How good was Gilchrist?

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't he drop Vaughan at Old Trafford, when he went on to make a hundred? Not saying he wasn't a damn fine keeper though.

EDIT
Here's the Vaughan drop I was thinking about, at 3:35
Not at all easy though. The commentators did say it was his second drop of the innings; some quick research told me that the first one was Trescothick.

I watched both series and if anything I think he was better in 2001. 2005 almoat everything fell apart for Austtalia except Warne

 

[Chrish]

fml some of those stumpings are lightning! Quality keeping is essential IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dhoni and Gilchrist comfortably in their own tier as WK/batsmen IMO

 

[trundler]

Dhoni and Gilchrist comfortably in their own tier as WK/batsmen IMO

Watling > Dhoni

 

[Spark]

Don't agree with any of this. A single dropped catch can cost a team a lot more than the extra 20-30 runs that a better batsmen will make on average.

As an aside, Gilchrist and Dhoni are fine keepers, their batting is a massive bonus. It's not like they were bad with the gloves and only in the team because they could bat. Flower doesn't belong in the same conversation though, very ordinary keeper.

A mediocre keeper cost Australia an entire Test series literally last month. I don't think an extra 10 runs per innings would have made up for that.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

No one cares about or remembers *lists five guys from memory*

 

[TheJediBrah]

Watling > Dhoni

Who?

 

[cnerd123]

The diminishing returns when it comes to keeping skills are greater than when it comes to batting.

hmm I don't agree.

Mainly because it's impossible to quantify or measure the influence a wicketkeeper has on a game because we don't really have the stats for it yet.

Personally I feel you want the best wicketkeeper you can possibly get whilst still maintaining a decent amount of batting/bowling quality in the side. A good keeper doesn't just take every chance, but they produce wickets where otherwise there would be none (MSD stumpings a great example). Taking wickets is how you win games, and being a good bowling/fielding team helps accomplish that.

Most sides have batting lineups where 2-3 key wickets can lead to them being bowled for cheap. If your keeper or your fielders can produce some brilliance to get those wickets regularly then it's as good as upgrading your bowling attack.

Plus there is a real psychological boost to bowlers when they know they've got elite fielders and a great keeper backing them up. Missed chances or free runs is frustrating. Again, impossible to quantify this, but I'd factor it in when you talk about the returns of improved keeping skills.

 

[Bolo.]

hmm I don't agree.

Mainly because it's impossible to quantify or measure the influence a wicketkeeper has on a game because we don't really have the stats for it yet.

Personally I feel you want the best wicketkeeper you can possibly get whilst still maintaining a decent amount of batting/bowling quality in the side. A good keeper doesn't just take every chance, but they produce wickets where otherwise there would be none (MSD stumpings a great example). Taking wickets is how you win games, and being a good bowling/fielding team helps accomplish that.

Most sides have batting lineups where 2-3 key wickets can lead to them being bowled for cheap. If your keeper or your fielders can produce some brilliance to get those wickets regularly then it's as good as upgrading your bowling attack.

Plus there is a real psychological boost to bowlers when they know they've got elite fielders and a great keeper backing them up. Missed chances or free runs is frustrating. Again, impossible to quantify this, but I'd factor it in when you talk about the returns of improved keeping skills.

I dont think you are actually disagreeing with this, just making a slightly different point.

Diminishing returns in keeping are very much a thing.

The difference between a bad keeper and a good one is (depending on the bowlers), potentially several dismissals and a bunch of byes. The difference between a good keeper and a great one is a dismissal every match or two, and a couple of byes.

You certainly dont want a junk keeper in, even if it means playing someone who averages 20. But if it is a choice between an excellent keeper who averages 40 and the best keeper ever, who averages 25, I am picking the former without any thought.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Geez, this is a shocking post.

If your wicketkeeper is not Kamran Akmal. Level incompetent you should always go with the better batsman.

A mediocre wicketkeeper drops at max 1 chance per match.
Now there are eleven batsman in the opposition, if you drop a catch of a no. 8,9,10,11 batsman 99% of the times it won't cost you much TBF even dropping a no. 1 to no. 7 bat will only cost you 50% of the time at best.
Combine this with the probability that the catch is dropped while your team is well on its way to victory
Dont stop here, combine all these with the fact that even great keeper drops 0.3 catches per match.

So basically it doesn't make as much impact while we just saw that how a competent batsman wicketkeeper can win you matches.

Foakes was brilliant in the last match, still dropped two, Buttler has dropped 2 catches since 2018 and he has played in a variety of conditions. Now everyone who saw him know Foakes is better at wicketkeeping but does it really make that much impact?

If your wicketkeeper is Kamran Akmal level incompetent then go ahead select a specialist keeper but if you have someone who keeps like Andy flower but is a match winner with the bat go for him. As simple as that.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

OK Steiner

 

[the big bambino]

Keeper drops Lara on 18 and says ruefully "he'll probably make a hundred now."

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Keeper drops Lara on 18 and says ruefully "he'll probably make a hundred now."

I dont think you are actually disagreeing with this, just making a slightly different point.

Diminishing returns in keeping are very much a thing.

The difference between a bad keeper and a good one is (depending on the bowlers), potentially several dismissals and a bunch of byes. The difference between a good keeper and a great one is a dismissal every match or two, and a couple of byes.

You certainly dont want a junk keeper in, even if it means playing someone who averages 20. But if it is a choice between an excellent keeper who averages 40 and the best keeper ever, who averages 25, I am picking the former without any thought.

Pretty much this.

 

[the big bambino]

ok.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Don't agree with any of this. A single dropped catch can cost a team a lot more than the extra 20-30 runs that a better batsmen will make on average.

