Wicketkeeping standards

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Match referee and proud South Australian Barry Jarman?

 

[kyear2]

He had said he was a baby when he attended the '48 match.

 

[Debris]

I blame the shift towards looking at a wicketkeeper's batting ability instead of glovework

basically Gilly's fault WAC

Goes back further than that. I can remember that Healy was picked in part because he was useful with the bat. Maybe we can blame Dujon? Marsh??

 

[SJS]

Who is JB Mac ??

I knew he was a former cricketer but this is the first time he has let us know he played for the country - presumably Australia.

Since he kept wickets and watched Bradman batting that does not leave too many options. The short list includes:-

• J A Maclean : born 1946 - too young to have remembered Bradman although the initials are so close. I also think JB is in his seventies now because we exchanged notes on our ages a few years ago but my memory might be playing tricks.
• Len Maddock : born 1926. Old enough to have played with Bradman during the post war years. I dont think our JB is in his mid 80's :o)
• Barry Jarman : Born 1936. Fits the age group perfectly, JB could stand for Jarman, Barry although the complete initials are BNJ. The most illustrious of all possible candidates and the only one who came to India during the period I was watching the game - as understudy to Grout in the 64-65 team under Simpson. Jarman ended up playing 2 of the 3 Tests.

So who is it ?

 

[SJS]

Club, State and Country

John Maclean, Queensland, and Australia ??

 

[smash84]

I knew he was a former cricketer but this is the first time he has let us know he played for the country - presumably Australia.

Since he kept wickets and watched Bradman batting that does not leave too many options. The short list includes:-

• J A Maclean : born 1946 - too young to have remembered Bradman although the initials are so close. I also think JB is in his seventies now because we exchanged notes on our ages a few years ago but my memory might be playing tricks.
• Len Maddock : born 1926. Old enough to have played with Bradman during the post war years. I dont think our JB is in his mid 80's :o)
• Barry Jarman : Born 1936. Fits the age group perfectly, JB could stand for Jarman, Barry although the complete initials are BNJ. The most illustrious of all possible candidates and the only one who came to India during the period I was watching the game - as understudy to Grout in the 64-65 team under Simpson. Jarman ended up playing 2 of the 3 Tests.

So who is it ?

I think you've nailed it. Has to be Jarman. I remember JBMac saying that he was carried in his parents arms to see Bradman bat in the 1936 series. After that I think he saw Bradman in 1948.

 

[SJS]

By the way, John Maclean was/is some individual . . .

• 385 victims (354+31) in 108 first class games which included four Tests against India in 1978-79 when he was 40. Injury in that season forced his retirement from the game.
• Toured NZL with Aussie second team in 1969-70
• Captained QLD 1972-73
• Became vice captain from 1973-74 when Greg Chappell moved to QLD and took over captaincy.
• With 346 first class victims, he is 3rd in QLD's all time keeper's list with Grout (293), Tallon (265) and Healy (195) way below him.
• With 317 catches behind the stumps for QLD, he is again 3rd in the list with Grout, Healy and Tallon below him.
• In a Sheffield Shield match against Victoria in 1977-78, Maclean caught the first five wickets to fall for Victoria on the first morning. He took 2 more of the next four to fall to equal Tallon's 7 in an innings, exactly 40 years ago against the same side. He needed to get the last batsman to equal Grout's all time record for QLD but that catch went to another fielder. He took another two in the second innings. He is still second in that c/i list for QLD bracketed with the great Tallon.
• He had taken another six catches in an innings, also against Victoria, five years earlier.
• Maclean was QCA vice-president in 1989 and President for three years from 1992 to 1994.
• He was awarded an MBE in 1980
• He was also a first-class rugby player.
• Highly educated, Maclean holds a degree in Civil Engg as well as one in Economics.
• According to wikipedia Maclean is currently the Workgroup Manager of Land and Infrastructure Development at Opus International Consultants in Brisbane as well as an advisor to the Queensland Academy of Sport (QAS) through the QAS Board. Before his present position Maclean was Chairman of Development Planning Pty Ltd and a Director of Farr Evrat Engineers and Tabletop Architects and Planners.

PHEW !!!

