Best Test Wicket-Keeper Batsman

[PhoenixFire]

Gilchrist by quite a long way. Best batsman on the list IMO, and close to best keeper as well.

Nah Flower was a much better batsman IMO. Gilly was a far better keeper though.

 

[Slifer]

Batting: Flower
Keeping: Knott
Overall: Gilchrist

 

[Perm]

You've excluded his innings against Bangladesh there, which is a bit unfair as - general feelings about Bangers aside, that was a damn fine innings. I know, I know why and what you're going to say, but its a case where this kind of selectiveness ends up inaccurately diminishing the player you're talking about.

Yeah I agree. That innings was a true match-saver, one of his finest.

 

[Perm]

Gilchrist has averaged 36.89 in his last 61 innings over the last 4 years. Looks impressive enough at first glance, but nearly all of that came in 9 innings in the space of a few months. In the other 52 innings he averages just 26.67. So the last 4 years has been made-up of one very short sensational period and plenty of extreme mediocrity in between. However, like Botham, the memorable has tended to be very memorable and hence due to past glories the for-the-most-part inadequacy has been glossed-over.

Now this hasn't mattered terribly, because only in The Ashes has the rest of the Australian batting also been dismantled; he's barely been needed. This also applied earlier, however, and even when coming in with a large score already on the board could usually be relied-upon to make it even bigger.

But Gilchrist has been hugely, hugely lesser than he was in his first 61 innings over his first 4 years. Had he kept on like that, he'd have had quite some case for being the 2nd-best since Bradman.

Why not split his career into his first 70 innings and last 52 innings? No doubting his batting has been poor for a while, but he's still the best option in Australia to take the gloves and bat at #7. Just a shame he's diminished, and people won't marvel at his acheievements as much. After watching the last Ashes series I'm hoping he'll be able to come back and put some more runs on the board before he retires though.

 

[Richard]

As I said - I'm happy enough splitting it into first 61 and last 61. Just that the first 61 is a pretty constant pattern of almost unbroken run-scoring (only those 4 innings in India are a blip), whereas the second 61 is 52+9.

In many ways it'd have been great if the "other 9" in the second 61 had come at the end of the first 61, because then it'd be a very clear split. Sadly, it didn't happen like that.

 

[Richard]

You've excluded his innings against Bangladesh there, which is a bit unfair as - general feelings about Bangers aside, that was a damn fine innings. I know, I know why and what you're going to say, but its a case where this kind of selectiveness ends up inaccurately diminishing the player you're talking about.

I'm sorry, if I include those games I must also burrow around for a couple of games for WA where he played equally if not more damn fine innings.

There's no two ways about it - however well Bangladesh play in the odd game, they are not Test-standard. You can't pick and choose which Bangladesh games you want to classify as Tests - it's all or nothing, they either deserve the status or they don't.

Me, I'd never have given it to them and I'd happily strip every Bangladesh game of Test-status. Not all bar 5 or 6 - every one. Because there's never been a team that should get Test-status once every 2 or 3 years and then keep losing it in the meantime.

 

[neville cardus]

Ames, for me.

 

[Malleeboy]

It isn't all about averages but about doing what the team requires.

For Australians a batsman at no 7, should get on with the job.No one gets on with scoring runs like Gilly, from my understanding he has the highest scoring rate of any regular batsman of all time. No matter how bad his form he is only ever 60 odd balls from a ton.

 

[pup11]

The great thing about Gilly is that he never tried to change his game even when his form hasn't been too good, he has an aggressive role to play in the Australian team and he has played the role to perfection through his career, obviously his natural game is risky and due to that he won't be too consistent but when its his day he can win a game for you with ease even today.

 

[vic_orthdox]

(only those 4 innings in India are a blip),

Including a pair where he wasn't out either innings, IIRC.

 

[Craig]

I'm sorry, if I include those games I must also burrow around for a couple of games for WA where he played equally if not more damn fine innings.

There's no two ways about it - however well Bangladesh play in the odd game, they are not Test-standard. You can't pick and choose which Bangladesh games you want to classify as Tests - it's all or nothing, they either deserve the status or they don't.

Me, I'd never have given it to them and I'd happily strip every Bangladesh game of Test-status. Not all bar 5 or 6 - every one. Because there's never been a team that should get Test-status once every 2 or 3 years and then keep losing it in the meantime.

But fact of the matter they are so they have to be included. We all know they are not Test standard, but they are official Tests so they have to count.

 

[Matt79]

Nah Flower was a much better batsman IMO. Gilly was a far better keeper though.

Disagree - they're different batsmen, and both were perfect in the role they were asked to fill in their team. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. I'm comfortable saying that I think Gilchrist was a better batsman as well as a better glovesman - I know there's a goodly sized chunk of people around here who'll disagree with me, but there you go.

And given the difference in the standard of their keeping, that makes it a lay-down misere IMO

 

[Matt79]

I'm sorry, if I include those games I must also burrow around for a couple of games for WA where he played equally if not more damn fine innings.

There's no two ways about it - however well Bangladesh play in the odd game, they are not Test-standard. You can't pick and choose which Bangladesh games you want to classify as Tests - it's all or nothing, they either deserve the status or they don't.

Me, I'd never have given it to them and I'd happily strip every Bangladesh game of Test-status. Not all bar 5 or 6 - every one. Because there's never been a team that should get Test-status once every 2 or 3 years and then keep losing it in the meantime.

Why can't you? Because it makes making definitive assessments of players and games based on a scorecard too difficult.