As an aside, Gilchrist and Dhoni are fine keepers, their batting is a massive bonus. It's not like they were bad with the gloves and only in the team because they could bat. Flower doesn't belong in the same conversation though, very ordinary keeper.

Which basically means you will have a Wriddhiman Saha over Andy Flower?
Pretty bad choice mate.
Also please realise that averaging 15 points more in batting doesn't just mean you make 15 runs extra. LOL.
That's like saying that the only difference between sachin and Azhar Ali is that Sachin makes 10 more runs per match.

 

[the big bambino]

Not sure he actually said that.

 

[jimmy101]

If your wicketkeeper is not Kamran Akmal. Level incompetent you should always go with the better batsman.

A mediocre wicketkeeper drops at max 1 chance per match.
Now there are eleven batsman in the opposition, if you drop a catch of a no. 8,9,10,11 batsman 99% of the times it won't cost you much TBF even dropping a no. 1 to no. 7 bat will only cost you 50% of the time at best.
Combine this with the probability that the catch is dropped while your team is well on its way to victory
Dont stop here, combine all these with the fact that even great keeper drops 0.3 catches per match.

So basically it doesn't make as much impact while we just saw that how a competent batsman wicketkeeper can win you matches.

Foakes was brilliant in the last match, still dropped two, Buttler has dropped 2 catches since 2018 and he has played in a variety of conditions. Now everyone who saw him know Foakes is better at wicketkeeping but does it really make that much impact?

If your wicketkeeper is Kamran Akmal level incompetent then go ahead select a specialist keeper but if you have someone who keeps like Andy flower but is a match winner with the bat go for him. As simple as that.

YOU KNOW THEY SAY ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. BUT YOU LOOK AT ME AND YOU LOOK AT CodeOfWisden AND YOU CAN SEE THAT STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE! SEE NORMALLY IF YOU GO 1 ON 1 WITH ANOTHER poster YOU GOT A 50/50 CHANCE OF WINNING! BUT I'M A GENETIC FREAK AND I'M NOT NORMAL! SO YOU GOT A 25% AT BEST AT BEAT ME! AND THEN YOU ADD RossTaylorsBox TO THE MIX, YOU THE CHANCES OF WINNING DRASTIC GO DOWN! SEE THE 3 WAY AT Cricket Chat YOU GOT A 33 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING. BUT I, I GOT A 66 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING CAUSE bad posters KNOWS HE CAN'T BEAT ME AND HE'S NOT EVEN GONNA TRY! SO CodeofWisden YOU TAKE YOUR 33 1/3 CHANCE MINUS MY 25% CHANCE AND YOU GOT 8 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricket Chat. BUT THEN YOU TAKE MY 75% CHANCE OF WINNING IF WE WAS TO GO 1 ON 1 AND THEN ADD 66 2/3 %. I GOT A 141 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricketweb! SENIOR Wisden? THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE AND THEY SPELL DISASTER FOR YOU when discussing wicketkleepers!

 

[CodeOfWisden]

YOU KNOW THEY SAY ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. BUT YOU LOOK AT ME AND YOU LOOK AT CodeOfWisden AND YOU CAN SEE THAT STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE! SEE NORMALLY IF YOU GO 1 ON 1 WITH ANOTHER poster YOU GOT A 50/50 CHANCE OF WINNING! BUT I'M A GENETIC FREAK AND I'M NOT NORMAL! SO YOU GOT A 25% AT BEST AT BEAT ME! AND THEN YOU ADD RossTaylorsBox TO THE MIX, YOU THE CHANCES OF WINNING DRASTIC GO DOWN! SEE THE 3 WAY AT Cricket Chat YOU GOT A 33 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING. BUT I, I GOT A 66 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING CAUSE bad posters KNOWS HE CAN'T BEAT ME AND HE'S NOT EVEN GONNA TRY! SO CodeofWisden YOU TAKE YOUR 33 1/3 CHANCE MINUS MY 25% CHANCE AND YOU GOT 8 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricket Chat. BUT THEN YOU TAKE MY 75% CHANCE OF WINNING IF WE WAS TO GO 1 ON 1 AND THEN ADD 66 2/3 %. I GOT A 141 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricketweb! SENIOR Wisden? THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE AND THEY SPELL DISASTER FOR YOU when discussing wicketkleepers!

Only English and Hindi.

 

[honestbharani]

YOU KNOW THEY SAY ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. BUT YOU LOOK AT ME AND YOU LOOK AT CodeOfWisden AND YOU CAN SEE THAT STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE! SEE NORMALLY IF YOU GO 1 ON 1 WITH ANOTHER poster YOU GOT A 50/50 CHANCE OF WINNING! BUT I'M A GENETIC FREAK AND I'M NOT NORMAL! SO YOU GOT A 25% AT BEST AT BEAT ME! AND THEN YOU ADD RossTaylorsBox TO THE MIX, YOU THE CHANCES OF WINNING DRASTIC GO DOWN! SEE THE 3 WAY AT Cricket Chat YOU GOT A 33 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING. BUT I, I GOT A 66 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING CAUSE bad posters KNOWS HE CAN'T BEAT ME AND HE'S NOT EVEN GONNA TRY! SO CodeofWisden YOU TAKE YOUR 33 1/3 CHANCE MINUS MY 25% CHANCE AND YOU GOT 8 1/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricket Chat. BUT THEN YOU TAKE MY 75% CHANCE OF WINNING IF WE WAS TO GO 1 ON 1 AND THEN ADD 66 2/3 %. I GOT A 141 2/3 CHANCE OF WINNING AT Cricketweb! SENIOR Wisden? THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE AND THEY SPELL DISASTER FOR YOU when discussing wicketkleepers!

Holler, if ya hear me!!!

 

[jimmy101]

Only English and Hindi.

Chillaee agar aap meree baat sunate hain!