 

[SJS]

I think you've nailed it. Has to be Jarman. I remember JBMac saying that he was carried in his parents arms to see Bradman bat in the 1936 series. After that I think he saw Bradman in 1948.

Yes I think so too. Here is waht he had posted in a thread he started a couple of years ago

I first saw him in '46 but was at the gabba test in '36

I presume the Gaba Test he attended in December 1936 was this one against Gubby Allen's England, when he was a just under ten months old.

 

[SJS]

Yes I think so too. Here is waht he had posted in a thread he started a couple of years ago

I first saw him in '46 but was at the gabba test in '36

I presume the Gaba Test he attended in December 1936 was this one against Gubby Allen's England, when he was a just under ten months old.

Yes. I think thats it. These earlier posts of JBMac confirm it

Stump, I stated I was at the '36 Test match and I was but being just a wee bairn did not see him play until 46/47 series after WW2

Further to my post above stump, I last saw Bradman play in 1954 in a Testimonial Match for Bill Brown or Lindsay Hassett(memory eludes me which). He scored 18 in the first innings and 80 odd in the second. Tilly's old man (Ken Archer) played in that game and his old man has one of the original programmes from that game

There is no need to feel that way mate. I was fortunate to grow up in an era of NO television. Only had the wireless to listen to Allan Mcgilvray call the cricket if we were not there. I count myself fortunate to have played in a time when most of the Aussie players also had to work because there was not enough money to be earned from the game. Hence, my first coach was Wally Grout. I have played Grade with the likes of Ken Mackay, Your namesake, and still count among my friends Jeff Thompson and Wesley Hall who I played both with and against at Grade level. I have played on the SCG and the Gabba in a "second" QLD 11 but was never good enough to go beyond that. Gave the game away at 42 because after an early heart attack found that off drives had become late cuts and the guys were bowling too fast. Played a bit of "Warehouse" after that and coached the NT side to the finals of NT Country Cricket week. I have seen some great players and never missed a Test at The Gabba until Rheumatoid reared it ugly head and even then 2 of my boys organised me to go to the First Test of the last Ashes series but now I am relegated to "armchair umpire" and I am told I am a very severe critic. I suppose that comes with the age. I was present at all the days play of the Tied Test between the Aussies and the West Indies. That was probably my most memorable days of the Cricket. That, and I realise it only now was "watching Bradman play"

. . . and I think that bit about being reduced to an "arm chair umpire" is an oblique reference to his being one of the first international match referees.

 

[Howe_zat]

Eric Freeman
Tom Veivers
Barry Jarman
Bob Holland
Peter Taylor (peter Who)
Rick Darling
Dirk Welham(could have captained Australia)
Keith Stackpole
Ian Craig (Youngest ever test captain)
Ron Archer
Keith Wright
Sam Trimble
There's a twelve man side of unsung/forgotten hereos.I know there is 2 keepers in there but what the heck!

:

 

[Daemon]

In that post he said he played no further than the QLD 2nd XI though..

Stop the suspense JBMAC!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Er, boys, Country Cricket is not Test Cricket...

 

[SJS]

Er, boys, Country Cricket is not Test Cricket...

:o)

 

[greg]

. . . and I think that bit about being reduced to an "arm chair umpire" is an oblique reference to his being one of the first international match referees.

I may be being thick, but how can...

I have played Grade with the likes of Ken Mackay, Your namesake, and still count among my friends Jeff Thompson and Wesley Hall who I played both with and against at Grade level. I have played on the SCG and the Gabba in a "second" QLD 11 but was never good enough to go beyond that.

... possibly lead to the conclusion that the mystery man is a test cricketer?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Anyway, to get back on the topic. I've been keeping wicket for eight years now, admittedly only at mid-low league level, but if I could bat I'd be playing higher. I've also done a lot of coaching at county/district rep level in the junior age groups, and this has included working with a number of ex-FC players and coaches. I'm looking forward to a 90-minute workshop on coaching keepers with Simon Guy at the ECB coaches' conference next weekend. So that's where I'm coming from...

Working at this lower level, I'm often left identifying potential wicketkeepers and developing inexperienced keepers; it is a point of principle that this is one position where we're not going to be out-played. I have looked down the years - as a mathematician/statto at coming up with a way to inform my coaching and our performance, but I have really got nowhere beyond eyes and instinct.

