Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[TheJediBrah]

The point is despite me being a massive Gilly fan, its poor excuse to use his age as a excuse for his decline - no was saying that at the end of 2005 NZ tour. He simply got exposed technically for first time in his test career and never adjusted until retirment.

While coincidentally his team mate Hayden who also had some technical flaws exposed during that same Ashes by Hoggard to in-swingers (Akthar did is also in 2004 home tests) found a way to adjust with his career saving Oval 2005 century, vs the the SA 05/06, Super tests & Zaheer Khan who tried to attack that flaw & he made hundreds against them all - thus proving his greatness even further as an opener.

not sure if srs. Not only is it not a poor excuse, it is the only legitimate reason.

Also lol at "exposed technically for first time". Do you realise that the "around the wicket/left-armers to Gilchrist" was a very widely known "weakness" and that bowlers had been trying (and sometimes succeeding) at exploiting said weakness since the late 90's, before he even made his test debut? The commentators would literally talk about it every single time Gilchrist went out to bat, it actually got annoying pretty quickly.

But no, according to you, this weakness was only "exposed" once he got too old to successfully counter it more often than not . . .

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Keeping well to great bowlers is just about practice imo. AB is a decent keeper and will be ok. I think the importance of keeping skill is overrated - no one picks a player in Tests because of fielding skill, and based on my fielding analysis it is clear that it is not as much of a factor in ODIs compared to T20s, so extrapolating on that I think fielding skill in Tests is not as important. As long as the player is not a poor fielder and a liability of course.

Keeping and fielding- these are two whole different game. If anything the value of keeper is underrated. Don't know why a team would like to concede on keeping points. Day 4 or 5 of a test match and if spinners are turning square, you are in trouble if you don't field the right one behind the stumps. The value of catches and stumpings can't be overstated. AB is capable enough to deserve his place as batsman only. Why is there a need to throw gloves to him when there are so many great keepers? For team balance on paper? Well there are other hundreds of ways to get that balance right. Throwing gloves to the inferiors may make the teams look good on papers but in reality not so much and there are high chances that those stumpings gone missing at crucial moments will only just get buried

 

[viriya]

Keeping and fielding- these are two whole different game. If anything the value of keeper is underrated. Don't know why a team would like to concede on keeping points. Day 4 or 5 of a test match and if spinners are turning square, you are in trouble if you don't field the right one behind the stumps. The value of catches and stumpings can't be overstated. AB is capable enough to deserve his place as batsman only. Why is there a need to throw gloves to him when there are so many great keepers? For team balance on paper? Well there are other hundreds of ways to get that balance right. Throwing gloves to the inferiors may make the teams look good on papers but in reality not so much and there are high chances that those stumpings gone missing at crucial moments will only just get buried

I think the point I'm making is that having a poor keeper is a big deal, but a decent keeper is good enough. There is not much in terms match impact a keeper makes based on my analysis of ODIs + T20s unless he is a poor keeper. And I don't think AB/Flower are poor keepers - they might not be great, but it doesn't matter as much as you might think.

 

[viriya]

I think the point I'm making is that having a poor keeper is a big deal, but a decent keeper is good enough. There is not much in terms match impact a keeper makes based on my analysis of ODIs + T20s unless he is a poor keeper. And I don't think AB/Flower are poor keepers - they might not be great, but it doesn't matter as much as you might think.

A great example to exemplify my point is Kamran Akmal. He is a good example of a poor keeper. On average he lowers his team's win chance by ~2% just based on his keeping. The point is that there is no other extreme to this. Great keeping doesn't increase win odds by 2%, it's more minor that it doesn't matter as much as being a better batsman.

 

[cnerd123]

Really hard to quantify the effect of a great keeper given it's so intangible. Taking tough catches, not missing any, and reducing byes conceded from wayward deliveries are all noticeable, but stuff like being in the right position every time to receive a throw, being quick to take the bails off when standing up...these create doubt in a batsmen's mind and can uplft the fielding side's spirit.

Not sure how we can say with certainity whether or not great keeping skill is as useful as a few extra runs

 

[viriya]

Really hard to quantify the effect of a great keeper given it's so intangible. Taking tough catches, not missing any, and reducing byes conceded from wayward deliveries are all noticeable, but stuff like being in the right position every time to receive a throw, being quick to take the bails off when standing up...these create doubt in a batsmen's mind and can uplft the fielding side's spirit.

Not sure how we can say with certainity whether or not great keeping skill is as useful as a few extra runs

Based on the 2005- fielding dataset I used for ODIs + T20s, fielding impact is more pronounced in T20s than ODIs because saving runs is more important when the runs scored is less. You could argue that this would mean fielding impact is even less for Tests.

This image should show what I'm trying to say on how fielding skill impacts the game. It's significant if you're bad (negatively), but plateaus as you get better.

 

[Prince EWS]

That sort of analysis assumes your fielding rankings are accurate though, right? If being a good fielder by cricrate-ranking standards seems to count for so very little then I'd perhaps question the cricrate fielding rankings before I questioned the value of actual fielding.

 

[viriya]

That sort of analysis assumes your fielding rankings are accurate though, right? If being a good fielder by cricrate-ranking standards seems to count for so very little then I'd perhaps question the cricrate fielding rankings before I questioned the value of actual fielding.

