The stats do not do him justice!

[The Sean]

Ok well lets pull it back then. AUS after losing Marsh in the rough summer of 84. For 4 years juggled between Wayne Phillips, Tim Zoheer & Greg Dyer, with neither holding down a spot. A bit like England today since Stewart.

So now a young Gilchrist & Healy are the options Allan Border has to chose from has the 1988 tour to PAK commences. Gilchrist would also would have the same 3 years of ODI performances has he did between 96-99 in the late 80s.

You have Healy a talented young glovesman but an average bat & Gilchrist a super attacking batsman & a solid keeper. Gievn AUS batting woes in the late 80s, who you think Border & the selectors would have chosen?

They would have chosen Gilly, and I know this not because of any Gilchrist/Healy inside knowledge, but the idea of Australia picking Test 'keepers for their batting ability didn't start with Adam Gilchrist. In the mid-80s there were two blokes called Phillips - Wayne and Ray, jostling for position in the Australian side. Ray was by some distance the superior gloveman but was a pretty ordinary batsman, whereas for a couple of years in the mid-80s Wayne had an argument to be the second best batsman in the country behind AB. Wayne was a regular in the side for several years, while Ray never played a Test.

Going back further, it was common knowledge that Rod Marsh only got a gig in the Australian team in the early 1970s because of his quality with the bat compared with the incumbent, Brian Taber, who was universally acknowledged as the better wicketkeeper. That Rod Marsh is remembered today as an Australian cricket legend, while Brian Taber is something of a footnote, shows how important such distinctions have proven to be.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Such childish acts, just proves you are losing the argument sir.

What argument are you actually talking about? You continually contradict your own posts, then quote my posts and make points of no relevance.

 

[SJS]

Because he failed againts the best team of his time with the bat.

Because he failed againts the best team of his time with the bat.

I presume you are refering to Australia. I am not sure that is entirely true.

First and foremost, during the 1930's Australia had probably the weakest pace attack in their entire 140 year Test history. They were far from being the strongest attack in the world. England were much stronger. Its just that they had Bradman who countered most atacks. Mind you it still did not give Australia overwhelming series wins (inspite of Bradmans700+, 800+ and 900+ series aggregates) They won three out of five series and always by a margin of one Test. Have a look.

[B]SEASON	AUS	ENG[/B]

1930	[B]2[/B]	1
1932-33	1	[B]4[/B]
1934	[B]2[/B]	1
1936-37	[B]3[/B]	2
1938	1	1

The main strength of their attack in these series was spin. Unfortunatey you need two great spinners (preferably with a decent support caste) to win against the best. Australia had great spinners in Grimmett and O'Reilly but their careers coincided for not a very long time and over just one Ashes series of any significance.

In 1930 : Grimmett was the sole quality bowler.
In 1938 : O'Reilly was alone
In 1936-37 : O'Reilly was alone.

Here are the series Ames played in..

1932-33
O'Rielly, Iron monger and Wall were Australia's leading bowlers.They bowled the most overs and took the most wickets (58 of the 74 wickets that fell at 26.5 each) The other bowlers managed 16 at 65 each. The only bowler of class in the rest was Grimmett but he had such a bad time that his five wickets in three Tests cost 65 each and he had to be dropped!

1936-37
This time the lead bowlers were O'Reilly, Ward, Fleetwood Smith and McCormick. Again a spin dominated attack and this time Grimmett was not even playing.

1934
This was England's strongest attack in the Bradman Era till WW 2 broke out. Australia were not very strong in pace throughout the thirties but in Grimmett and O'Reilly, both at the peak of their powers, they had the most potent spin attack for the first century of Test cricket.

O'Reilly and Wall were there in this series too but there was Grimmett too and at his very best. Between the two of them Grimmett and O'Reilly took 53 of the 71 English wickets that fell. They also did almost all the bowling - 730 of the 1100 odd overs in Tests were bowled by these two.

Ames averaged 43.5 in the series.​

So I do not think it is fair to say that he had a poor record against the best attack of that time.What is true is that he had a poor record in Australia. In his two series there he averaged under 18! Just two fifties in ten Tests - both interestingly in Adelaide where he averaged 31.0.

