The stats do not do him justice!

[aussie]

Two days ago he was below Jim Parks as well.

No he wasn't. All i said is that "i always felt Parsk should be ahead of Ames. That doesn't suggest i believed wholeheartedly that he was, since it was never something i have read up thouroughly - just a minor consideration. No ideological premise like yourself of course.

This was due mainly to that fact i had my worries that Ames had failures vs AUS & played in an era of flat pitches & no 90 mph. That like many batsmen of the 1930s outside Bradman, Hammond, McCabe. I worried his lack of facing such high quality pace, made his batting vulnerable in hypotetical ATXI match-ups.

Thanks to SJS i feel slightly more secure about him. But still have Knott & Stewart ahead of him in the pecking order.

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.

Ha, your problem clearly is that have A STRICT IDEOLOGICAL belief. That pick your best keeper AT ALL times. You are not paying much precedence to how it may affect team balance.

Cricket has evolved from the days Godfrey Evans could get away with batting @ 7 in tests. In a way it may this evolution has slightly undermined the appreciation for talented glovesmen, but inversely it has improved test cricket with helping teams batting line-ups become stronger.

 

[Ikki]

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

Healy was very good, but I think the distance you imply between them is an exaggeration. If I would rate Healy 9.2/10, I'd rate Gilchrist 9/10 in terms of glovework.

 

[aussie]

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.

He was ordinary technitian compared to Evans, Knott, Tallon, Grout no doubt. But he was solid keeper overall. The standard of glovework between Stewart, Gilchrist & Sangakkara in recent years is very similar.

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.

Interesting i have always had the impression that Walcott was just a stop-gap keeper in test matches. I wouldn't have anywhere near consideration keeping for WI ATXI, just consider for his batting of course.

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.

True. But TBH in an IND ATXI, i would always have Engineer & Kirmani ahead of Dhoni unless he scores top runs againts a top pace attack (then i might put him ahead of Kirmani only). Since a hypotetical test in IND with a spin trio of Gupte/Prasanna/Mankad, IND need a top glovesman.

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.

No doubt. The lack of keeping coaches is a problem. But no to stray too far away from the point, but you think of the top technical glovesmen since 2000. Read, Foster, P Jayawardene.

You look at England with Read for example. Given his poor batting, ENG really couldn't accomodate him, even though he was top behind the stumps. So i'd say talented glovesmen also need to improve their batting, because unless teams have an all-rounder capable of batting @ 7. Talented glovesmen wont be getting any game time.

 

[aussie]

Healy was very good, but I think the distance you imply between them is an exaggeration. If I would rate Healy 9.2/10, I'd rate Gilchrist 9/10 in terms of glovework.

Technique wise Gilly would be a 7 at his peak. Healy's glovework never deserted him even as his batting failed in the late 90s, Gilly's glovework was clearly getting worse after the 2005 Ashes.

 

[Ikki]

Technique wise Gilly would be a 7 at his peak. Healy's glovework never deserted him even as his batting failed in the late 90s, Gilly's glovework was clearly getting worse after the 2005 Ashes.

7/10? Well, I admit I am not very good at judging keepers but I was always under the impression that Gilchrist was only a slight notch under Healy in those terms. His athleticism was refreshing too.

 

[Pigeon]

7/10? Well, I admit I am not very good at judging keepers but I was always under the impression that Gilchrist was only a slight notch under Healy in those terms. His athleticism was refreshing too.

True. Healy's keeping is as overrated as Gilly's is underrated. Don't forget that Healy's mistake where he missed an easy stumping of Warne in Pakistan cost them a test match and a series (if my memory is right). He was good no doubt, but he had his bad moments, just like Gilly.

 

[Athlai]

DWTA Gilchrist's keeping if anything was overrated. Not to knock the guy but in terms of pure keeping he isn't anywhere the top standard, ask your average punter who they think was the best and Gilly will be there more often than not.

 

[Pigeon]

DWTA Gilchrist's keeping if anything was overrated. Not to knock the guy but in terms of pure keeping he isn't anywhere the top standard, ask your average punter who they think was the best and Gilly will be there more often than not.

Can't agree there. I honestly cannot Gilchrist being anywhere near dire for a majority period between his debut and 2006. His body started to give away in his last year or so, but that is only natural.

 

[Athlai]

Can't agree there. I honestly cannot Gilchrist being anywhere near dire for a majority period between his debut and 2006. His body started to give away in his last year or so, but that is only natural.

He was very good but he wasn't the best, or as good as Healy.

 

[Ikki]

He was very good but he wasn't the best, or as good as Healy.

And how do you figure that out? Statistically, in terms of catches, stumpings, etc, IIRC Gilchrist is a mile in front.

 

[Athlai]

And how do you figure that out? Statistically, in terms of catches, stumpings, etc, IIRC Gilchrist is a mile in front.

By looking into it, I find wicketkeeping fascinating and don't think statistics are very useful in measuring a keeper's quality. Best keeper in the world would have a hard time stumping a batsman if the bowler isn't up to it.

Would actually be really interested in seeing who Peter McGlashan's top 5 keepers that he has seen are.

 

[Ikki]

By looking into it, I find wicketkeeping fascinating and don't think statistics are very useful in measuring a keeper's quality. Best keeper in the world would have a hard time stumping a batsman if the bowler isn't up to it.

Would actually be really interested in seeing who Peter McGlashan's top 5 keepers that he has seen are.

Yeah, but that's what makes it so subjective. In terms of keepers, the purist sect really push the likes of Healy and underplay someone like Gilchrist. Yet in effect, having seen both careers practically whole, the distance between them was not much at all IMO. But then again, I am not a great judge of keepers.

