If you could make 1 change from the Wisden All time 11...

[The Battlers Prince]

Gilchrist was quite capable of bashing world class attacks, he did so in his first and second tests in fact. Knott was not capable of match-changing knocks the way Gilchrist was, Gilchrist's specialty was turning the match on its head in super quick time at a time when the opponents feel they are close to the tail, he switches momentum. Yet even by this logic, Gilchrist is still superior to Knott as a batsman, and I feel that while Knott was the best glovesman of all, Gilchrist was world class in this as well. In the end, I feel how little the team will suffer by replacing the greatest keep with merely a great keeper, they gain much more by having a decent bat replaced by a world-class bat.

Gilchrist may perhaps be the only example of a world class keeper being a world class bat. That's what makes him so special.

I'd suggest that DeVilliers keeping so far is better than Gilchrist's was and he could well become the greatest gloveman even, but at the very least he's someone I think purists would be more willing to support than Gilly in the future.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd suggest that DeVilliers keeping so far is better than Gilchrist's was

That's not even close to being true IMO.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

that's what opinion is all about, people not agreeing.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Gavaskar for Hobbs.
Gavaskar - undisputed greatest opening batsman of modern era ( if not the greatest batsman )
I would like another change.. Procter for Barnes

and WHY NO LOVE FOR pre 70s bowlers ( except for SFB )

Gavaskar better than Hobbs...yeah no.

 

[smash84]

and Sobers No.1 is back?

 

[Viscount Tom]

Looking at his XI you'd have thought so.

 

[VKN payyans]

Gavaskar better than Hobbs...yeah no.

playing in a more competitive era , against top quality oppositions , against more opponents , that too with no experience of facing fast bowlers in domestic cricket...
I BELIVE IN GAVASKAR . and always gives more weightage to modern cricketers..

Hobbs , Hammond , Headley , Hutton.. batsmen of pre 70s always in discussions..but not the bowlers. except SFB or O'reilly sometimes .
If they were'nt that good, is'nt facing them also an easier job...?? ( No.. i am just curious in omission of pre Lillee bowlers )

 

[kyear2]

and Sobers No.1 is back?

Quite.

 

[kyear2]

playing in a more competitive era , against top quality oppositions , against more opponents , that too with no experience of facing fast bowlers in domestic cricket...
I BELIVE IN GAVASKAR . and always gives more weightage to modern cricketers..

Hobbs , Hammond , Headley , Hutton.. batsmen of pre 70s always in discussions..but not the bowlers. except SFB or O'reilly sometimes .
If they were'nt that good, is'nt facing them also an easier job...?? ( No.. i am just curious in omission of pre Lillee bowlers )

Please don't start this argument again.

 

[benchmark00]

I'd suggest that DeVilliers keeping so far is better than Gilchrist's was and he could well become the greatest gloveman even, but at the very least he's someone I think purists would be more willing to support than Gilly in the future.

This could be the most incorrect thing I have ever read.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

At the start of Gilly's career he wasn't anywhere near where he got to later on. He got better as wicketkeepers tend to. At this early stage I think he's better than Gilly was at the same stage of their respective careers. I probably went too far saying purist, but meh.

 

[Red]

I'm still yet to hear someone mount a decent case as to why Gilchrist isn't as good as any keeper throughout the game's history.

Sure, there are a couple who were unbelievably good (and they tended to look artistic doing their job)- guys like Oldfield, Evans, Tallon and Knott.

But day in, day out, Gilchrist was an excellent wicketkeeper, who in keeping to Warne/MacGill, probably had the toughest gig in cricket since Oldfield kept to O'Reilly/Grimmett.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm still yet to hear someone mount a decent case as to why Gilchrist isn't as good as any keeper throughout the game's history.

Sure, there are a couple who were unbelievably good (and they tended to look artistic doing their job)- guys like Oldfield, Evans, Tallon and Knott.

But day in, day out, Gilchrist was an excellent wicketkeeper, who in keeping to Warne/MacGill, probably had the toughest gig in cricket since Oldfield kept to O'Reilly/Grimmett.

He had terrible footwork that would make good catches from some look spectacular from him because he was out of position. It's good when he took them, but when he put them down in those situations I thought he'd have done better had he had better footwork.
The part about keeping to Warne and MacGill suggests that id he'd been keeping to worse spinners he'd have somehow taken more catches? He took as many as he did because those two great spinners were creating so many chances that the ones he missed would be rectified by another chance later on, costing the side only on average a tenth of the team's score. Had a lesser spinner bowled at him would he be considered as good then, being that he'd have less chances and surely therefore less wickets available to him?
He is also on one of the pages that keepers don't want to be on, the most byes in an innings. 25 byes in one innings.
Records | Test matches | Wicketkeeping records | Most byes conceded in an innings | ESPN Cricinfo he's not as bad as Wade or something but it's something that happened a fair bit to the likes of Warne, and actually to Lee from time to time.
For what it's worth though I just want the best keeper. A lot of people want batsman keepers, and that's fine. But if a case can be made for Gilly as the best man behind the stumps then fine. But I can't say that of him. I can't say that he is honestly the best keeper. Tell me otherwise, and why. Because as a batsman I loved him in full flight...