The first aspect that I look for is their balance when they catch - stable base, good balance, level head, watching it into their hands. From here, the biggest target to develop in their first seasons as a keeper is the weight transfer (i.e. weight on the balls of their feet) and ability to stand up to the stumps, hopefully developing confidence in their ability in the process.

Longer-term, you are looking for a keeper to be a heartbeat of the fielding team, taking the ball after 90% of deliveries, sweeping up poor throws (or ensuring there is a backer-up to cover a wild one) and supporting the captain/leaders in geeing up fielders. There has never been a good team with a poor keeper; laissez-faire glovework spreads like a virus across the team. There aren't any stats for that.

It's also imperative that a keeper knows how to judge a wicket, and when to stand up or back to the medium-pacers; it's something that I love doing and, for my money, is the most satisfying part of the job - the thin edge standing up, or the born-of-frustration stumping when you've stood up to the opening bowler because the batsman loves a wander. Yes, you get something in the "st" column, but nothing for the guy who chipped it to mid on, because he didn't get over the ball, because he didn't get to the pitch, because he was thinking about you. There aren't any stats for that.

Then there's the support and feedback you provide to the skipper; the fact that you're the first to know when the bowler's lost his zip, or how much it's swinging, seaming or turning, or that sometimes you manage a well-placed word that persuades the batsman to try mashing the next ball over the top, only to miss it completely. There aren't any stats for that.

The stats we have are catches and byes: I've had four in a game once: three that I'd have been roundly abused had I spilled and one leg side blinder at full length off an inside edge. I've kept like a drain and recorded zero-bye days before, and on other afternoons I've been at the top of my game and the bye tally has shown double-figure leakage due to either crap umpiring or legside-happy bowling. Also, as has already been mentioned, some keepers will get to catches that others won't... no stats for that, either.

As much as I applaud the initiative, I don't agree that the measures that you are using are representative enough of wicketkeeping quality/performance to be particularly valid in terms of revising long-held opinions. Comparing Dravid's catches/match stat to Mongia & More should be enough to settle that.

 

[Гурин]

(...) There aren't any stats for that

Yes, that's the problem. Currently available stats are not good enough to give us a measure of how much a keeper contributes towards a win (or a loss) of his team. Lot of reasons really, from subjectivity in distinction between a bye and a wide to variables like the pitch or the bowlers. We'd need probably some of the technology available in baseball (I invite you to check the wiki about pitch FX), but that's extremely expensive, and it would not be worth it to implement it even at CC level. I'm sure that eyes and instinct will still be the best cost-effective tools, expecially when we talk about tactical and team skills.

However, should not stop people to try to improve things a bit with what's available. Maybe we'll move out objective knowledge about glovesmen from 20 to 30%, but it would still be something.

As much as I applaud the initiative, I don't agree that the measures that you are using are representative enough of wicketkeeping quality/performance to be particularly valid in terms of revising long-held opinions.

I don't want to revise long held opinions. If those opinions are right, I'm only happy about it. I'd just love to know more about the matter, just trying to put some objective perspective on it, and I won't deny that it's also because I'm annoyed at how much keeping is overlooked by the general public.

In a bad team, if you are a great batsman, you'll still have runs to show, and if you're a great bowler, you'll still have wickets to show. If you're a great keeper, people will maybe only remember those two catches that you dropped with the tip of your fingers (and on which lots of other keepers wouldn't have come even close), while lots of other catches you had taken comfortably thanks to your lateral footwork will be deemed as 'easy catches' and the merit will entirely go to the bowler; on the other side some guy who moves less but everytime rolls on the ground after and easyish catch will be deemed a 'quality keeper'. If I can in some way demonstrate that with a certain keeper the bowlers will take more wickets, I'll be a happy man.

Comparing Dravid's catches/match stat to Mongia & More should be enough to settle that.

For instance. Catches/Match or Byes/Match are completely useless stats, they really have TOO many variables; some side will tend to stay more or less in the field, some side will play with three spinners, some has Mitchell Johnson. Would be as useful as 'runs per match'. That's why I'm trimming it down only at 'same player, same keeper', considering only dismissals in which the keeper was personally involved, and every how many balls are they able to physically produce a wicket togheter (as weird as it may sound ). While not perfect, by a statistical point of view is surely better, the question is by how much? Will it be enough?

