CW All-Time XI Wicket Keepers

[NUFAN]

Agree with the part in bold but would you rate him as a better batsman than Sanga?

Sangakkara is a very very good batsman

Both of them are/were very, very good batsman. Sanga averages the lowest against England and Australia who have arguably been the best bowling attacks during his career and I get the feeling that he's in a bit of a funk at the moment, but he's kind of lucky that he's only failing in ODIs and T20s and not damaging his Test record. Of course he is so classy that he could peel a ton next Test and be back to his best..

His overall record is brilliant though, particularly when batting at 3 as a specialist batsman. I think his batting while not keeping is above Gilly's batting while keeping, but the difference is not substantial.

 

[Jager]

His overall record is brilliant though, particularly when batting at 3 as a specialist batsman. I think his batting while not keeping is above Gilly's batting while keeping, but the difference is not substantial.

It's hard to compare since they play such different roles. Gilchrist is the hit-everything aggressor who often has a team to back him up, whereas Sanga is so often facing opening bowlers due to an opener trying to hit the first balls of the match out of the park... (Dilshan.).

 

[Valer]

jager the issue there is that the incremental benifits to a better keeper aren't worth it once the standard is acceptable. Were there better keepers than Gilly/ Flower/ Sanga/ whoever yes, but one would think that at an ATXI level that the batting difrences would be more important.

 

[Jager]

jager the issue there is that the incremental benifits to a better keeper aren't worth it once the standard is acceptable. Were there better keepers than Gilly/ Flower/ Sanga/ whoever yes, but one would that at an ATXI level that the batting difrences would be more important.

I could argue the opposite- Gilly coming in at 7 would be after some pretty special players who would have already scored most likely a mountain of runs. When the other team is batting, one missed chance could be a disaster.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I have no hesitancy saying Gilchrist was the better strokeplayer compared to Sangakkara. I've seen him regularly pull off strokes off balls that would have had lesser, and in some case purportedly better, batsmen flummoxed. Also, as someone mentioned, there were numerous occasions when he came in with the top not having contributed many, and changed the game. I was there for the first Test of the '01 series in Mumbai when he came in at 99/5. He did it on debut, he did it then, and he did it many times in between and after too. Great gets thrown around way too flippantly, but Gilchrist was a true great of the game.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Gilchrist was such a clean hitter of the ball. I used to hear commentators say that about certain players, and always thought it a bit of cliche. Until I actually heard him bat at the ground.

 

[Valer]

I could argue the opposite- Gilly coming in at 7 would be after some pretty special players who would have already scored most likely a mountain of runs. When the other team is batting, one missed chance could be a disaster.

Unlikely, unless you make your team to bash relative minows. If so does the missed chance matter that much? We only have to see the lack of difrence in keeping standard from 1st class to test to suggest that an improvement isn't worthwhile at AT standard.

Eta:

Unless ofcourse you are saying that batting has more variance in quality.

 

[Jager]

Unlikely, unless you make your team to bash relative minows. If so does the missed chance matter that much? We only have to see the lack of difrence in keeping standard from 1st class to test to suggest that an improvement isn't worthwhile at AT standard.

Eta:

Unless ofcourse you are saying that batting has more variance in quality.

We can argue all we want, I'll always pick a better gloveman before Gilchrist, but I am a minority it seems.

 

[JBMAC]

It's a real shame Gerry Alexander gave up first class cricket right when he started batting really well. Sounds like a real gentleman to me. Also, I think Gilchrist's keeping is overrated. I've seen him drop plenty recently while watching those Fox Sports classics.

AGREE

How was Walcott with gloves? He would be such a gun wicketkeeper-batsman if he is acceptable behind the wickets.

Clean and capable

Healy was far superior to Gilchrist, of course. I'd take Healy over Gilly because of his skills behind the stumps. It just frustrates me that apparently wicketkeeping is no longer what we choose a wicketkeeper for.

Agree

Well there's your answer...........RUBBISH!!!!!!!...If you seriously think that list of stumpers could produce an ATG then you do not know the game.Notable names missing include Tallon, Grout ,Engineer,Maclean,Blackham, to name just afew off the top of my head.

FOOTNOTE

An ATG side would not need a keeper/batsman or vice versa with the best of all time in the side.He would come in at last drop!

 

[Pup Clarke]

Not trying to be controversial, but what makes people think Gilchrist will succeed against ATG bowlers? He was made to look pretty average in the 05 Ashes by admittadly an outstanding attack, but he did have technical flaws that could be pretty easily exposed imo.

 

[Valer]

8ankitj, much like Sanga he did much worse with the gloves (~40 avg) than without.

I'm not sure how much of this is due to the small sample size however.

 

[marc71178]

Is 48 games now a small sample then?

 

[Jager]

Interestingly enough, S Rajesh posted an article on wicketkeeper-batsmen today.
The Numbers Game: Age of the batsman-wicketkeeper | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Valer]

Is 48 games now a small sample then?

15 with the gloves and yes I'd say that is...

 

[marc71178]

15 with the gloves and yes I'd say that is...

Edit2: Not enough even.

Ah, you weren't talking about about Sanga!

 

[Valer]

Ah, you weren't talking about about Sanga!

Walcott.

 

[andyc]

FOOTNOTE

An ATG side would not need a keeper/batsman or vice versa with the best of all time in the side.He would come in at last drop!

This argument doesn't really wash with me; we're assuming that the ATG side is playing an equivalent from Mars or whatever; that means they've probably got their own Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers to bat, and their own Marshall, Warne/Murali etc. to bowl, so you take all the runs you can get. Adam Gilchrist was batting behind one of the best batting line-ups of all time and there was still plenty of times that he had to dig deep.

 

[Jager]

This argument doesn't really wash with me; we're assuming that the ATG side is playing an equivalent from Mars or whatever; that means they've probably got their own Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers to bat, and their own Marshall, Warne/Murali etc. to bowl, so you take all the runs you can get. Adam Gilchrist was batting behind one of the best batting line-ups of all time and there was still plenty of times that he had to dig deep.

But playing against Mars with their genius batsmen could mean that chances are extremely rare, therefore you can't risk letting them go down due to less able keeping.

 

[andyc]

But playing against Mars with their genius batsmen could mean that chances are extremely rare, therefore you can't risk letting them go down due to less able keeping.

Haha, I think at the end of the day it just comes down to what you value more with your keepers. As it is, I personally don't think Gilchrist's keeping was that bad. I'd actually say that him being such an effective batsman overshadowed the fact that he was a very able glovesman. Not as good as Healy, but certainly not a huge step down.

 

[Jager]

Haha, I think at the end of the day it just comes down to what you value more with your keepers. As it is, I personally don't think Gilchrist's keeping was that bad. I'd actually say that him being such an effective batsman overshadowed the fact that he was a very able glovesman. Not as good as Healy, but certainly not a huge step down.

Definitely, it's all a matter of opinion. Personally, it's all about the glovework for me, although I will admit a slight bias against Gilchrist.