On Picking an English Keeper

[Richard]

Think the notion of Geraint playing for England again would cause several people to hang themselves.

 

[jammay123]

id rather we didnt have a wicket keeper and every ball not played went for 4 than have geriant jones playing for england. but he was better than ambrose who cannot play a ball unless its a half tracker 2ft outside off. i am hoping that flintoffs batting does come off(however unlikely that is) so we can use the best gloves men in the country( from my 'research' is foster who looks excellent with the gloves and is ok with the bat ) so that he is only relied on to catch the chances so that he isnt under as much pressure to perform with the bat.

 

[NZTailender]

I think the concept of wicket keeper batsmen needs to be re-addressed by some. Expecting someone who is picked to stand behind the stumps and concentrate on catching a ball for half a game (give or take a bit) to do the job that 6 other people have been especially for.

Obviously, you don't want a complete rabbit of a keeper, batting wise, but obviously not everyone can score with such consistency as someone like Gilchrist did.

Ideally, I'd prefer a keeper who is more than competent at his keeping duties (top 3 keeper in the country, ideally) and has enough batting skill to rotate the strike to give the top order batsmen the job of doing what they're suppose to, and when the tail is in, to try and score runs as best as they can in the situation.

Otherwise you may as well pick a batsman who, when fielding, doesn't have the odd trundle and train them to be a keeper

 

[Uppercut]

I think the concept of wicket keeper batsmen needs to be re-addressed by some. Expecting someone who is picked to stand behind the stumps and concentrate on catching a ball for half a game (give or take a bit) to do the job that 6 other people have been especially for.

Obviously, you don't want a complete rabbit of a keeper, batting wise, but obviously not everyone can score with such consistency as someone like Gilchrist did.

Ideally, I'd prefer a keeper who is more than competent at his keeping duties (top 3 keeper in the country, ideally) and has enough batting skill to rotate the strike to give the top order batsmen the job of doing what they're suppose to, and when the tail is in, to try and score runs as best as they can in the situation.

Otherwise you may as well pick a batsman who, when fielding, doesn't have the odd trundle and train them to be a keeper

What's impressed me most about Ambrose so far is that he's scored runs at times when England were in serious trouble. The important thing for a keeper-batsman for me is someone who catches everything adequately behind the stumps, and gets your team out of a hole when you slump to 100/5 on the first morning of a test.

 

[Richard]

Ideally, I'd prefer a keeper who is more than competent at his keeping duties (top 3 keeper in the country, ideally) and has enough batting skill to rotate the strike to give the top order batsmen the job of doing what they're suppose to, and when the tail is in, to try and score runs as best as they can in the situation.

And to say it again... that, basically, is what Ambrose currently is.

 

[GIMH]

Set to be batting at 8 tomorrow it seems

He could perhaps be the actual answer to pasag's poll about next 8-11 batsman to score a ton; if Flintoff stays fit then it seems feasible that we will continue with four bowlers.

 

[Kweek]

I seriously read '' On Pickup and English Keeper'


aah well

 

[aussie]

I think the concept of wicket keeper batsmen needs to be re-addressed by some. Expecting someone who is picked to stand behind the stumps and concentrate on catching a ball for half a game (give or take a bit) to do the job that 6 other people have been especially for.

Obviously, you don't want a complete rabbit of a keeper, batting wise, but obviously not everyone can score with such consistency as someone like Gilchrist did.

Ideally, I'd prefer a keeper who is more than competent at his keeping duties (top 3 keeper in the country, ideally) and has enough batting skill to rotate the strike to give the top order batsmen the job of doing what they're suppose to, and when the tail is in, to try and score runs as best as they can in the situation.

Otherwise you may as well pick a batsman who, when fielding, doesn't have the odd trundle and train them to be a keeper

All what you are saying is correct, but the concept is basically directed towards what the best ENG XI is. Such as if ENG believe they can manage with 6 bats, Freddie @ 7 & 4 bowlers then the best glovesman in the land regardless of his batting-ability (although one would hope in this modern age he isn't a rabbit) should be picked.

But if the ashes 5-am attack wants to rekindled especially because some may feel Flintoff/Jones is a riskly choice in a 4-man for obvious reasons & the question marks over Freddie's batting (although i do feel it has been over blown) then a keeper who can bat in the top 6 is very much needed.

 

[Richard]

Never any excuse for blindly picking any old wicketkeeper regardless of his batting ability as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, the man who almost certainly seems to be the best wicketkeeper of those still available (ie, excluding Read who's the best of all of them) is James Foster, who can certainly bat if not play all that many shots.

 

[zaremba]

Never any excuse for blindly picking any old wicketkeeper regardless of his batting ability as far as I'm concerned.

I agree entirely. If your keeper can't bat you get into all sorts of problems with the balance of the team, and you create problems elsewhere in the team. In particular you start having to compromise on which bowlers to pick - could you, for instance, play Sidebottom, Panesar and Anderson in the same team as a keeper that's a rubbish batsman?

 

[GIMH]

Alternatively, if you had an attack comprising of Flintoff and Broad then you would realistically only need a keeper who could average 20. That is assuming Broad learns to become a Test-class bowler...

 

[zaremba]

Alternatively, if you had an attack comprising of Flintoff and Broad then you would realistically only need a keeper who could average 20. That is assuming Broad learns to become a Test-class bowler...

And welcome to Planet Compromise...

 

[GIMH]

Look, it's a big ask. But he's improved a LOT in the one-day game over a relatively short space of time so hopefully he could do the same in Tests. Obviously there is no room for bits and pieces players in a Test side, which is exactly what you would call someone who scores a couple of 50s and takes maybe 2-3 wickets a match. But, as ever, I am an eternal optimist, Broad can get better and if he does we will have batting line-up that I never thought imaginable two years ago.

