Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Athlai]

Keep it up the order

Dilshan (+)
Kuruppu (+)
Sangakkara (+)
Silva (+)
Chandiguns (+)
Tillakaratne (+)
P Jayawardene (+)

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, but #TeamTimAmbrose isn't quite as fun.

Also harder to 'keep to Jeets when he's not taking wickets -- longer stints in the field to concentrate and avoid conceding byes. Even more difficult when the opening bowler is Heef Davis.

Well it's hard to take wickets when a curly haired young man is constantly wolf whistling in your direction from the sidelines.

 

[aussie]

I have no issue with someone picking Knott over Gilchrist based on actual test performance.

But you want to pick Sanga based on what might've been. Can't have it both ways.

Its not an ideal situation, but I believe some exception can be made here.

For example in an England all-time team I would probably pick Johnny Wardle as my main spinner over Verity, Underwood, Laker, Swann for similar reasons & this wonderful article explains why even better Johnny Wardle and the importance of being memorable | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo because he was definitely ENG most talented spinner ever - but complicated circumstances meant he never got to properly show it.

 

[the big bambino]

Actually surprised at the support for Adam "Go Slow" Gilchrist. It's pretty clear the he is behind Sangakkara, ABdeV and OPWB.

Oh I geddit know. Nudgy winky. Good one ...

Aussie the selectors of the time did the rating of Laker, Lock and Wardle and in that order.

 

[watson]

Here are the batting averages for 3 great 'wicket-keeping batsman'.

Gilchrist = 48
Sangakkara = 41
Knott = 33

If we use Gilchrist as the standard because he has the highest batting average of any wicket-keeper then you would have to argue that Sangakkara's keeping ability is worth more than 7 runs per innings, and Knott's keeping ability is worth more 15 runs per innings in order to justify the claim that they are the better 'wicket-keeping batsman'.

IMO Sangakkara's keeping ability is not better than Gilchrist's so he loses out by at least '7 runs'. On-the-other hand, Alan Knott's keeping ability more than makes up for the '15 runs' per innings deficit so he nudges Gilchrist. Especially as Knott has a proven track record against the best fast bowling attacks ever assembled. Knott's average of 33 has to be under-rated.

I guess the counter-argument to the above would be - "Prove that Knott's keeping ability is significantly better than Gilchrist's". To which the reply is - "Prove that it isn't significantly better."

(Please see the Religion thread for the strength of such a counter counter-argument)

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it could have been Sanga if he decided that's what he wanted to do with the second half of his career, but something about aunties and balls. It's Gilchrist.

 

[Prince EWS]

guess the counter-argument to the above would be - "Prove that Knott's keeping ability is significantly better than Gilchrist's". To which the reply is - "Prove that it isn't significantly better."

Oh my god the irony...

 

[watson]

Oh my god the irony...

When in Rome.......

 

[Teja.]

I think it could have been Sanga if he decided that's what he wanted to do with the second half of his career, but something about aunties and balls. It's Gilchrist.

Yeah, I agree. He basically became a greater overall test cricketer by dropping the gloves though he could most likely have been a greater keeper-batsman than GIlchrist if he kept throughout his career though he'd be a worse test cricketer than the ATG batsman he is now.

 

[Prince EWS]

When in Rome.......

Haha your edit makes the post quite amusing now. I actually just thought you were being a hypocritical dick at first.

 

[aussie]

Aussie the selectors of the time did the rating of Laker, Lock and Wardle and in that order.

Wardle should have played with Laker more and perhaps even overtaken him,

It always has puzzled me how in those days if the cricket authorities could bann aussies Ian Mekiff, Gordon Rorke, S Africa's Geoff Griffin & Kiwi Gary Bartlett for chucking - but allowed Lock to get away with chucking for almost two decades. Because essentially while Laker was # 1 - Lock kept Wardle from playing more Ashes other tests in for England.

If Wardle had played from the 70s onwards it is indeed possible Underwood would not have had a career & in modern times when Warne/Murali ran rampant & off-spinners bowling the doosra, he would have been celebrated for his skills as a spinner.

IMO Sangakkara's keeping ability is not better than Gilchrist's so he loses out by at least '7 runs'.

For me their keeping abilities were about even, both of kept to the two greatest spinners in history with equal competence.

I think it could have been Sanga if he decided that's what he wanted to do with the second half of his career, but something about aunties and balls. It's Gilchrist.