 

[Viscount Tom]

playing in a more competitive era , against top quality oppositions , against more opponents , that too with no experience of facing fast bowlers in domestic cricket...
I BELIVE IN GAVASKAR . and always gives more weightage to modern cricketers..

Hobbs , Hammond , Headley , Hutton.. batsmen of pre 70s always in discussions..but not the bowlers. except SFB or O'reilly sometimes .
If they were'nt that good, is'nt facing them also an easier job...?? ( No.. i am just curious in omission of pre Lillee bowlers )

The pitches and equipment have improved dramatically also believing in someone doesn't make them any better.

Hutton lost half an arm still an ATG though

 

[Goughy]

Alan Knott is the best ATG keeper, and ATG teams must have the best keeper as a matter of principle. Knott stays.

I get that and understand that argument. However, Knott out for Gilchrist for be my first change and then Wasim out for any number of others

 

[the big bambino]

There is just no way Knott gets ahead of Gilly. The latter was a match winner; and he could turn a close game, in a session of batting, overwhelmingly Australia's way. Knott could bat but nothing like the value Gilly gives a team. The difference btwn their glove work is exaggerated. Knott wasn't that much better a keeper to make up for the gap Gilly's batting put into him.

 

[Red]

He had terrible footwork that would make good catches from some look spectacular from him because he was out of position. It's good when he took them, but when he put them down in those situations I thought he'd have done better had he had better footwork.
The part about keeping to Warne and MacGill suggests that id he'd been keeping to worse spinners he'd have somehow taken more catches? He took as many as he did because those two great spinners were creating so many chances that the ones he missed would be rectified by another chance later on, costing the side only on average a tenth of the team's score. Had a lesser spinner bowled at him would he be considered as good then, being that he'd have less chances and surely therefore less wickets available to him?
He is also on one of the pages that keepers don't want to be on, the most byes in an innings. 25 byes in one innings.
Records | Test matches | Wicketkeeping records | Most byes conceded in an innings | ESPN Cricinfo he's not as bad as Wade or something but it's something that happened a fair bit to the likes of Warne, and actually to Lee from time to time.
For what it's worth though I just want the best keeper. A lot of people want batsman keepers, and that's fine. But if a case can be made for Gilly as the best man behind the stumps then fine. But I can't say that of him. I can't say that he is honestly the best keeper. Tell me otherwise, and why. Because as a batsman I loved him in full flight...

Terrible footwork? He moved beautifully to the quicks, and made chances others wouldn't have got to.

The part about keeping to Warne and MacGill is not the chances they create, it's the fact that keeping to big turning leg spinners is a very difficult thing to do tidily. You lose sight of the ball during the delivery.

Blogs: Analysing wicketkeepers by byes conceded | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

The byes factor for wicketkeepers | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Those two links pretty much show how good Gilchrist was. IMO if you're conceding under 4 byes per 600 balls, you're elite.

 

[kyear2]

But with only one change, as great as I feel that Gilly is, Knott is not as big a liability that I believe Barnes or Grace would be in the modern game. Barnes was good vs Australia but feasted on a weak S.A team and the disparity in his numbers from those two team should speak volumes. Added to that we are nor even sure what he bowled, but we do know he wouldn't have the benefit of those matting pitches that he performed so well on. So Lillee for me on this team would be a must to open with Marshall.

 

[harsh.ag]

I gave my two cents on the first page itself - Gilly for Knott.

But since the topic has come up again, I would just like to say to the purists that get off your high horse. Cricket has always preferred the wicket-keeper batsman. Knott himself was chosen over the (marginally) better keeper Bob Taylor because he was by far the superior batsman. Taylor even lost his place sometimes to Downton and Bairstow who were superior bats.

Keith Andrew forever played in the shadow of Godfrey Evans, and was once kept out for the makeshift batsman-keeper Jim Parks.

Les Ames was the choice above George Duckworth, a better keeper.

It just makes good sense to have Gilly for Knott.

 

[watson]

Alan Knott batted against some of the best bowling attacks ever assembled and equipped himself very well. For example;

ENG V AUS 1974/75: Ave = 36, HS = 106*
ENG V AUS 1975: Ave = 37, HS = 69
ENG V WI 1976: Ave = 30, HS = 116

I am sceptical that Gilchrist could have done any better at the time.

In other words, Gilchrist was excellent at pulverising mediocre bowling attacks because his power and timing far exceeded Knott's. However, batting against quality attacks with ATG bowlers is a completely different art, and in that context I believe Gilchrist and Knott to be a lot closer than most people assume;

Against mediocre attacks: Gilchrist >> Knott
Against great bowling attacks: Knott = Gilchrist
Wicket-Keeping skill: Knott > Gilchrist