Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of Wicketkeepers Poll

[Line and Length]

Pant is better than most guys getting votes anyway. It's just people blindly under-rating the present. Unlike the batting and bowling lists, I find it impossible to evaluate older keepers for whom there's little to no footage available. Keeping stats are horribly unreliable and tell us nothing. All we're left with is anecdotal testimony and I refuse to use solely that in the absence of reliable stats to measure their effectiveness. From hereon in, I'm not giving any votes to keepers pre 1970 or so on principle.

This is a perfectly valid point, particularly for our younger members (under 50) who may not have seen many of the keepers under consideration. Considering pre WWII players such as Oldfield and Ames is difficult for all members with this regard though I suspect Ames' high ranking is influenced more than a little by his batting record.
When evaluating keepers from earlier generations we often have to rely on anecdotal writings of experts and past players who, sadly, have since past on.
I am fortunate to have seen players such as Evans (on 'live' b&w TV in England), Grout, Dujon, Knott and Marsh (all live) as well as more recent 'keepers. I must apologise to our SC members as my cricket watching days in the '70s and '80s and earlier were dominated by Ashes games and those involving the WI in their prime. Hence, other than more recent keepers, I have difficulty in evaluating many SC glovemen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would put way more faith in old anecdotes and player ratings for older players than current CW forum posters' opinions

 

[Xix2565]

But they're the same picture.

 

[capt_Luffy]

From the outset I hoped that voters wouldn't overly look at batting ability. I suggested a 70/30 keeping/batting ratio be considered. Without being too critical of voters, some appear to have adopted a 30/70 ratio.
Since WWII there has been less emphasis on purist keepers and more on keeper/batsmen with Knott being the trend-setter in this regard. Since then selectors, and spectators, have been accepting of batsmen/keepers whose keeping skills are basic, and in some cases barely adequate.
Having said that, keepers such as Gilchrist, Healy and Knott have been excellent/very good keepers and richly deserve their high rankings. Unfortunately, highly skilled keepers such as Tallon, Evans and Russell have often been overlooked. Fortunately the well documented skills of Oldfield saw him ranked in our poll.

I get your point, but I personally don't agree with the 70-30 ratio. I think a competent keeper who is a good batsman is more consequential more often that an excellent keeper who is the equivalent of a tailender. So, I won't personally rather have Pant in my team, a competent keeper who changed the tides of two away Australia tours with the bat, rather than Oldfield; an excellent keeper who averages 22.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think the point of this thread was to select the best keepers but allow for some batting to come into our analysis.

If we were voting on the best captains or best (slip) fielders I don't think their batting and bowling should influence our choices too much.

 

[ataraxia]

I vote Lev Yashin then

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think the point of this thread was to select the best keepers but allow for some batting to come into our analysis.

If we were voting on the best captains or best (slip) fielders I don't think their batting and bowling should influence our choices too much.

Different discussions. A wicket keeper is too big of a specialist role than say a captain or a slip fielder. It could had been either pure keeping skills then I would had voted for the likes of Evans, Tallon, Taylor and Oldfield; or an amalgamation of both skills, in case who would improve a side more; in which case I would go for Pant, de Kock or even the likes of Flower, Walcott and de Villiers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I vote Lev Yashin then

Could hardly be a worse bat than the likes of Tallon or Taylor really...

 

[kyear2]

Reality is the terms of the poll are out of whack with value - a wicket keeper who can bat as a top order player is so much more value than a pure keeper who is a lesser bat. In that sense, it’s a travesty that Pant is ranked below cricketers who could barely hold a bat like Oldfield and played when dinosaurs ruled the earth

But if Gilchrist hasn't kept so well to Warne I wouldn't even consider him, it would be similar to Flower.

Gilchrist wasn't Healy or Knott, but he was pretty damn good and I don't recall many drops in his prime.

First priority still has to be your keeping acumen.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But if Gilchrist hasn't kept so well to Warne I wouldn't even consider him, it would be similar to Flower.

Gilchrist wasn't Healy or Knott, but he was pretty damn good and I don't recall many drops in his prime.