The difference of impact of a good fielder vs a poor fielder is significant and game-changing (as we all know), the difference between a good vs a great is not as much because a great fielder can only make great plays rarely - it doesn't happen often enough to make a significant impact on average. I'm confident of my fielding rankings tbh, the players at the top and bottom are in line with conventional wisdom.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Based on the 2005- fielding dataset I used for ODIs + T20s, fielding impact is more pronounced in T20s than ODIs because saving runs is more important when the runs scored is less. You could argue that this would mean fielding impact is even less for Tests.

This image should show what I'm trying to say on how fielding skill impacts the game. It's significant if you're bad (negatively), but plateaus as you get better.

View attachment 22348

while I tend to agree that exceptional fielding is more noticeable and even desirable in shorter forms, the reasoning you're giving is misinformed

Any individual piece of fielding, by itself, may have more of an impact in a shorter game, but the longer the game (eg. Test match) there will be a higher number of opportunities for individual pieces of fielding and it will more or less balance out in the end. A dropped catch in a Test can literally cost you hundreds of runs. Specialists keepers are very important.

And the "graph" you posted is laughable

 

[Pratters]

Apologies brother Pratters from Kolkotta for making you ask this question twice - I assure you I was not ignoring you - just was realizing while I was typing responses to other posts - I didn't see some.

Right so I'm not batting Stewart @ 7 in my version of the ENG ATXI:

Hobbs, Hutton, Barrington, Hammond, Compton, Stewart, Botham, Larwood, Wardle, Trueman, Snow

That's not relevant to the point I made.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I think the point I'm making is that having a poor keeper is a big deal, but a decent keeper is good enough. There is not much in terms match impact a keeper makes based on my analysis of ODIs + T20s unless he is a poor keeper. And I don't think AB/Flower are poor keepers - they might not be great, but it doesn't matter as much as you might think.

The value of keeper is immeasurable as ***** already said; even the transition between poor and good to good and great. How much to be accounted for in between good and great? It's easy to say it's not that much of a difference but I'm not ready to accept that yet unless there is significant amount of evidence. A current study shows that WK has to bear 32% of fielding activities in an innings; next is Cover at 11% etc

 

[marc71178]

Actually I think we are missing two other options - AB and Andy Flower.

AB averages 58 (higher than his overall) when keeping. I think I would pick him over Gilchrist in an ATG team.

Andy Flower kept in most of his Tests and imo was a better Test batsman than Gilchrist.

imo: Sanga > AB > Andy Flower > Gilchrist

This is an unfair comparison though since neither Sanga or AB kept all their career. So you could say they are disqualified. So Andy Flower would be my pick over Gilchrist.

So like Aussie, you don't care if your keeper isn't that good at keeping then?

 

[marc71178]

But I just did though

I'd be more interested in a Gilly vs Flower discussion though. I think Flower is underrated because he played for a fringe team.

Gilly by a bigger margin then picking Gilly over Sangakkara.

 

[Dan]

- So please show which pace attacks between the 1999 series vs Pakistan to the 2005 series vs New Zealand that were comparable to the ENG 2005 & SA 05/06 that exposed his around the wicket technically flaw.

I can't, because Gilchrist was up to the challenge for that entire period, and came out on top more often than not!

I do enjoy how you're using Gilchrist's performances as the benchmark for Gilchrist's performances -- if Gilly made runs, they were **** attacks who couldn't attack his weakness so Gilly was actually useless all along; and if Gilly failed, they were gun attacks who exposed a technical flaw and Gilly was finally proves useless after all.

Circular logic ftw.

 

[Top_Cat]

Am on board with the idea that no batsman should ever be given credit for scoring runs, tbbh.

 

[viriya]

The value of keeper is immeasurable as ***** already said; even the transition between poor and good to good and great. How much to be accounted for in between good and great? It's easy to say it's not that much of a difference but I'm not ready to accept that yet unless there is significant amount of evidence. A current study shows that WK has to bear 32% of fielding activities in an innings; next is Cover at 11% etc

Keeping is involved in every ball, but it only impacts the game constantly if the keeper is poor. Once the keeper is at a decent level (as almost all international level keepers are), the differences are better good to great and that is only shown rarely in matches so the impact is lower.

 

[viriya]

So like Aussie, you don't care if your keeper isn't that good at keeping then?

I think all 4 of them are good enough keepers. Sanga is a great keeper too, at least as good as Gilchrist.

 

[marc71178]

I think all 4 of them are good enough keepers. Sanga is a great keeper too, at least as good as Gilchrist.

Flower a clear class below for me. I'd agree that Sanga and Gilchrist are roughly on a par, neither all time great glovesman but in the tier below for me.

Difference is that Gilchrist actually batted well when keeping whereas Sanga only hinted at it so proven is always going to be better than predicted.

 

[viriya]

Flower a clear class below for me. I'd agree that Sanga and Gilchrist are roughly on a par, neither all time great glovesman but in the tier below for me.

Difference is that Gilchrist actually batted well when keeping whereas Sanga only hinted at it so proven is always going to be better than predicted.

I'm ok with Sanga + AB being disqualified from the discussion.

Flower might've been a worse keeper than Gilly but I think he was a better batsman which makes up for it imo.

 

[harsh.ag]

Flower a clear class below for me. I'd agree that Sanga and Gilchrist are roughly on a par, neither all time great glovesman but in the tier below for me.

Everyone's gone mad in this thread. Love it.