• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
Exactly, there is no difference, because I question your POV that De Viliers just looked average keeper with the gloves when combing his role in tests. He was a very effective keeper & I don't know how you or others judge De Villiers - but I look at him as a one of the unique freak cricketers in the games history who basically can do anything.

You question whether his glove work could stand up to ATXI bowlers, if chosen in a ATXI - I don't since I would be hesitant to say there is some De Villiers "can't" do on a cricket field effectively with regards to main strenghts in batting & keeping.
If Superman can fly, there is no reason that Spiderman can't and also there is the word "man" in both of their names. So Superman is equal to Spiderman. And Batman is just an a***hole but since there is "man" he is equivalent to Superman and Spiderman. Therefore it's logical to conclude, Superman = Spiderman = Batman
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
If Superman can fly, there is no reason that Spiderman can't and also there is the word "man" in both of their names. So Superman is equal to Spiderman. And Batman is just an a***hole but since there is "man" he is equivalent to Superman and Spiderman. Therefore it's logical to conclude, Superman = Spiderman = Batman
I generally don't agree with anything PEWS says, but at least he attempted to give and explanation to his logic and we were able agree to disagree and move on - this is why he one of the best posters in this sites history despite differences of opinion. This reply however is the epitome of useless posting.

You are no different from ***** who ducking my question to explain what were the actual bowling attacks that were present in 99-2005 period - but want to resort to replying with stuff like this when i question your logic.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Exactly, there is no difference, because I question your POV that De Viliers just looked average keeper with the gloves when combing his role in tests. He was a very effective keeper & I don't know how you or others judge De Villiers - but I look at him as a one of the unique freak cricketers in the games history who basically can do anything.

You question whether his glove work could stand up to ATXI bowlers, if chosen in a ATXI - I don't since I would be hesitant to say there is something De Villiers "can't" do on a cricket field effectively with regards to main strengths in batting & keeping.
The think with ABdV as a 'keeper is that he clearly wasn't much of a wicketkeeper, per se, rather he's an absolute gun who can do anything and is a ridiculously talented freak. The big criticism levelled at him, from a "Why I don't have ABdV keep in an ATG XI" scenario, is that he is so, so reliant on his athleticism and freakish abilities to catch the ball -- he's not much in the way of a technical wicketkeeper with his footwork. Sure, it looks impressive when he dives across in front of first slip to take a one-handed catch, but someone like Peter Nevill probably takes that in a completely regulation way, on his feet, with his gloves at his inside hip (i.e. the technically correct way).

It's not dissimilar to the criticism levelled at Matthew Wade -- the big difference between AB and Wade is that AB has an amazing pair of hands while Wade just, well, doesn't.

AB has never been more than solid up to the stumps to spinners, because that's far more demanding on your wicketkeeping technique, and requires far less diving around. If you're happy taking that in an ATG XI, that's fine -- go right ahead, I won't tell you you're wrong -- but for others, they want the technical aspect of wicketkeeping better addressed without losing much batting compared to ABdV. And for that, arguably, the ideal balance is Gilchrist.
 

nevermind

U19 Debutant
Haha, this thread is superb, there's about 402 posts of crap (+1 more now) and 2 posts of Victor Ian gold. Worth it
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
The think with ABdV as a 'keeper is that he clearly wasn't much of a wicketkeeper, per se, rather he's an absolute gun who can do anything and is a ridiculously talented freak. The big criticism levelled at him, from a "Why I don't have ABdV keep in an ATG XI" scenario, is that he is so, so reliant on his athleticism and freakish abilities to catch the ball -- he's not much in the way of a technical wicketkeeper with his footwork. Sure, it looks impressive when he dives across in front of first slip to take a one-handed catch, but someone like Peter Nevill probably takes that in a completely regulation way, on his feet, with his gloves at his inside hip (i.e. the technically correct way).

It's not dissimilar to the criticism levelled at Matthew Wade -- the big difference between AB and Wade is that AB has an amazing pair of hands while Wade just, well, doesn't.