Realistically this is was not the reality of Sanga's career in tests. As i mentioned earlier this was more like it:

"After Hashan Tillikaratne captaincy tenure ended, Kumar was SRI best batsman, keeper & # 3 in tests. But unlike the shorter formats its an impossible job to do all 3 in a test match, this why the test captaincy rotated between Mahela, Dilshan & Mathews - while P Jayawardene, Chandimal, Dickwella (spell check), K Perera have had runs keeping in tests."

 

[Howe_zat]

I think it could have been Sanga if he decided that's what he wanted to do with the second half of his career, but something about aunties and balls. It's Gilchrist.

Rather highlights the futility of these discussions. Sangakkara changed his role in the team to massively benefit his side, at the cost of not being as good a player as the very best in hindsight. He did it because the former matters and the latter doesn't

 

[aussie]

Yeah, I agree. He basically became a greater overall test cricketer by dropping the gloves though he could most likely have been a greater keeper-batsman than GIlchrist if he kept throughout his career though he'd be a worse test cricketer than the ATG batsman he is now.

As i noted in opening post I believe he would have still been the overall great test cricketers and ATG batsman if circumstances with SRI allowed him to keep and bat @ # 5 like what Flower did & De Villiers does from time to time.

 

[Prince EWS]

How does that refute what I said in any way?

I'm well aware of the circumstances in which Sanga gave up the gloves, but they don't change the fact that he did it. I actually agree that there was a fair chance I'd rate him as the best if circumstances had been different and he'd batted five and kept for the second half of his career instead of becoming a specialist batsman, but that's not what happened. I'm not about to something was true just because I think it might have been true if things happened differently; that's silly.

 

[watson]

How does that refute what I said in any way?

I'm well aware of the circumstances in which Sanga gave up the gloves, but they don't change the fact that he did it. I actually agree that there was a fair chance I'd rate him as the best if circumstances had been different and he'd batted five and kept for the second half of his career instead of becoming a specialist batsman, but that's not what happened. I'm not about to something was true just because I think it might have been true if things happened differently; that's silly.

Agreed. It is always better to form an opinion about something according to what we do know, as opposed to what we do not know, or cannot know.

 

[aussie]

How does that refute what I said in any way?

I'm well aware of the circumstances in which Sanga gave up the gloves, but they don't change the fact that he did it. I actually agree that there was a fair chance I'd rate him as the best if circumstances had been different and he'd batted five and kept for the second half of his career instead of becoming a specialist batsman, but that's not what happened. I'm not about to something was true just because I think it might have been true if things happened differently; that's silly.

When you said the part in bold, "if he decided that's what he wanted to do with the second half of his career" - I read it as you were suggesting that he had a choice - thus I countered.

Also I'm not suggesting you or anyone pretend as if something was true because you hypothetically think it was true regarding Sanga's keeping situation.

As the case is with many things with cricket they are many player career situations that are not black & white - so this is one where we have to think out the box and look beyond the stats.

We know for sure that Gilchrist legacy as a dominant 50+ average keeper that was selected in the ESPN All-Time XI - All time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfois severely dented by his late career slump and regressed the idea that a greatest XI ever, needs a keeper with such batting prowess.

If they do instead of someone like a Allan Knott, Ian Healy, Godfrey Evans - we go against some statistical norms and actual career scenario's for reasons already stated and choose Sangakkara instead. Nothing overly complicated.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, it's Gilchrist. Reasons given by Red Hill and PEWS are good. His strike rate of 80+ still boggles my mind. That's huge coming in late.

 

[aussie]

Agreed. It is always better to form an opinion about something according to what we do know, as opposed to what we do not know, or cannot know.

If that were always the case especially with cricket selection, many players in the history of this glorious game might not have been picked - because a selector would not have taken the risk on a players perceived talent (what we do not or cannot know) since they didn't have the performances (domestic stats/what we do know) to form opinion on whether that player was truly ready for international cricket.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, it's Gilchrist. Reasons given by Red Hill and PEWS are good. His strike rate of 80+ still boggles my mind. That's huge coming in late.

He won't strike it at 80+ with a 50+ average though. This is key, which is what happened from Ashes 05 until retirement & why his status as the greatest batting keeper ever unfortunately lost that strong standing based on his PAK 99 - NZ 05 efforts

 

[Pratters]

He won't strike it at 80+ with a 50+ average though. This is key, which is what happened from Ashes 05 until retirement & why his status as the greatest batting keeper ever unfortunately lost that strong standing based on his PAK 99 - NZ 05 efforts

so who is the greatest keeper-batsman if not Gilchrist?