Greatest Wicket Keepers of the Game

[Furball]

A lot of the best teams had fine wicket-keepers. Why is Healy considered better than Gilchrist when both generally had fantastic attacks yet Gilchrist blows him out of the water when you consider catches/inning? It seems pretty arbitrary.

Because Gilchrist kept to far better bowlers than Healy did. The statistical method you're advocating has Kamran Akmal as the 3rd best keeper of all time amongst keepers that have played at least 20 Tests, which is quite clearly nonsense.

Warne himself reckons Healy was a better keeper. Judging wicketkeepers is something that I'm loathe to do as I have absolutely no appreciation of what makes an outstanding keeper rather than a very good one. Obviously I can appreciate the difference between a good keeper like Prior and a poor one like Kieswetter but I have no idea why someone like Healy would be regarded as better than Gilchrist. So I'm quite happy to defer to people who actually know what they're talking about in this instance.

 

[Ikki]

Because Gilchrist kept to far better bowlers than Healy did. The statistical method you're advocating has Kamran Akmal as the 3rd best keeper of all time amongst keepers that have played at least 20 Tests, which is quite clearly nonsense.

Warne himself reckons Healy was a better keeper. Judging wicketkeepers is something that I'm loathe to do as I have absolutely no appreciation of what makes an outstanding keeper rather than a very good one. Obviously I can appreciate the difference between a good keeper like Prior and a poor one like Kieswetter but I have no idea why someone like Healy would be regarded as better than Gilchrist. So I'm quite happy to defer to people who actually know what they're talking about in this instance.

cricket can never EVER be defined by stats alone. Or at least the stats that we have currently.

I am not interested in using the stats alone; I am aware, especially in this case, how flawed that can be. But whilst we can say Kamran Akmal may make the study of simple catches/inning a bit absurd; we know why: he tends to drop plenty or get passed easy.

When I bring up that Gilchrist/Healy comparison; I don't think that contention against the stats is as strong anymore. I don't remember Gilchrist dropping many nor conceding many easy run-outs/runs because of an inability to keep. He may have looked less fluid but he was athletically superior to Healy IMO. I agree that Healy, in the beginning of his career had an inferior bowling attack to contend with, but for most of it, it was ATG class like Gilchrist, apart from when McGrath and Warne left. While both McGrath and Warne played, across both careers, the difference between Healy and Gilchrist's era is 1.5 wickets per match. I am not sure if this makes up the difference between their catch/innings stat or how to make that adjustment.

I generally do as you do GF wrt to keepers because of the same reasons. But that's the point I am making; it seems they judge on wholly arbitrary things - how far a player stands, how they take the ball in their gloves and so on. Lots of parallels with how baseball players were judged. I guess we just have poor stats for keepers - re how many they miss, how many wides go for more runs, etc.

 

[Shri]

Quick question: How many posts would Ikki have on CW if statsguru didn't exist?

 

[honestbharani]

Quick question: How many posts would Ikki have on CW if statsguru didn't exist?

you want an answer or a spreadsheet?

 

[honestbharani]

I am not interested in using the stats alone; I am aware, especially in this case, how flawed that can be. But whilst we can say Kamran Akmal may make the study of simple catches/inning a bit absurd; we know why: he tends to drop plenty or get passed easy.

When I bring up that Gilchrist/Healy comparison; I don't think that contention against the stats is as strong anymore. I don't remember Gilchrist dropping many nor conceding many easy run-outs/runs because of an inability to keep. He may have looked less fluid but he was athletically superior to Healy IMO. I agree that Healy, in the beginning of his career had an inferior bowling attack to contend with, but for most of it, it was ATG class like Gilchrist, apart from when McGrath and Warne left. While both McGrath and Warne played, across both careers, the difference between Healy and Gilchrist's era is 1.5 wickets per match. I am not sure if this makes up the difference between their catch/innings stat or how to make that adjustment.