AB has never been more than solid up to the stumps to spinners, because that's far more demanding on your wicketkeeping technique, and requires far less diving around. If you're happy taking that in an ATG XI, that's fine -- go right ahead, I won't tell you you're wrong -- but for others, they want the technical aspect of wicketkeeping better addressed without losing much batting compared to ABdV. And for that, arguably, the ideal balance is Gilchrist.
Agree pretty much. I actually didn't say I would pick De Villiers as an ATXI keeper just to clarify, its still Knott for me. My point was actually IF I wanted to pick a keeper for his extra batting strength in the ATXI, who actually averaged 50+ vs good bowlers ([pace & spin) because Gilly's 50+ average from 99-05 was inflated by runs vs poor pace attacks on roads - De Villiers would be the better choice. However its not one I would take up in any case.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
ABdV didn't have to face his own attack to get that 50+ average, and South African quicks are a significant chunk of the 'very good bowlers' of this era, tbf.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agree pretty much. I actually didn't say I would pick De Villiers as an ATXI keeper just to clarify, its still Knott for me. My point was actually IF I wanted to pick a keeper for his extra batting strength in the ATXI, who actually averaged 50+ vs good bowlers ([pace & spin) because Gilly's 50+ average from 99-05 was inflated by runs vs poor pace attacks on roads - De Villiers would be the better choice. However its not one I would take up in any case.
You. Vastly. Underestimate. Gilly's. Keeping. Skills.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I'm going to throw this out there -- if I actually shared aussie's philosophy on selecting these fantasy all-time teams, I would pick Sanga ahead of Gilchrist as well, and yeah I'd probably even consider de Villiers. Ultimately I think I'd probably actually pick Walcott.

I don't think we actually disagree too much on the abilities of these players and how they performed, but just what that should mean exactly for the debates that follow that.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm going to throw this out there -- if I actually shared aussie's philosophy on selecting these fantasy all-time teams, I would pick Sanga ahead of Gilchrist as well, and yeah I'd probably even consider de Villiers. Ultimately I think I'd probably actually pick Walcott.

I don't think we actually disagree too much on the abilities of these players and how they performed, but just what that should mean exactly for the debates that follow that.
Except for Gilly. He's more or less in the right ballpark with the others, but his opinions on Gilly's keeping are greatly out of sync with reality.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Except for Gilly. He's more or less in the right ballpark with the others, but his opinions on Gilly's keeping are greatly out of sync with reality.
I dunno. Gilchrist's keeping often does get under-rated but putting him behind guys like Knott and Healy on glovework alone doesn't really seem like an under-rating to me.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I dunno. Gilchrist's keeping often does get under-rated but putting him behind guys like Knott and Healy on glovework alone doesn't really seem like an under-rating to me.
If that was all it was, it would be fine. At different points of time in the thread, the keeping skills of Sangakkara, Flower, Stewart and some others have been compared favorably with Gilly's.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
If that was all it was, it would be fine. At different points of time in the thread, the keeping skills of Sangakkara, Flower, Stewart and some others have been compared favorably with Gilly's.
Sanga's glovework was actually excellent when he was a keeper so I've got no qualms with that one. Gilchrist was a league or two ahead of Flower and Stewart as glovemen though.
 

viriya

International Captain
ABdV didn't have to face his own attack to get that 50+ average, and South African quicks are a significant chunk of the 'very good bowlers' of this era, tbf.
That argument never seems to come up when discussing Warne or McGrath for some reason.
 

viriya

International Captain
If that was all it was, it would be fine. At different points of time in the thread, the keeping skills of Sangakkara, Flower, Stewart and some others have been compared favorably with Gilly's.
Sanga is at least as good as Gilchrist with the gloves.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
ABdV didn't have to face his own attack to get that 50+ average, and South African quicks are a significant chunk of the 'very good bowlers' of this era, tbf.
There are quite a few players with high averages in the 21st century without many runs against South Africa, such as Hussey, Younis, Dravid and Inzamam.

I don't think they have that big an impact because they don't play as many Tests as most.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
ABdV didn't have to face his own attack to get that 50+ average, and South African quicks are a significant chunk of the 'very good bowlers' of this era, tbf.
Ha wow, people on CW still attempt to argue this, swore this argument died out since 2005.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I'm going to throw this out there -- if I actually shared aussie's philosophy on selecting these fantasy all-time teams, I would pick Sanga ahead of Gilchrist as well, and yeah I'd probably even consider de Villiers. Ultimately I think I'd probably actually pick Walcott.

I don't think we actually disagree too much on the abilities of these players and how they performed, but just what that should mean exactly for the debates that follow that.
Nah i checked this one out years ago when people for eg would suggest Walcott as keeper in a Windies ATXI, he definitely was just a stop gap keeper - probably the equivalent of some of the times Jimmy Maher & Rahul Dravid keeping for AUS/IND in ODIs in the mid 2000s. Walcott just did the job for team balance sake in the 50s because up to that point WI had not produced a good enough keeper, until Gerry Alexander emerged.

Plus after a point back issues meant that experiment had to end since it affected his batting.
 
Last edited:

Top