First priority still has to be your keeping acumen.

But I think a keeper should atleast be a decent bat averaging close to 30s. I don't think most captains, given the chance, would take Oldfield over Flower. The overall output should be the first priority.

 

[kyear2]

I get your point, but I personally don't agree with the 70-30 ratio. I think a competent keeper who is a good batsman is more consequential more often that an excellent keeper who is the equivalent of a tailender. So, I won't personally rather have Pant in my team, a competent keeper who changed the tides of two away Australia tours with the bat, rather than Oldfield; an excellent keeper who averages 22.

I grew up watching Dujon, then we had to deal with Junior Murray and Courtney Brown. I've seen us lose matches because of both.

I think Gilly made us lose sight of the bigger purpose somewhat. He is almost as much the unicorn as Sobers, we literally got both in one player and it set the belief that others could also do it.

I would take Knott easily over Pant, likely Russell as well.

 

[kyear2]

But I think a keeper should atleast be a decent bat averaging close to 30s. I don't think most captains, given the chance, would take Oldfield over Flower. The overall output should be the first priority.

I would take Oldfield

 

[capt_Luffy]

I grew up watching Dujon, then we had to deal with Junior Murray and Courtney Brown. I've seen us lose matches because of both.

I think Gilly made us lose sight of the bigger purpose somewhat. He is almost as much the unicorn as Sobers, we literally got both in one player and it set the belief that others could also do it.

I would take Knott easily over Pant, likely Russell as well.

I would take Oldfield

I have seen Saha, and as stated previously, I am a big fan of his. His gloveswork was sublime and honestly the best in the 2010s imo. To top it off he could hold his bat and averages close to 30. It would be a lie to say he wasn't valuable in series victories. But still, it was Rishabh Pant, who even was a dodgy keeper back then, who played a very crucial role in India's only two away BGT victories. I don't think you're wrong in your belief, but I value it more and am very skeptical about taking Tallon or Bob Taylor in my team.

 

[kyear2]

I have seen Saha, and as stated previously, I am a big fan of his. His gloveswork was sublime and honestly the best in the 2010s imo. To top it off he could hold his bat and averages close to 30. It would be a lie to say he wasn't valuable in series victories. But still, it was Rishabh Pant, who even was a dodgy keeper back then, who played a very crucial role in India's only two away BGT victories. I don't think you're wrong in your belief, but I value it more and am very skeptical about taking Tallon or Bob Taylor in my team.

I'm saying there has to be a balance.

You see it as 70 / 30 batsman, I see it as 60 / 40 wicketkeeping.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm saying there has to be a balance.

You see it as 70 / 30 batsman, I see it as 60 / 40 wicketkeeping.

60/40 batsman. Ofcourse a balance is needed. Doesn't mean taking a no 10 with the bat because he could collect everything.

 

[kyear2]

60/40 batsman. Ofcourse a balance is needed. Doesn't mean taking a no 10 with the bat because he could collect everything.

How can bating be a main criteria for a specialist position that doesn't include batting though.

 

[ataraxia]

How can batting be a main criteria for a specialist position that doesn't include batting though.

Without meaning to sound sarky (that isn't my intention): is this a genuine belief of yours?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How can bating be a main criteria for a specialist position that doesn't include batting though.

Because they have to bat..... I want my gross output to be higher than anything else.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the point of this thread

I think the point of this thread a bit compromised from the beginning tbh when they guy starting it thought it appropriate to tell everyone how they should weigh keeping/batting, kind of defeating the purpose IMO

 

[TheJediBrah]

But I think a keeper should atleast be a decent bat averaging close to 30s. I don't think most captains, given the chance, would take Oldfield over Flower. The overall output should be the first priority.

Oldfield v Flower is a bad comparison because if you had both you would just play both. Flower as a batsman and Oldfield to keep.

Zimbabwe did pretty much that in fact as soon as they found a half decent keeper so that they wouldn't have to have Flower doing it.

A better comparison would be Oldfield v Prior or Haddin