Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

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

Allan Knott. He combined the best old era pure keeping ability of Godfrey Evans, Don Tallon, Farook Enginner, Wally Grout, Deryck Murray namely - while his batting in the 70s had enough remnants of modern day batting dominant keepers.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Ah this old chestnut again.

 

[Pratters]

But Gilchrist was a great keeper in his own right. A test average of 47 is quite better than an average of 32.

 

[Athlai]

Alan "no runs"Knott is arguably not even in the top five.

 

[aussie]

But Gilchrist was a great keeper in his own right. A test average of 47 is quite better than an average of 32.

Ha got to look beyond the stats my friend. Knott averaged 42 batting @ # 7, scored all his test centuries their & 20 of his 30 half centuries in the 70s - the preeminent era for quality bowling in test history Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As a AUS fan who saw all of Gilchrist tests live (except for 3 in NZ 2000) and it pains me to say this sometimes but his 55 average is inflated by the amount of trash bowling that was around during his PAK 99 to NZ 05 peak.

So when you consider he averaged 30 from Ashes 05 until retirement - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo struggling to adjust to around the wicket attack bowlers used at him - and fact that vs quality spin In 10 tests on famous tours to India in 2001 & 2004, Sri Lanka 2004 his record was 543 runs at 31 with 3 hundreds - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo - it paints a totally different picture of his batting acumen to be regarded as a ATG

Notably Outside of those 3 superb hundreds, he has a lot of low scores & his general play versus the high quality spin of Harbhajan/Kumble/Murali was very much hit or miss - not much of middle ground (except for that 49 he scored in the Chennai 2004 test).

This is why IMO and those stats back it up fairly strongly, if he faced more good pace attacks from 99-05 like he did spin during the same period his average would not have been so high.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist, easy.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Sangakkara the greater batsman.

Gilchrist the greater keeper-batsman.

 

[Pratters]

Aussie, Gilchrist has an average of 29 in India in 10 innings. That's not exactly bad for a keeper. Includes two hundreds in match winning tests. So please do not discount Gilchrist because of this. Knott also has some fine innings in Asia. The thing is, Knott's FC average is also less than 30 while Gilchrist's is 44. It's closer than I thought, but I will take Gilchrist ahead of Knott. The career test averages of both players is not anomalies. They are reflective of their over all batting prowess. Why be selective in the case of Gilchrist and not Knott? Knott's batting average is 32 over all.

 

[Pratters]

I mean, why should you ignore that Knott averages 23.5 in the 8th position or 23 in the 6th position? It's not like he didn't play those tests.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, Gilchrist has an average of 29 in India in 10 innings. That's not exactly bad for a keeper. Includes two hundreds in match winning tests. So please do not discount Gilchrist because of this. Knott also has some fine innings in Asia. The thing is, Knott's FC average is also less than 30 while Gilchrist's is 44. It's closer than I thought, but I will take Gilchrist ahead of Knott. The career test averages of both players is not anomalies. They are reflective of their over all batting prowess. Why be selective in the case of Gilchrist and not Knott? Knott's batting average is 32 over all.

Since when is averaging 29 anything but bad? Ha - Gilly was very hit and miss in India and vs quality spin as his career stats in IND 2001, 04 & SRI 04 shows. However of course as his 3 superb hundreds in those respective series shows once he got off it was boom - it just was not consistent enough.

Regarding Knott am because # 7 was his best position? While they are players who excelled in many positions, they are many players in tests history who peak years are remembered for what they did batting in a specific role:

- When we think about Langer at his best it was as an opener not a number 3

- Bobby Simpson best years was when he opened in the 60s instead of a middle-order bat

- Sehwag although he was a FTB became they player he was when he moved from middle order to open in ENG 2002

- S Waugh was his best at # 5

- Chanderpaul similarly at # 5

- Ponting when he moved from # 3 in Ashes 2001, after years @ # 6

- Michael Vaughan at his best when opening

Endless list of players....

Overall the basic point is this - up until 2000 if you were picking an keeper for all-time team Knott, Evans & Healy were the regular choices.

Gilly from his PAK 99 - NZ 05 where he averaged 55 made everyone think at the time that you had to pick him in a ATXI given his ability to score so fast at such a average which was unheard of for keepers in cricket history.

Realities of his later stages of his creer that i mentioned before meant that idea has to be readjusted. Knott in his best position @ # 7 scored more runs against quality attacks (especially fast bowling) than Gilchrist & its no debate who the better gloves-man was.

 

[Pratters]

Aussie, you are cherry picking.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, you are cherry picking.