Yes, I agree, keepers sometimes will stand up, sometimes will stay back (would be interesting ti see batsmen averages and strike rates in such situations, if some of them particularly suffer the keeper standing up to medium pace. Actually I was thinking also something on the melody of 'average per stroke played' or 'per zone where the ball bounced', but that's something else for some other year ), some keepers read the pitch better and give more valuable advices (strangely however nobody never considers that when comparing bowlers), and again we have the pitches, but about them I had half an idea about comparing the delta in balls/caught behind between the seamers of the various county attacks, to get a rough and primitive idea.*

That's all; I'm simply looking for tendencies and correlations in a quest to give a bit of respect to the art. It will take lot of time, as I'm graduating this year while also having a full time job so don't expect anything soon, but I'll be doing it, if anything to demonstrate myself that I was wrong.


*EDIT: I might not explain myself perfectly in english, what I mean is the delta in the numbers of members of the same attack on the same ground and then on the other grounds

 

[uvelocity]

yeah well written neil

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, that's the problem. Currently available stats are not good enough to give us a measure of how much a keeper contributes towards a win (or a loss) of his team. Lot of reasons really, from subjectivity in distinction between a bye and a wide to variables like the pitch or the bowlers. We'd need probably some of the technology available in baseball (I invite you to check the wiki about pitch FX), but that's extremely expensive, and it would not be worth it to implement it even at CC level. I'm sure that eyes and instinct will still be the best cost-effective tools, expecially when we talk about tactical and team skills.

I have casually watched the last couple of summers of baseball so I'm quite aware of that kit (by nature if not by name); I wonder how different it is to the Hawk-Eye tracking?

I'm annoyed at how much keeping is overlooked by the general public. In a bad team, if you are a great batsman, you'll still have runs to show, and if you're a great bowler, you'll still have wickets to show. If you're a great keeper, people will maybe only remember those two catches that you dropped with the tip of your fingers (and on which lots of other keepers wouldn't have come even close), while lots of other catches you had taken comfortably thanks to your lateral footwork will be deemed as 'easy catches' and the merit will entirely go to the bowler; on the other side some guy who moves less but everytime rolls on the ground after and easyish catch will be deemed a 'quality keeper'. If I can in some way demonstrate that with a certain keeper the bowlers will take more wickets, I'll be a happy man.

Have you read my rants about keeping? The latest is Cricket Web - Features: Playing for Keeps

I find that taking stumpings off opening bowlers is usually enough to get noticed. Either that or dealing with leg-side tripe whilst standing up.

For instance. Catches/Match or Byes/Match are completely useless stats, they really have TOO many variables; some side will tend to stay more or less in the field, some side will play with three spinners, some has Mitchell Johnson. Would be as useful as 'runs per match'. That's why I'm trimming it down only at 'same player, same keeper', considering only dismissals in which the keeper was personally involved, and every how many balls are they able to physically produce a wicket togheter (as weird as it may sound ). While not perfect, by a statistical point of view is surely better, the question is by how much? Will it be enough?

Same opposition? Same ground? It just doesn't feel statistically valid. I know there was this nonsense going around for years that Gilchrist was a sub-par gloveman (no, he wasn't, Wade is a sub-par gloveman) but it really doesn't feel sensible to conclude that he was significantly better than Healy: I cannot think of anything within the skill-set of the game itself that would explain that away ergo I am loath to subscribe to this particular model.

Yes, I agree, keepers sometimes will stand up, sometimes will stay back (would be interesting ti see batsmen averages and strike rates in such situations, if some of them particularly suffer the keeper standing up to medium pace. Actually I was thinking also something on the melody of 'average per stroke played' or 'per zone where the ball bounced', but that's something else for some other year )

England have already been doing that for some years, I think, certainly in proper cricket, and I think it is new statistics and new analysis that will be the way forward rather than parsing old scoreboards, as they give nothing of the game situation that's so essential to analysing any passage of play.