I generally do as you do GF wrt to keepers because of the same reasons. But that's the point I am making; it seems they judge on wholly arbitrary things - how far a player stands, how they take the ball in their gloves and so on. Lots of parallels with how baseball players were judged. I guess we just have poor stats for keepers - re how many they miss, how many wides go for more runs, etc.

I thought Healy looked a lot more comfortable keeping in India than Gilchrist did. There were quite a few takes that he missed in his chennai tests.

 

[sledger]

Personally I was always very impressed with Chris Read behind the stumps, in all my time watching (which appreciably isn't a particularly long time, perhaps) it's hard to think of many I would rate ahead of him on pure wicket-keeping ability. Shame his batting was not of the requisite standard for an international player.

 

[Ikki]

Quick question: How many posts would Ikki have on CW if statsguru didn't exist?

Still more than your funny posts

 

[BoyBrumby]

On present form, has to be between Jayawardena and Baugh.

Nah. Prior was very comfortably better than Prasanna when he kept up here. Looked cod ordinary actually. Really struggled with the ball that moved after passing the stumps.

Because Gilchrist kept to far better bowlers than Healy did. The statistical method you're advocating has Kamran Akmal as the 3rd best keeper of all time amongst keepers that have played at least 20 Tests, which is quite clearly nonsense.

Warne himself reckons Healy was a better keeper. Judging wicketkeepers is something that I'm loathe to do as I have absolutely no appreciation of what makes an outstanding keeper rather than a very good one. Obviously I can appreciate the difference between a good keeper like Prior and a poor one like Kieswetter but I have no idea why someone like Healy would be regarded as better than Gilchrist. So I'm quite happy to defer to people who actually know what they're talking about in this instance.

Probz worth remembering Warne and Gilly not exactly bestest buds. Gilchrist's keeping is very underrated. Pulled off the odd speccy, but mostly was just very tidy & unflashy because his positioning was so good.

Just on Knott: quite a few observers reckoned it was his batting that kept out a superior gloveman in Bob Taylor.

Most of these observers spoke with Derbyshire accents, but worth noting nonetheless.

 

[Eds]

Mentioning Les Ames as he's seemingly always the forgotten man in every keeping discussion ever.

Marcuss bang on.

 

[Jono]

Probz worth remembering Warne and Gilly not exactly bestest buds.

A great example of why testimonials and opinions of teammates, opponents and experts needs to be put into perspective.

Definitely worth taking into account, and even given a lot of weight, but they can be just as misleading as stats at times.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Wasn't Bob Taylor a better keeper than Knott but Knott got in because he could bat?

 

[G.I.Joe]

What are Tendulkar's views on other players? He's a huge Lara fan, that much I know.

 

[Jono]

Sachin rates Lee highly.

 

[Riggins]

Purely on keeping gilly criminally underated.

 

[Xuhaib]

I know he's an Akmal but Adnan Akmal looks quite neat not the best in the world but certainly the better Akmal.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Wasn't Bob Taylor a better keeper than Knott but Knott got in because he could bat?

No. At the time it was open to debate in some quarters but both were keepers of the highest quality. It wasn't a Read/Stewart or Foster/Prior situation where a sub-standard keeper was chosen for his batting ahead of a high class keeper.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Personally I was always very impressed with Chris Read behind the stumps, in all my time watching (which appreciably isn't a particularly long time, perhaps) it's hard to think of many I would rate ahead of him on pure wicket-keeping ability. Shame his batting was not of the requisite standard for an international player.

Issues moving to his right, according to a fair few at the time, quite a few balls went between him and first slip supposedly. I always thought he looked very natural though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Gilchrist was Test class, Heally was genuine class behind the stumps.

 

[Spikey]

Everything can be proven by stats.

unless the end result doesn't turn out to favour an australian player of the 00's

let's just throw this back up

 

[Howe_zat]

No. At the time it was open to debate in some quarters but both were keepers of the highest quality. It wasn't a Read/Stewart or Foster/Prior situation where a sub-standard keeper was chosen for his batting ahead of a high class keeper.

Could Knott's batting have been considered the difference, though?