Enjoy our discussions a lot and think you often talk more sense than people give you credit for, but equally often can't help the feeling that you think the game should be played for the neatness of the statistical record rather than for its own sake. Attitudes like 'nothing Bangladesh does can count', 'its a shame Gilchrist's decline didn't coincide more exactly with the half way point of his career' (which I realise wasn't entirely serious), and 'I wish batsmen didn't have to be caught to be out as then we'd not have to deal with dropped catches' smack a bit of missing what I see as the point of playing cricket. Stats are the tail on the dog - if Bangladesh were good enough to push the world champs in conditions that gave their bowlers assistance and which the most of the rest of the Australia batting order singularly failed to deal with, I don't see any reason not to give credit where its due. Except for maintaing the purity of an almost dogmatic point of principle. And yes, I'd rate some FC games as the equal of tests - that's why I rate players like Trumper. I'd also rate WSC as the equal of tests. Its the quality of the cricket, not the names of the teams or what they purport to represent, that matters to me.

PS. This is a meant as part of a discussion of attitudes of enjoying cricket, not a personal attack on you, so please don't take offence. You should know I rate you as a contributor.

 

[readie]

Batting:Flower
Keeping:Healy
Overall:Gilchrist

 

[anoop4real]

I fee Sangakara is a better wiki batsman!!

 

[Richard]

But fact of the matter they are so they have to be included. We all know they are not Test standard, but they are official Tests so they have to count.

They don't have to, though. We're intelligent human-beings who can work-out for ourselves what constitutes a deserving Test; we don't have to swallow everything I$C$C throw at us.

 

[Richard]

Including a pair where he wasn't out either innings, IIRC.

Thought about saying exactly that funnily enough, but I only remembered for certain that one of them wasn't out.

 

[Perm]

we don't have to swallow everything I$C$C throw at us.

 

[Prince EWS]

They don't have to, though. We're intelligent human-beings who can work-out for ourselves what constitutes a deserving Test; we don't have to swallow everything I$C$C throw at us.

What we think is deserving of a test and what is a test can be two totally different things. You don't have to think Bangladesh deserve test status and you don't have to think performances against them mean anything, but if you say someone has X test wickets or has a test batting average of Y, you can't disclude them, as you're then simply just wrong.

As you know, I agree with you for the most part about matches against Bangladesh counting for little, but for someone who is so pedantic about the difference between batting positions one and two, you hold little regard for the difference between what is fact and what you think should be fact.

If you're going to take Bangladesh out when arguing about a player's performance, that's fine, but you have to say so. MacGill has taken 198 test wickets. Sure, only 150 odd of them may actually be of any relevance when judging how good a test player he actually is, but he still has 198 test wickets whether you or I think he should or not. We're all quite capable of judging for ourselves what should and should not be a test, but we don't have the authority or power to decide what is and is not a test. We're capable of deciding what is relevant and what isn't, which is why I typically take Bangladesh out of any analysis I do, but I'd never state that they weren't test matches, because they are. Some test matches aren't particularly relevant when judging a player, but they are still test matches.

 

[Richard]

Why can't you? Because it makes making definitive assessments of players and games based on a scorecard too difficult.

Enjoy our discussions a lot and think you often talk more sense than people give you credit for, but equally often can't help the feeling that you think the game should be played for the neatness of the statistical record rather than for its own sake. Attitudes like 'nothing Bangladesh does can count', 'its a shame Gilchrist's decline didn't coincide more exactly with the half way point of his career' (which I realise wasn't entirely serious), and 'I wish batsmen didn't have to be caught to be out as then we'd not have to deal with dropped catches' smack a bit of missing what I see as the point of playing cricket. Stats are the tail on the dog - if Bangladesh were good enough to push the world champs in conditions that gave their bowlers assistance and which the most of the rest of the Australia batting order singularly failed to deal with, I don't see any reason not to give credit where its due. Except for maintaing the purity of an almost dogmatic point of principle. And yes, I'd rate some FC games as the equal of tests - that's why I rate players like Trumper. I'd also rate WSC as the equal of tests. Its the quality of the cricket, not the names of the teams or what they purport to represent, that matters to me.

PS. This is a meant as part of a discussion of attitudes of enjoying cricket, not a personal attack on you, so please don't take offence. You should know I rate you as a contributor.

Quite frankly, you're not completely off the mark when you say I like maximum neatness of statistical record. There's no point in having different classifications resulting in different sets of stats if you don't make them as good as you possibly can. Otherwise Cheltenham vs Haileybury might as well come under the same classification as New Zealand vs South Africa.

Now, status definition is, obviously, not the only point of cricket but it does annoy me when people underplay its importance. Equally, it does annoy me when people fail to realise that a catch once given is the same as far as a batsman's concerned regardless of whether it's caught or dropped. I'd be ecstatic if I could eliminate the dropped catch from cricket, via whatever means, and I'll tell you what, so would pretty much anyone who plays the game, because I've not heard one person say anything other than "the worst feeling in cricket is dropping a catch".

You're quite right, also, that certain FC games are the equal of Tests and quite possibly, in standard of play if nothing else, WSC games were too. But that's not how people's minds work; mostly, if it's below Test-level, people don't want to know. Hence for most Bangladesh vs Whoever games will count more than games between NSW and WA, which is ridiculous, frankly.

As for Bangladesh being good enough to push the world champs, I don't see any reason not to give credit where its due either, and not for a second have I said anything other than that Bangladesh played a brilliant game of cricket that match. That's all it was, though - 1 match, and in 2001 Hampshire beat Australia too, and they beat them by outplaying them not because of fluke - so should that game be classed a Test? No, Hampshire aren't a Test-class team, and nor are Bangladesh. The judgement of what to class a Test is not made on the match, but on the team(s). Only 8 teams deserve to play Tests (and ODIs). Nothing will change my standpoint on this, and I shall give zero credence when Test cricket is the subject of conversation to anything outside these 8 teams.