 

[Гурин]

I have casually watched the last couple of summers of baseball so I'm quite aware of that kit (by nature if not by name); I wonder how different it is to the Hawk-Eye tracking?

Nice to hear that, do you know these websites? They are really good if you're interested in analysis. I expecially recommend anybody interested to take a look at their statistical glossary, just to understand how much advanced is the statistical understanding of rounders.

It's different because hawk-eye it's usually looked upon more for predicting the path of deliveries hitting the pads than anything. You often hear commentators saying how a delivery was outswinging or inswinging or an off-cutter (sometimes calling it wrong); just to say, we all know that Anderson, Steyn and Ishant Sharma can bowl outswingers, but nobody really analyzes by how much and how effective those single deliveries are. "He has an outswinger and an inswinges" is hardly enough, if they have no control nor command over them.

Well, Pitch-FX could tell us accurately and numerically by how many degrees does every delivery turn, the amount and the direction of that turn (on both axis, noth only laterally), and how much before and after it bounces on the ground (recording bounce also). Could be helpful for rating pitches and balls aswell. Also, there is Field FX that could tell us reaction times of fielders and how much ground they covers; all things that I'd love to see, just like RPS for spinners. Yet, even if they collect them, you don't find anywhere those raw data available for crowdsourcing. Pity.

Have you read my rants about keeping? The latest is Cricket Web - Features: Playing for Keeps

I find that taking stumpings off opening bowlers is usually enough to get noticed. Either that or dealing with leg-side tripe whilst standing up.

I've read that. But taking stumpings off pacers it's something extra, (very) good if you do but I doubt that we should rank county or test keepers based (only) on their ability to pull out something extraordinary; I'd prefer much more to reward those extremely solid in fundamentals. By eye you couldn't recognize if some dude is able to gain an extra wicket (or creating one chance more) every 25 instead of every 30 overs just thanks to his better execution of basics or his longer arms; and that's what I want to know.

Same opposition? Same ground? It just doesn't feel statistically valid. I know there was this nonsense going around for years that Gilchrist was a sub-par gloveman (no, he wasn't, Wade is a sub-par gloveman) but it really doesn't feel sensible to conclude that he was significantly better than Healy: I cannot think of anything within the skill-set of the game itself that would explain that away ergo I am loath to subscribe to this particular model.

Same opposition, same ground, because I'm looking for the discrepances between teammates, ex. between Somerset seamers at Taunton and away, Derbyshire seamers at the Conty Ground and away and so on, how big the discrepance is inside the various sides. Sample size of only around 15 games (I doubt they'll play all of the 16 games) is my biggest worry, but over 2 or 3 seasons it could be interesting.

About Gilly, I never said that he was surely better than Healy; only, that when he was keeping every bowler had an increase in his Caught Behind strike rate (apart from MacGill) and every spinner had an improvement in his balls-per-stumping ratio; this is noticeable even in bowlers like Gillespie that were averaging better under Healy. Maybe Australia changed the strategy of the attack in the time, I don't know, and I have not factored even simple things like runouts, but then there are people who say that Gilchrist was average (not bad, mind, average) while Healy was the best keeper they ever saw. This gulf is something that I now find hard to believe.

England have already been doing that for some years, I think, certainly in proper cricket, and I think it is new statistics and new analysis that will be the way forward rather than parsing old scoreboards, as they give nothing of the game situation that's so essential to analysing any passage of play.

Happy to hear about England (I'd still like to look into those averages, but that's simple nerdy greed), and I agree 100% with the rest. Only, to get new analysis we'll need an increase in the collection and processing of datas; and that's not up to us.

Just a thing, by proper cricket do you mean test or first class? Counties (and states for other countries) are the ones that I think have the biggest potential, more games in more homogeneous conditons in my opinion means that a new statistic and data collection trial should be done at that level first.

 

[Гурин]

I cannot think of anything within the skill-set of the game itself that would explain that away ergo I am loath to subscribe to this particular model

Sorry if I'm here doing multiple posts, but don't you think that his much bigger reach could be a reason, more than compensating for his agility deficit? That's the first thing that came to my mind apart from reflexes.

By the way, just as an aside: if you've seen yesterday game between saffers and kiwis, what do you think about De Kock?