>lara>ponting.

 

[social]

You think maybe because this is one of the few popular cricket forums in the world?

You've not seen much of Read, have you?

Akmal, Taibu and Read are well above average wicketkeepers.

"Forums" meaning all areas where cricket is discussed - print, tv, radio, pub

Ive seen Read keep on a number of occasions and he is very good but certainly not an absolute stand-out in this area alone. If he was, it would be sufficient to compensate for any weaknesses in his batting, particularly when Jones has been performing so poorly with the gloves.

Agreed, the 3 you mention are above average but so is Gilchrist.

 

[social]

lara is not better than dravid. dravid is a better player than lara. it looks like this:
dravid>lara>ponting.

Ill believe that when Dravid can:

a. dominate an attack rather than win a war of attrition;

b. rotate the strike; and

c. score runs consistently against McGrath.

Lara gives you more chances but slaughters attacks when in and, in doing so, has an average comparable to a "blocker" like Dravid.

Genius vs technician = Lara > Dravid

 

[tooextracool]

Ill believe that when Dravid can:

a. dominate an attack rather than win a war of attrition;

because all of a sudden, thats the way to become a good batsman! you dont need to dominate an attack at all, and there are times when grinding out the opposition comes in handy.

b. rotate the strike; and

a)what does this have to do with test match cricket?
b)dravid has shown that hes perfectly capable of it in both test and ODI cricket off late.

c. score runs consistently against McGrath.

hes already scored runs against mcgrath, yes hes also failed against him, but just because you have a few failures against a particular bowler it doesnt mean that you cant be great.

Lara gives you more chances but slaughters attacks when in and, in doing so, has an average comparable to a "blocker" like Dravid.

so what? why does an attacking batsman have to be a better player than someone who is more defensive? that theory is absolute garbage. are you going to tell me that ponting is a better player than waugh because he plays more aggresively?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Brian Lara is not better than Dravid. IMO Dravid is the best batsman in the world without a shadow of doubt. At best Lara matches him as the best.

Dravid is the top batsman in the world right now, but that doesn't mean he is ultimately the best among all the players currently playing. Lara at his best is better than anybody else around at the moment, and even today he's in the top few. Tendulkar, similarly, is a much better player than the last couple of years would suggest. The top batsmen in the world right now are Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Lara and Martyn. The top batsmen at their relative peaks among all who are still playing are Lara and Tendulkar, in that order.

The gap between Dravid and Ponting is not anywhere near as big as tec is making out either. I agree that he is slightly better right now, but Ponting scores over Dravid in several important categories and not a long way behind at all.

 

[social]

because all of a sudden, thats the way to become a good batsman! you dont need to dominate an attack at all, and there are times when grinding out the opposition comes in handy.



a)what does this have to do with test match cricket?
b)dravid has shown that hes perfectly capable of it in both test and ODI cricket off late.



hes already scored runs against mcgrath, yes hes also failed against him, but just because you have a few failures against a particular bowler it doesnt mean that you cant be great.



so what? why does an attacking batsman have to be a better player than someone who is more defensive? that theory is absolute garbage. are you going to tell me that ponting is a better player than waugh because he plays more aggresively?

If player A and player B have similar overall records but:

1. player A converts his starts into bigger scores;

2. player A scores at a substantially higher rate;

3. unlike Player B, Player A has succeded consistently against the world's best;

4. unlike Player B (who is more consistent - dare I utter the letters "FTB"), player A saves himself for the bigger occasions; and

4. unlike Player B, Player A has played some of the greatest test innings in test history,

then give me player A (Lara) every time.

 

[vic_orthdox]

i think the thing that saves gilchrist is that he is so good at diving. too often, he doesn't get his feet into position at all and has to dive to reach balls that the best keepers wouldn't have to.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Dravid is the top batsman in the world right now, but that doesn't mean he is ultimately the best among all the players currently playing. Lara at his best is better than anybody else around at the moment, and even today he's in the top few. Tendulkar, similarly, is a much better player than the last couple of years would suggest. The top batsmen in the world right now are Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Lara and Martyn. The top batsmen at their relative peaks among all who are still playing are Lara and Tendulkar, in that order.

The gap between Dravid and Ponting is not anywhere near as big as tec is making out either. I agree that he is slightly better right now, but Ponting scores over Dravid in several important categories and not a long way behind at all.

The way I look at it, every top batsman in world cricket has some sort of criticism levelled at him... except Dravid. Ponting - they say he can't play spin; Lara - less production in the second innings; Tendulkar - out of sorts for a while now; Hayden - weakness v the swinging ball. Dravid? Near perfect.

1. He can obviously play spin and pace superbly.
2. The man scores runs everywhere he bats.
Avge 64.72 in Oz
Avge 76.33 in Bangladesh
Avge 87.66 in England
Avge 51.43 in India
Avge 64.57 in New Zealand
Avge 77.25 in Pakistan
Avge 42.11 in South Africa
Avge 46.55 in Sri Lanka
Avge 63.66 in the West Indies
Avge 75.00 in Zimbabwe
3. He scores runs against the best (Avge 51.08 v Australia).
4. He scores big hundreds. 9 of his 20 hundreds have been over 150. He has 5 double hundreds in the bunch.
5. He contributes to victory. In games that India has won, Dravid averages 79.08 with 9 hundreds and 12 fifties. Only 1 duck.
6. He balances his gameplay. Dravid averages 51.16 in the second innings with 5 hundreds in 62 tries. Ponting is 40.64 with 1 hundred in 62 tries and Tendulkar is 46.48 with 9 hundreds in 77 tries.
7. Sheer weight of runs. In his last 34 Test matches, Dravid has averaged 70.14 with a century about every 3 Tests and a conversion rate of almost 48%. He's been dismissed for a duck 3 times in 56 innings.

Admittedly Ponting and Lara both have awesome stats in the period too, but what really is the weakness in Dravid's game? He has tremendous technique, temperament and is just a fine allround batsman.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ive seen Read keep on a number of occasions and he is very good but certainly not an absolute stand-out in this area alone. If he was, it would be sufficient to compensate for any weaknesses in his batting, particularly when Jones has been performing so poorly with the gloves.

In the modern world of cricket, no wicketkeeper can be good enough with the gloves to claim a place in a Test side with an average of 15. 'Keeping gets you so far these days. Without some batting talent, it doesn't matter how well you are behind the stumps.