What I find interesting about Ames's batting stats is how he either got out for low scores or went on to get hundreds. His eight hundreds and seven fifites represents a fantastic conversion rate but the more important stats lie in the much lower numbers.

Thirty three times in just 60 completed innings he fell under 20; 23 times below ten. He must have been a very nervous starter.

 

[Richard]

They would have chosen Gilly, and I know this not because of any Gilchrist/Healy inside knowledge, but the idea of Australia picking Test 'keepers for their batting ability didn't start with Adam Gilchrist. In the mid-80s there were two blokes called Phillips - Wayne and Ray, jostling for position in the Australian side. Ray was by some distance the superior gloveman but was a pretty ordinary batsman, whereas for a couple of years in the mid-80s Wayne had an argument to be the second best batsman in the country behind AB. Wayne was a regular in the side for several years, while Ray never played a Test.

Going back further, it was common knowledge that Rod Marsh only got a gig in the Australian team in the early 1970s because of his quality with the bat compared with the incumbent, Brian Taber, who was universally acknowledged as the better wicketkeeper. That Rod Marsh is remembered today as an Australian cricket legend, while Brian Taber is something of a footnote, shows how important such distinctions have proven to be.

Yeah, the idea that Australia, or anyone, only started placing importance on a wicketkeeper's batting with Gilchrist is plain wrong.

Wicketkeepers' batting being unimportant ceased as the 1960s came to a close. For the last 4 decades, it has been important that a wicketkeeper can bat, and the importance has increased gradually over that time.

 

[subshakerz]

Total crap.
We got to that point because you (that's you) said that Botham couldn't be considered a top 6 six batsman in an All Time XI based on his peak because his career tailed off. Yet Imran could be considered for a top 6 place even though for the first half of his career he wasn't a batsman at all. The only difference between the two is one peaked early as a batsman and one peaked late. Yet you (that's you) consider Imran's peak more relevant than Botham's.

Neither Botham nor Imran merit a top 6 batting position in an all-time XI. However, Botham's peak is very different from Imran's peak and should be viewed as such.

Botham's peak was early in his career, and as his career went forward he simply got poorer and poorer. So obviously in the final assessment, you would pick a cricketer who improved as his career went along in the rigours of international cricket as opposed to a comparable one who had continually dropping standards with bat/ball. It tells something about the temperament of the cricketer.

Timewise, Botham's peak was also packed in a five year period, and he ranged from mediocre to substandard for a decade after that. It's not just how you deal by test to test, but by year to year also.

It should also be pointed out that Botham's peak was against sides affected by the loss of their Packer players, and he failed consistently against the best outfit there was, the West Indies, with bat and ball.

In Imran's case, its true that he wasn't much of a bat early on (not for half of his career), but after 25-30 tests, he managed to transform to a decent bat, and eventually to a very good bat, over the course of a decade. It should be remembered that Sobers wasn't a test class bowler after 30 tests (he averaged over 50 with the ball at that time), but he is rightly seen as the greatest all-rounder of all.

 

[SJS]

Yeah, the idea that Australia, or anyone, only started placing importance on a wicketkeeper's batting with Gilchrist is plain wrong.

Wicketkeepers' batting being unimportant ceased as the 1960s came to a close. For the last 4 decades, it has been important that a wicketkeeper can bat, and the importance has increased gradually over that time.

I think the big change came with the limited overs game when you did not need to get all your opponents out to win a match but just score more runs in the same time. A dropped catch or a missed stumping in the shorter version has potential to do much less damage than in Tests. Conversely a keeper who can belt just those few extra runs could win you the match. Unfortunately, once the idea caught on, as well as with the increase in the importance of ODI's in the overall scheme of things, people stopped differentiating between the formats. I would rather say that people stopped looking at the keeping abilities more closely.

Nothing has done more harm to the chances of specialist keepers being selected than the increased importance of the shoerter version.

The same has also applied, to a lesser extent in the proliferation of "bits-and-pieces" players in place of specialists but in that case the distinction between the two formats has been maintained by most countries.

 

[Richard]

TBH I'm a child of my time and see it as a considerable strengthening of the game - Test or ODI - that it is now the case that a decent wicketkeeper who can bat pretty well is preferable to an outstanding one who cannot really bat much at all.