 

[zaremba]

I agree with you. I suppose my point is that a lot of "purists" say that you should pick your best keeper, regardless of batting ability. But I think that's over-simplistic. Why should the same logic not apply equally to fast bowlers? Or to batsmen? (- would Collingwood have ever been picked if he couldn't bowl a bit and field like a demon?)

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with you. I suppose my point is that a lot of "purists" say that you should pick your best keeper, regardless of batting ability. But I think that's over-simplistic. Why should the same logic not apply equally to fast bowlers? Or to batsmen? (- would Collingwood have ever been picked if he couldn't bowl a bit and field like a demon?)

Well, Chris Martin still gets a game for New Zealand.

I agree though, and who is the best keeper regardless of batting ability? It's very difficult for anyone to gauge, because you have to watch them all over a long period of time to see how frequently their mistakes are. Realistically you'll usually only know whether or not someone is a solid enough keeper (i.e. not Matt Prior), and after that batting ability is all you have to go on. Not easy for the selectors.

 

[zaremba]

The Wisden Cricketer has done a cost-benefit analysis of England's keepers since 2001/02 (up to 8 June 08).

They've taken the keeper's batting average and deducted from it the runs scored by opposition batsmen per Test after being given let-offs by him.

The method of calculation is ropey and controversial to say the least (in a number of respects it over-states the cost of missed chances) but here goes anyway:

Stewart: +27.13
Read: +18.21
Ambrose: +15.27
Jones: +7.03
Foster: +6.40
Prior: -22.56

 

[Richard]

Alternatively, if you had an attack comprising of Flintoff and Broad then you would realistically only need a keeper who could average 20. That is assuming Broad learns to become a Test-class bowler...

I'm fairly confident when I say the days of the wicketkeeper who averages 20 with the bat yet gets a decent-length Test career are gone.

Almost invariably, unless you're completely hopeless (in which case you won't get a game for your county), you can do better than that.

As I say - Chris Read and James Foster are the two best wicketkeepers in the country, though the former is no longer an option, and even they aren't that bad with the bat.

 

[Richard]

The Wisden Cricketer has done a cost-benefit analysis of England's keepers since 2001/02 (up to 8 June 08).

They've taken the keeper's batting average and deducted from it the runs scored by opposition batsmen per Test after being given let-offs by him.

The method of calculation is ropey and controversial to say the least (in a number of respects it over-states the cost of missed chances) but here goes anyway:

Stewart: +27.13
Read: +18.21
Ambrose: +15.27
Jones: +7.03
Foster: +6.40
Prior: -22.56

That's really quite interesting.

I just hope they've had the sense not to count a "chance" as something that flicked the end of the fabric of the fingers of the wicketkeeper's gloves. Particularly important when assessing things where the wicketkeeper was standing up or when there's a deflection and the batsman wanders out of his ground. As I've always said - it's so important to be realistic about what you call a chance.

The other trouble is that a dropped chance is a dropped chance regardless of whether the batsman edges the next one straight to you again and you catch it or if they score another 240 without looking like giving another chance.

Nonetheless, it's still worth something. I do wish we could also see batting-average, number of Tests, and number of dropped-catches\missed-stumpings. Then I could probably produce something fairer.

 

[Uppercut]

The Wisden Cricketer has done a cost-benefit analysis of England's keepers since 2001/02 (up to 8 June 08).

They've taken the keeper's batting average and deducted from it the runs scored by opposition batsmen per Test after being given let-offs by him.

The method of calculation is ropey and controversial to say the least (in a number of respects it over-states the cost of missed chances) but here goes anyway:

Stewart: +27.13
Read: +18.21
Ambrose: +15.27
Jones: +7.03
Foster: +6.40
Prior: -22.56

That's very interesting indeed, thanks. It's definitely ropey, as are all methods of measuring wicket keeping skill that i've seen. But the results are largely what one would have expected...

 

[zaremba]

I wish we could just see batting-average, number of Tests, and number of dropped-catches\missed-stumpings.

Stewart
Tests: 18
Byes conceded: 142
Runs cost in missed chances: 115
Average runs cost per Test: 14.28
Batting average: 41.41

Read
Tests: 12
Byes conceded: 29
Runs cost in missed chances: 10
Average runs cost per Test: 3.25
Batting average: 21.46

Ambrose
Tests: 6
Byes conceded: 43
Runs cost in missed chances: 48
Average runs cost per Test: 15.17
Batting average: 30.44

Jones
Tests: 34
Byes conceded: 278
Runs cost in missed chances: 296
Average runs cost per Test: 16.88
Batting average: 23.91

Foster
Tests: 7
Byes conceded: 47
Runs cost in missed chances: 84
Average runs cost per Test: 18.71
Batting average: 25.11

Prior
Tests: 10
Byes conceded: 142
Runs cost in missed chances: 485
Average runs cost per Test: 62.70
Batting average: 40.14

Notes:

1. "Runs cost in missed chances" is calculated per Test, whereas batting average is per innings. A pretty basic error, this - not comparing like with like. It exaggerates the effect of the missed chances.

2. "Runs cost in missed chances" is calculated by taking account of ALL misses. For example, Prior dropped Jayawardene on 66 and 154 before he was dismissed for 213 at Galle. That counts as a total of 206 runs cost (213 - 66) + (213 - 154). Which is a pretty ridiculous piece of double-counting. Again, it exaggerates the effect of missed chances.

3. As Richard correctly points out, a miss is a miss - how many the lucky batsman goes on to make is quite irrelevant to the quality and blameworthiness of the miss. It is a matter of chance which is entirely unconnected with the keeper's skill (or lack of skill).