No I'm not, everything I said about Gilchrist can be proven by a simple cricinfo stats guru search. I'm a massive Gilchrist fan who has seen 93 of his 96 tests live, has many old videos of his 17 tests hundreds that i watch regularly - overall I'm trying to put his career into a fair context instead of him being slightly over-rated - especially when he is referred to as greatest "batting" keeper in tests history.

 

[Pratters]

Hacking away major portions of Knott's career as he didn't bat at 7 in those is very much cherry picking. Gilchrist has a FC average of 44 and Knott has a FC average of 29. Their test averages are similar. Gilchrist has a test average of 47 and Knot has a test average of 32. Yet, you are saying Knott was a better keeper-batsman. The difference isn't small.

 

[aussie]

Hacking away major portions of Knott's career as he didn't bat at 7 in those is very much cherry picking. Gilchrist has a FC average of 44 and Knott has a FC average of 29. Their test averages are similar. Gilchrist has a test average of 47 and Knot has a test average of 32. Yet, you are saying Knott was a better keeper-batsman. The difference isn't small.

It seems like you didn't fully grasp my above post that some cricketers in test history did specifically well when given extended runs in set roles/positions my friend. That is not cherry picking, that is understanding and appreciating how individual players career evolved & Knott's record at # 7 is a clear example of that.

Even a recent ESPN Cricinfo article talking about the evolution of keepers stressed that point about Knott - The magnificent seven | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo


"Alan Knott was probably the greatest seven of the 20th century, averaging 41 in 81 innings (compared with 23.73 in 68 innings elsewhere in the batting order; batting at seven was evidently for Knott what having '80s rock-star hair was to Old Testament celebrity strongman Samson). From 1968 to 1977, the years in which Knott was a regular seven, his average (41.55) was 55% better than all other Test sevens combined (26.73)."

I'm also not sure why his FC record are relevant here especially in the case of Knott, when he averaged 42 vs all those great attacks in heat of international contests.

However I would accept that Gilchrist was slightly better pure batsman overall than Knott ability wise.

 

[Pratters]

I grasp it. However, you cannot cherry pick. Laxman averages 44 at 3 and 50 at 5/6. However, as his over all career average is lower, he will always rate below some one like Dravid. You cannot just ignore a portion of some one's career.

 

[aussie]

I grasp it. However, you cannot cherry pick. Laxman averages 44 at 3 and 50 at 5/6. However, as his over all career average is lower, he will always rate below some one like Dravid. You cannot just ignore a portion of some one's career.

Laxman would not fit the examples I gave up with Ponting and co because he belongs to different bracket of player who was versatile in many positions, as you stated everyone knows Laxman could bat @ 3 or 5/6 with equal assurance after Kolkatta 2001 until the end of his career.

 

[Flem274*]

why do people keep assuming old keepers or keepers with **** batting averages are better with the gloves?

 

[Pratters]

Laxman would not fit the examples if gave up with Ponting and co because he belongs to different bracket of player who was versatile in many positions, as you stated everyone knows Laxman could bat @ 3 or 5/6 with equal assurance after Kolkatta 2001 until the end of his career.

Sorry, but Laxman falls exactly into this category. His averages at 3 takes away from his over all averages. As it does for Knott or Ponting.

 

[aussie]

why do people keep assuming old keepers or keepers with **** batting averages are better with the gloves?

I think the majority of keepers with sub 30 averages in test history who had long careers before 2000 were better with gloves that most keepers post 2000 that were influenced by Gilchrist effect.

Ian Healy, Jack Russell, Latif and Nayan Mongia were the last regular keepers who were clearly excellent glovesmen. England's James Foster is probably still the best pure keeper in the world and in another time he probably would have played more tests.

 

[Dan]

I think the majority of keepers with sub 30 averages in test history who had long careers before 2000 were better with gloves that most keepers post 2000 that were influenced by Gilchrist effect.

Ian Healy, Jack Russell, Latif and Nayan Mongia were the last regular keepers who were clearly excellent glovesmen. England's James Foster is probably still the best pure keeper in the world and in another time he probably would have played more tests.

This is pure revisionism, it simply is not true. Sure, we've seen a fair share of batsman-keepers in recent years, no doubt about it. But there's been no shortage of excellent glovemen at the international level since 2000.

Jayawardene was brilliant with the gloves, pre-injury Baz was spectacular. Watling, though I wasn't convinced by him at first, is very sound technically and deserves the OPWB (if not WPWB) label. Peter Nevill is a star behind the sticks. Parore was a **** but could catch. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Mark Boucher or Tatenda Taibu, and Saha is very good with the gloves too.

So we've had cricketing revisionism, the keeper-batsman false dichotomy, and the played-on-too-long-so-destroyed-his-legacy fallacy. It's like CW is back in 2009.