Have long realised that most of those over a certain age - in 2009 it's probably the 40-45 sort of range - tend to view it differently. By-and-large, said aged people still tend to think the best wicketkeeper should play almost (yes, almost, not absolutely) regardless.

Same way I view it as an unadulterated good thing that uncovered decks are now gone for good. Those who still have decent memory of the time when they were still in existence generally think otherwise.

I doubt those of one generation will ever remotely convince those of the other that their POV is the right one.

 

[SJS]

TBH I'm a child of my time and see it as a considerable strengthening of the game - Test or ODI - that it is now the case that a decent wicketkeeper who can bat pretty well is preferable to an outstanding one who cannot really bat much at all.

Tell me Richards, how do you determine in an ODI, the quality of a wicket keeper? I asked this before but forgot to mention that I was refering to ODI's.

 

[aussie]

I presume you are refering to Australia. I am not sure that is entirely true.

First and foremost, during the 1930's Australia had probably the weakest pace attack in their entire 140 year Test history. They were far from being the strongest attack in the world. England were much stronger. Its just that they had Bradman who countered most atacks. Mind you it still did not give Australia overwhelming series wins (inspite of Bradmans700+, 800+ and 900+ series aggregates) They won three out of five series and always by a margin of one Test. Have a look.

[B]SEASON	AUS	ENG[/B]

1930	[B]2[/B]	1
1932-33	1	[B]4[/B]
1934	[B]2[/B]	1
1936-37	[B]3[/B]	2
1938	1	1

The main strength of their attack in these series was spin. Unfortunatey you need two great spinners (preferably with a decent support caste) to win against the best. Australia had great spinners in Grimmett and O'Reilly but their careers coincided for not a very long time and over just one Ashes series of any significance.

In 1930 : Grimmett was the sole quality bowler.
In 1938 : O'Reilly was alone
In 1936-37 : O'Reilly was alone.

Here are the series Ames played in..

1932-33
O'Rielly, Iron monger and Wall were Australia's leading bowlers.They bowled the most overs and took the most wickets (58 of the 74 wickets that fell at 26.5 each) The other bowlers managed 16 at 65 each. The only bowler of class in the rest was Grimmett but he had such a bad time that his five wickets in three Tests cost 65 each and he had to be dropped!

1936-37
This time the lead bowlers were O'Reilly, Ward, Fleetwood Smith and McCormick. Again a spin dominated attack and this time Grimmett was not even playing.

1934
This was England's strongest attack in the Bradman Era till WW 2 broke out. Australia were not very strong in pace throughout the thirties but in Grimmett and O'Reilly, both at the peak of their powers, they had the most potent spin attack for the first century of Test cricket.

O'Reilly and Wall were there in this series too but there was Grimmett too and at his very best. Between the two of them Grimmett and O'Reilly took 53 of the 71 English wickets that fell. They also did almost all the bowling - 730 of the 1100 odd overs in Tests were bowled by these two.

Ames averaged 43.5 in the series.​

So I do not think it is fair to say that he had a poor record against the best attack of that time.What is true is that he had a poor record in Australia. In his two series there he averaged under 18! Just two fifties in ten Tests - both interestingly in Adelaide where he averaged 31.0.

What I find interesting about Ames's batting stats is how he either got out for low scores or went on to get hundreds. His eight hundreds and seven fifites represents a fantastic conversion rate but the more important stats lie in the much lower numbers.

Thirty three times in just 60 completed innings he fell under 20; 23 times below ten. He must have been a very nervous starter.

Sold analysis SJS as usual. But when i said Ames "failed againts the best attack of him time" - being AUS. I was refering specifically to his performances vs O'Reilly/Grimmett.

I admit though, i made the cardinal mistake of judging his overall record vs AUS againts those two bowlers a bit blindly. Since i wasn't aware the O'Reilly/Grimmett combo only played together in one Ashes series. I always thought although i knew Grimmett debut at age 33, that the partnership played more Ashes together.

So overall its a bit of a confusing performance by the great Les Ames. Since he failed at againts Grimmett in previous series, but stepped up in 1934 againts the spin combo. Odd, but i guess just thats one of those things in cricket, that statistics can't ever tell you. But i guess to A LEVEL it says Ames was slightly better againts spin than Stewart?. Can't say for sure really...


