how come all the test keepers bar prior and rahim currently suck

[Challis]

Munchkin Rahim is the worst keeper of the lot, he isn't even the best keeper in his domestic side, never mind International cricket

 

[Jarquis]

But... Haddin's better than Prior isn't he?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Rahim's keeping is dog turd. Honestly rate Dhoni's higher.

 

[marc71178]

Still averages 40 with the gloves on which isn't too shabby

No it isn't too shabby, but it's also not commensurate with the amount of fawning over him as a wicketkeeper-batsman.

 

[Jacknife]

Rahim's keeping is poo, tbh.

Yes , I wouldn't rate him as anything more than below average.

 

[sledger]

Chris Read, tbh.

 

[Joao]

But... Haddin's better than Prior isn't he?

No, but Haddin is inferior to at least two blokes in his own country so that's really not important.

Prior > our selectors picking wicketkeepers

 

[Flametree]

Well batting wise he is arguably the 2nd best keeper bat behind Gilly. Between him and Sanga anyway. Sanga just so good as a bat alone he will get nod from many I guess.
.

Sangakkara's average as test keeper = 40
Andy Flower's average as test keeper = 51

Not much of an argument in my mind.

 

[shankar]

No it isn't too shabby, but it's also not commensurate with the amount of fawning over him as a wicketkeeper-batsman.

So you must consider Sangakkara to be the best batsman post-1950 then? If the claim is that the average of 40 is entirely due to keeping, then his average of 70 when he's not keeping must be the true measure of his batting, no?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Mushfiqur Rahim is not a great keeper.. Bangladesh have a better keeper in Dhiman Ghosh but this is a bit like the Andy Flower issue..they want to play an extra batsman

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Oh my Ghosh, that's ridiculous.

 

[marc71178]

So you must consider Sangakkara to be the best batsman post-1950 then? If the claim is that the average of 40 is entirely due to keeping, then his average of 70 when he's not keeping must be the true measure of his batting, no?

I don't necessarily think it is entirely due to keeping, but it does seem a very large discrepancy to be fully coincidental.

 

[shankar]

I don't necessarily think it is entirely due to keeping, but it does seem a very large discrepancy to be fully coincidental.

If you claim that his average in the part of his career when he was keeping would have been 55, then you have to also call him the best batsman of the era to be consistent. If on the other hand, you claim that his average would have been 45 were he not keeping, then that would mean keeping doesn't affect his batting that much.

So the greater your estimate of the effect of keeping on his batting, the greater must be your estimate of his batting as a pure batsman if you want to be consistent.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you claim that his average in the part of his career when he was keeping would have been 55, then you have to also call him the best batsman of the era to be consistent.

You don't, because the period in which he's averaged 70 alone has a serious longevity problem when you compare it to something like Tendulkar's entire career. Best batsman in the period between when he gave away the gloves and now? Well yeah, I actually will give him that; he's been immense.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

This thread makes me wish that Brendon McCullum still kept wicket for us.

 

[shankar]

You don't, because the period in which he's averaged 70 alone has a serious longevity problem when you compare it to something like Tendulkar's entire career. Best batsman in the period between when he gave away the gloves and now? Well yeah, I actually will give him that; he's been immense.

If you assume 55 - then his estimated average had he played as a pure batsman his whole 12 year career is 62! Now I don't think he would have averaged anywhere near 55 had he not been keeping. I think he might've averaged 45 at most. However this would imply that his keeping doesn't affect his batting as much. His average when keeping is only this low because it coincides with the part of his career when his batting wasn't as good.

Regardless of the numbers the point is this - We can't upgrade the estimate of the effect keeping has on his batting without simultaneously upgrading our evaluation of his batting.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Of course it's nothing to shout about, but Adnan was pretty good this test.

 

[Migara]

If you assume 55 - then his estimated average had he played as a pure batsman his whole 12 year career is 62! Now I don't think he would have averaged anywhere near 55 had he not been keeping. I think he might've averaged 45 at most. However this would imply that his keeping doesn't affect his batting as much. His average when keeping is only this low because it coincides with the part of his career when his batting wasn't as good.

Regardless of the numbers the point is this - We can't upgrade the estimate of the effect keeping has on his batting without simultaneously upgrading our evaluation of his batting.

Made this argument some time back, to show the hypocrisy of some.

 

[Jacknife]

So you must consider Sangakkara to be the best batsman post-1950 then? If the claim is that the average of 40 is entirely due to keeping, then his average of 70 when he's not keeping must be the true measure of his batting, no?

Just imagine if Prior played as a pure batsman.

 

[Joao]

Just imagine if Prior played as a pure batsman.

Done.

Sangakarra (batsman only) >>>> Prior (batsman only)