Batsmen Keeper vs Keeper

[Hondo]

Just on the Healy comparisons, don't forget the bowling that he had to face and also the different era he played in. Haddin or any other modern day player hasn't come up against attacks featuring guys like Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Holding, Patterson, Bishop, Akram, Waqar, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Donald, Malcolm, etc. etc. (I'm sure i've missed some obvious ones).

I'm sure Healy would've averaged more had he been able to bat against some of the bowling we see today and on the wickets that are being produced.

Not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment but Healy missed the best part or all of the careers of the bowlers you listed with the exceptions of Donald and Ambrose. Healy started in late 1988. There were some ordinary bowling line-ups during Healy's era. The bowlers you listed for the most part were in their prime throughout the 80s rather than the 90s. England for example were a basket case for most of Healy's career.

Also, Gilchrist started immediately after Healy and stepped up the batting average by at 20 to 30 runs from Healy from the get go against the same attacks Healy was facing. Your post reads like Healy was from an whole other era to Gilchrist.

[Media Park]

Taylor, Slater and Boon as a top three were handy, without being dominant.
Hayden, Langer and Ponting were world beaters, and having a side that often were 2/250+ makes it a fairly chilled time to have a bat.

But there is no question at all that Gilchrist was a better batsman. He was a superb batsman, just not a wicketkeeper's arsehole compared to Ian Healy.

[whufc]

Just on the Healy comparisons, don't forget the bowling that he had to face and also the different era he played in. Haddin or any other modern day player hasn't come up against attacks featuring guys like Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Holding, Patterson, Bishop, Akram, Waqar, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Donald, Malcolm, etc. etc. (I'm sure i've missed some obvious ones).

I'm sure Healy would've averaged more had he been able to bat against some of the bowling we see today and on the wickets that are being produced.

Not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment but Healy missed the best part or all of the careers of the bowlers you listed with the exceptions of Donald and Ambrose. Healy started in late 1988. There were some ordinary bowling line-ups during Healy's era. The bowlers you listed for the most part were in their prime throughout the 80s rather than the 90s. England for example were a basket case for most of Healy's career.

Also, Gilchrist started immediately after Healy and stepped up the batting average by at 20 to 30 runs from Healy from the get go against the same attacks Healy was facing. Your post reads like Healy was from an whole other era to Gilchrist.

Settle down Alan Mullally and Angus Fraser were GUNS!

[Hondo]

Taylor, Slater and Boon as a top three were handy, without being dominant.
Hayden, Langer and Ponting were world beaters, and having a side that often were 2/250+ makes it a fairly chilled time to have a bat.

But there is no question at all that Gilchrist was a better batsman. He was a superb batsman, just not a wicketkeeper's arsehole compared to Ian Healy.

Yet we were a better side with Gilly IMO. Gilly came to our rescue as a batsman many times despite the strength of our top 6 at the time. No matter how good the top order is the new ball on a first day pitch can cause problems that the 7th batsman can fix.

Plus the batsman ahead of Gilly could bat more aggressively knowing they had that insurance policy at number 7 the same way the Windies guns could knowing they had Dujon to back them up if their aggression came unstuck.

[whufc]

Taylor, Slater and Boon as a top three were handy, without being dominant.
Hayden, Langer and Ponting were world beaters, and having a side that often were 2/250+ makes it a fairly chilled time to have a bat.

But there is no question at all that Gilchrist was a better batsman. He was a superb batsman, just not a wicketkeeper's arsehole compared to Ian Healy.

Yet we were a better side with Gilly IMO. Gilly came to our rescue as a batsman many times despite the strength of our top 6 at the time. No matter how good the top order is the new ball on a first day pitch can cause problems that the 7th batsman can fix.

Plus the batsman ahead of Gilly could bat more aggressively knowing they had that insurance policy at number 7 the same way the Windies guns could knowing they had Dujon to back them up if their aggression came unstuck.

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

So underestimated imho. From personal experience obviously not at test level i have gone from opening to batting six and boy the pressure is so much greater especially considering we have an awful tail. Would love to have a number 7 coming in after me that can hang around and play a bit of a role.

I

[rod_rooster]

Just on the Healy comparisons, don't forget the bowling that he had to face and also the different era he played in. Haddin or any other modern day player hasn't come up against attacks featuring guys like Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Holding, Patterson, Bishop, Akram, Waqar, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Donald, Malcolm, etc. etc. (I'm sure i've missed some obvious ones).

I'm sure Healy would've averaged more had he been able to bat against some of the bowling we see today and on the wickets that are being produced.

Not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment but Healy missed the best part or all of the careers of the bowlers you listed with the exceptions of Donald and Ambrose. Healy started in late 1988. There were some ordinary bowling line-ups during Healy's era. The bowlers you listed for the most part were in their prime throughout the 80s rather than the 90s. England for example were a basket case for most of Healy's career.

Also, Gilchrist started immediately after Healy and stepped up the batting average by at 20 to 30 runs from Healy from the get go against the same attacks Healy was facing. Your post reads like Healy was from an whole other era to Gilchrist.

So Akram, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald, Malcolm, didn't play most of Healy's career? Yes he got the benefit of some ordinary bowling as well but i reckon the modern day players have it easier. Not suggesting for a second Healy would've been averaging 50 plus but i reckon he might have been low to mid 30's. Haddin is a better player with the bat but not fit to be spoken about in the same breath as Healy with the gloves.