But what still worries me about Ames, is well given he played in an area where 90 mph bowlers where non-existant except for Larwood (his own team mate haa) & in era of very flat pitches. It struggle to pick/consider him for the keeper slot over Knott or Stewart, given he didn't face the quality of pace bowling those two faced & did well againts. Thats why i have him 3rd in the pecking order.

 

[SJS]

Sold analysis SJS as usual. But when i said Ames "failed againts the best attack of him time" - being AUS. I was refering specifically to his performances vs O'Reilly/Grimmett.

I admit though, i made the cardinal mistake of judging his overall record vs AUS againts those two bowlers a bit blindly. Since i wasn't aware the O'Reilly/Grimmett combo only played together in one Ashes series. I always thought although i knew Grimmett debut at age 33, that the partnership played more Ashes together.

So overall its a bit of a confusing performance by the great Les Ames. Since he failed at againts Grimmett in previous series, but stepped up in 1934 againts the spin combo. Odd, but i guess just thats one of those things in cricket, that statistics can't ever tell you. But i guess to A LEVEL it says Ames was slightly better againts spin than Stewart?. Can't say for sure really...


But what still worries me about Ames, is well given he played in an area where 90 mph bowlers where non-existant except for Larwood (his own team mate haa) & in era of very flat pitches. It struggle to pick/consider him for the keeper slot over Knott or Stewart, given he didn't face the quality of pace bowling those two faced & did well againts. Thats why i have him 3rd in the pecking order.

It is a dillemma I agree. I would not pick him above knott too. Having seen Knott, I would play safe, as it were, and pick him for being the better keeper - a presumption but not misplaced I think.

Its completely different when comparing with Stewart. There is no comparison between them as keepers. Take away their batting from the equation for the moment. Ames was amongst the great keepers the world has seen. Stewart was amongst the very ordinary ones. Take away his batting, I repeat, and no one will think of him as a keeper.

So. While I would opt for a pure keeper all the time meaning choose the best keeper for his abilities with the gloves (and I am always talking Test cricket) if I ever had to choose a keeper with better batting (primarily to bolster the batting a bit and maybe allow me to add another specialist bowler) I would go for those keepers who while still fabulous keepers were no mugs with the bat. Ames, I feel, must be very close to the top in that category.

The keeper who challenges him for that position is Walcott. Who, till a slip disk forced him to give up the gloves and play as pure batsman, was a marvellous keeper it appears. Not one of the greatest but very good.

I am a great fan of Gilchrist, unlike what most people think, and I think he did a lot for the game and was a fantastic ambassador for the game besides being such a remarkable cricketer. But I am sorry. I think he was no where near being a great keeper. Oh yes he did improve as he went along but keeping is not something that came naturally to him and of all cricketing skills, this is the one that is most in-born. Some have it some dont.

Dhoni too is improving from his earlier shoddy work but he is no great shakes as a keeper. One can see it. Unfortunately, not many people DO SEE keeping very well. Even top class cricketers. Most top batsmen (pure batsmen) are able to speak fairly well about the basics of bowling and those who are keen and study, are able to do it very well actually. Same applies for bowlers with batting. Unforunately it never extends to keeping.

Thats why, inspite of such legends of the game in our "Test Match Specials" etc. you rarely here great insights about keeping from the likes of even Benaud, Boycott or Lawry.

The only times I have ever heard something interesting about keeping was when Healy was in the room.

The same applies to cricket coaches.

Go to most cricket academies and you will find that largest number of coaches are batsmen or all rounders; then a few, just a few, might be pure bowler and almost never a wicket keeper. This should not stop them from being able to teach the correct skills for keeping to their wards after all the batsmen-coaches go about imparting bowling skills and vice-versa. However, beyond the absolute basics, I have not seen nuanced coaching of keeping skills.

So I am not surprised that such ignorance prevails on this skill at all levels.

 

[aussie]

What argument are you actually talking about? You continually contradict your own posts, then quote my posts and make points of no relevance.

Ha, yea EVERYTHING i have said is a contradiction. Yet every other poster who has come into the thread agreed with my position. So you better take those rose tinted shades.