 

[aussie]

7/10? Well, I admit I am not very good at judging keepers but I was always under the impression that Gilchrist was only a slight notch under Healy in those terms. His athleticism was refreshing too.

Well i aint no expert either. But i'd presume you would be putting the likes of Knott, Marsh, Healy, Blackham, Evans, Grout, Tallon in the 8-9/10 bracket.

So Gilly, Sangakkara, Stewart would have to be lower.

 

[Ikki]

Well i aint no expert either. But i'd presume you would be putting the likes of Knott, Marsh, Healy, Blackham, Evans, Grout, Tallon in the 8-9/10 bracket.

I probably rate Healy not as high as someone like Knott whom I would rate something like 9.7/10. For me the differences, whilst there, are effectively not that great as to bring about the kind of change in the game itself to warrant such a distance when rating them.

So Gilly, Sangakkara, Stewart would have to be lower.

See, I think this is where/why we disagree. Gilly was way better than both Sangakkara and Stewart IMO. I can't even see a reason for them being in the same sentence if all we are talking about is glovework and actual keeping skills. Gilly was a pure keeper. The other two were make-shifts that became pretty competent later on.

 

[SJS]

He was ordinary technitian compared to Evans, Knott, Tallon, Grout no doubt. But he was solid keeper overall. The standard of glovework between Stewart, Gilchrist & Sangakkara in recent years is very similar.

.

Oh sure. I would say he (Gilchrist) was much better than Stewart and certainly better than Sangakarra standing back.

 

[aussie]

True. Healy's keeping is as overrated as Gilly's is underrated. Don't forget that Healy's mistake where he missed an easy stumping of Warne in Pakistan cost them a test match and a series (if my memory is right). He was good no doubt, but he had his bad moments, just like Gilly.

That stumping chance in PAK 94. Was an easy stumping chance missed yea, but watching it before. It was a case of Healy thinking Inzamam was going to bowled off-stump & he left it thinking that. A crucial mental error at the worst time possible.

He didn't drop the ball in attempt to complete the stumping though. Key distinction.

 

[SJS]

That stumping chance in PAK 94. Was an easy stumping chance missed yea, but watching it before. It was a case of Healy thinking Inzamam was going to bowled off-stump & he left it thinking that. A crucial mental error at the worst time possible.

He didn't drop the ball in attempt to complete the stumping though. Key distinction.

A good keeper can and will miss a chance just like a great batsman will miss get bowled first ball. You can judge the quality of a keeper even if he does not take a single catch or get a stumping. Just watch as he collects each ball (standing up). A great keeper will have ball after ball going bang in the middle of both his palms with the minimum of impact. Its a sign of a great keeper. He will rise along with the ball and move sideways as the ball deviates in a manner that his hands are always directly behind the ball from the time the ball starts rising after pitching till it finally rests in his hands. If he does that ball after ball after ball then when that one chance comes along, his hands will be in the best possible position to be closest to the line (even after deviation). A thin edge will always end up in his gloves and a thick one will have a very good chance to.

Thats the best a keeper can do standing up, be in a position with his hands so that he will collect each and every ball (not played or missed by the batsman) exactly in the 'seat' of his palms.

When you see a keeper missing the balls which are not edged or not getting them bang in the middle of his hand you know that his chances of getting it if it had deviated after that sudden edge were much poorer.

 

[Richard]

Oh sure. I would say he (Gilchrist) was much better than Stewart and certainly better than Sangakarra standing back.

I don't consider Gilchrist was much better than Stewart at all. If Stewart had kept wicket for the first time in Tests at the same age Gilchrist did I doubt these wicketkeeping purists would turn their noses up at him quite so.

Stewart suffers considerably, in my estimation, by those who judged him on his poor glovework of the early-1990s, and because they were so outraged that Russell (who was initially miles ahead - later only ahead) ever lost his place to him.

I haven't, unfortunately, seen all of Gilchrist's career - the only times I ever watched him ball-by-ball-ish over a lengthy spell was 2001-2001/02. He was certainly quite acceptable but no better than Stewart at a comparable time. Whenever I saw Gilchrist he looked perfectly decent but prone to a few more errors than you'd hope for (inevitable because he kept most when I was watching with fulsome attention in England, where almost all touring wicketkeepers make more errors than usual). I don't have all that much memory of Stewart's time as a poor wicketkeeper and have very full memory of his time as a pretty decent one. Why so many refuse so steadfastly to acknowledge Stewart's improvement is, in some cases, beyond me (in some the reasoning is clear, that being due to clear over-emphasis on natural talent).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, your problem clearly is that have A STRICT IDEOLOGICAL belief. That pick your best keeper AT ALL times. You are not paying much precedence to how it may affect team balance.

You keep on repeating this but it's not actually based on anything. I saw Knott at the peak of his career, and the whole of Stewart's career and judge them accordingly based on watching them keep wicket. Stewart simply isn't good enough, that's all there is to it.

 

[subshakerz]

That stumping chance in PAK 94. Was an easy stumping chance missed yea, but watching it before. It was a case of Healy thinking Inzamam was going to bowled off-stump & he left it thinking that. A crucial mental error at the worst time possible.

He didn't drop the ball in attempt to complete the stumping though. Key distinction.

I didn't think the Inzi stumping was that easy, he couldn't see the ball. But there's no excuse at all for his drop of Lara in Barbados in 1999, which also cost the series.

On the whole, though, Healy was a class ahead of Gilchrist, who was a fine keeper as well. Gilchrist was both athletic and safe and didn't really have any weaknesses until the end of his career. But he lacked Healy's finesse.

Watching Healy keeping to Warne was one of the great sights of the 90s. The two had almost a symbiotic relationship, I cant think of a better bowler-keeper combo.