For what it's worth i'd love to see Haddin face one of the bowlers i mentioned. Would be needing some bleach for his whites i'd suggest.

[CoverKing]

South Africa right now is the prime example of a team with a real conundrum.

Mark Boucher averages low thirties with the bat, and I consider 30 a passmark for a keeper.
In recent times, he has struggled with the bat, but retains the mantle of the best "pure" keeper in that country.

Because of Smith, Amla, Kallis, DeVilliers (and any of Prince, Peterson, Rudolph), he is not under much pressure, because the 400-odd is generally up by the time he comes in.

Now if that team was often 5/50, we might focus on his batting. But if we only focus on his batting when the team struggles, then we are really devaluing the importance of the wicket keepers role.

Boucher best keeper? Haven't watched this test series? Dropped numerous catches.

This will be close to his last test IMO

Also, you talk about a keepers batting ability not being important, but than you have a pass mark of 30 ave with the bat for keepers?

[Ecky]

Apart from a few minor points such as their contribution to team morale, this basically comes down to a relatively simple statistical argument.

If you have a superior batsman who is an inferior wicketkeeper, does the extra runs they contribute outweigh the loss of runs due to dropped catches and byes etc?

Now, none of us knows this answer since we never see any detailed statistical analysis on wicketkeeping (cue Moneyball discussion - this stuff SHOULD be recorded properly and possibly is somewhere) which is why the argument keeps going round and round in circles as it comes down to everyone's very subjective opinions on the relative wicketkeeping abilities of the various options.

[story of my life]

In a side with a decent top 6 the best keeper is picked but if the top order is poo they always pick the keeper that can bat.
In my opinion fixing one problem by causing another, is not fixing anything
Anyone remember Jack Russel from England? Best keeper in the world at the time but the Englih top order was terrible so they dropped Alec Stewart - an opener who was going o.k. - down to 7 and gave him the gloves and Russell went back to county cricket. And the Poms still couldn,t win a test match

[Media Park]

South Africa right now is the prime example of a team with a real conundrum.

Mark Boucher averages low thirties with the bat, and I consider 30 a passmark for a keeper.
In recent times, he has struggled with the bat, but retains the mantle of the best "pure" keeper in that country.

Because of Smith, Amla, Kallis, DeVilliers (and any of Prince, Peterson, Rudolph), he is not under much pressure, because the 400-odd is generally up by the time he comes in.

Now if that team was often 5/50, we might focus on his batting. But if we only focus on his batting when the team struggles, then we are really devaluing the importance of the wicket keepers role.

Boucher best keeper? Haven't watched this test series? Dropped numerous catches.

This will be close to his last test IMO

Also, you talk about a keepers batting ability not being important, but than you have a pass mark of 30 ave with the bat for keepers?

It is not important in my opinion, however they are going to have a batting average. whether it is 1 or 100, they will have an average, and rather than the accepted Australian average of 40+ for a Test standard batsman (Hayden, Langer, Ponting, S Waugh are no longer here in the 50 average bracket), they should not be expected to average those higher runs.

If they are such a good batsman, they should be in the top six (still keeping) batting, and another player comes in (not a lesser skilled keeper either).

Ian Healy's last Test was the start of the 16 consecutive wins. Was a handy batting side:

Slater 42.83
Blewett 34.02
Langer 45.27
M Waugh 41.81
S Waugh 51.06
Ponting 52.36 (still going)
Healy 27.39

[Hondo]

Ian Healy's last Test was the start of the 16 consecutive wins.

Coincidence?

This is a post to support Gilly's impact on the side, not to undermine Healy's role.

We went from pretty good to great with that one change in the team.

If you consider 30 a pass mark then I think you are actually on the batter-keeper side of the debate. Otherwise your pass mark would be zero wouldn't it?

[stan]

We are talking alot about the roles of Keepers at the moment. I think we need to get back to start looking at Keepers as Keepers and heck if the best Keeper can bat a bit then so be it. But we really need a keeper that will not let through heaps of byes and drop chances.

[JK]

I think we should set the new trend, and find (then unearth) a Keeper-Bowler then also play an Keeper-Batsman for deeper batting .. Problem solvered

[Media Park]

I think we should set the new trend, and find (then unearth) a Keeper-Bowler then also play an Keeper-Batsman for deeper batting .. Problem solvered

Tatenda Taibu did this for Zimbabwe.

[Jim05]

I think we should set the new trend, and find (then unearth) a Keeper-Bowler then also play an Keeper-Batsman for deeper batting .. Problem solvered

Tim Zoehrer was a decent leggie, reckon he got a shield 5 fa

[Bum Crack]

Tom Cooper is the man.

[Dogwatcher]

I think we should set the new trend, and find (then unearth) a Keeper-Bowler then also play an Keeper-Batsman for deeper batting .. Problem solvered

Tim Zoehrer was a decent leggie, reckon he got a shield 5 fa

Eight wasn't it?

[Dirko]

Alley-oop!

[cripple]

Interesting the talk about gilly saving Australia on so many occasions. Mate of mine told me the other day that whenever Gilchrist scored 100, one other Aussie bat did so as well. I haven't checked if it is true but when he was "saving" innings, he wasn't doing so alone.

[locky801]

Interesting discussion on the ABC with commentators saying Wade is a superb batsman but not the best of keepers.

Must admit havent seen him keep but going on what has been posted around the place he must be half decent