Look i'm surprised at your below the belt arguments LT, i always reckoned you where on of those posters who would give solid substantive cricket debates. But unfortunately not only are you strawing away from all my points & sticking to a STRICT ideological premise on your views towards Allan Knott & incorrect view of Stewart. You really don't have a very open mind on this matter at all sir.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, yea EVERYTHING i have said is a contradiction. Yet every other poster who has come into the thread agreed with my position. So you better take those rose tinted shades.

Look i'm surprised at your below the belt arguments LT, i always reckoned you where on of those posters who would give solid substantive cricket debates. But unfortunately not only are you strawing away from all my points & sticking to a STRICT ideological premise on your views towards Allan Knott & incorrect view of Stewart. You really don't have a very open mind on this matter at all sir.

But what still worries me about Ames, is well given he played in an area where 90 mph bowlers where non-existant except for Larwood (his own team mate haa) & in era of very flat pitches. It struggle to pick/consider him for the keeper slot over Knott or Stewart, given he didn't face the quality of pace bowling those two faced & did well againts. Thats why i have him 3rd in the pecking order.

Two days ago he was below Jim Parks as well.

I'm happy to have a solid cricket debate with someone capable of doing so. Stewart was a sub-standard keeper and moderate batsman (nice of your open mind to declare that as "incorrect".)
I'm happy to leave you and the thousands of posters you think agree with you to your own little world.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH I'm a child of my time and see it as a considerable strengthening of the game - Test or ODI - that it is now the case that a decent wicketkeeper who can bat pretty well is preferable to an outstanding one who cannot really bat much at all.

Have long realised that most of those over a certain age - in 2009 it's probably the 40-45 sort of range - tend to view it differently. By-and-large, said aged people still tend to think the best wicketkeeper should play almost (yes, almost, not absolutely) regardless.

Same way I view it as an unadulterated good thing that uncovered decks are now gone for good. Those who still have decent memory of the time when they were still in existence generally think otherwise.

I doubt those of one generation will ever remotely convince those of the other that their POV is the right one.

Yeah, unsurprisingly, I agree. Particularly regarding Gilchrist, I struggle to believe any keeper, no matter how good, could match the contribution he made to the team's cause. Especially since I think he was a touch underrated as a keeper.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, unsurprisingly, I agree. Particularly regarding Gilchrist, I struggle to believe any keeper, no matter how good, could match the contribution he made to the team's cause. Especially since I think he was a touch underrated as a keeper.

Gilchrist was a Test quality cricketer with bat and gloves. The difference with the merry-go-round of keepers England have used in the past 4 years is they're just picking primarily a batsman with limited keeping credentials.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, unsurprisingly, I agree. Particularly regarding Gilchrist, I struggle to believe any keeper, no matter how good, could match the contribution he made to the team's cause. Especially since I think he was a touch underrated as a keeper.

Agree with that. I think Gilchrist's batting was so good it made people underrate how good of a keeper he was. I think Gilchrist's keeping is really up there with anyone bar the very few best.

 

[Richard]

Tell me Richards, how do you determine in an ODI, the quality of a wicket keeper? I asked this before but forgot to mention that I was refering to ODI's.

In one-day cricket one of the key components of a quality wicketkeeper is his ability to stand up to the stumps to seam bowling of all but fast and fast-medium speed and still take the ball cleanly. Standing back is less of a factor in the shorter game.

Obviously though the basic skills remain the same - good hands and a sure eye for the ball.

BTW I agree with you that it's absolutely criminal the lack of wicketkeeping coaches in the game. Jack Russell, in the space of less than a year, turned Geraint Jones from utterly hopeless to absolutely acceptable-quality. Just shows what a good coach who knows how to train the right skills can do - if you can do such a good job on such a basket case, who knows how well you can do with someone who starts off better.

 

[Pigeon]

Agree with that. I think Gilchrist's batting was so good it made people underrate how good of a keeper he was. I think Gilchrist's keeping is really up there with anyone bar the very few best.

A brilliant keeper, better perhaps than Healy, but definitely not the stumper as Healy was.

 

[Richard]

Nah there's no way Gilchrist was a better wicketkeeper than Healy, though he certainly wasn't poor.

 

[Pigeon]

Nah there's no way Gilchrist was a better wicketkeeper than Healy, though he certainly wasn't poor.

Yeah, it was a big IF I said.

 

[Richard]

Akin to saying "Ron Headley was perhaps a better batsman than Roy Fredericks" for mine.