Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of Wicketkeepers Poll

[capt_Luffy]

If the team is that weak just play Flower as a batsman and let the real keeper hold the gloves.

From everything I've seen and read I would even rate Walcott over someone like Flower, and easily at that.

Walcott was a pretty good keeper while he kept, and I would have him over Flower and Knott both.
Here, we are going of the basis that you can only have one: Knott or Flower, and whoever plays keeps.

 

[kyear2]

Walcott was a pretty good keeper while he kept, and I would have him over Flower and Knott both.
Here, we are going of the basis that you can only have one: Knott or Flower, and whoever plays keeps.

Then Knott over Flower and for me it isn't close.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Then Knott over Flower and for me it isn't close.

So to get it straight, you will not have a borderline ATG batsman, the second best from a minnow team; for a wicketkeeper? Yeah, Flower is going to be much more impactful more often for the most majority of teams; and I would have him in most cases.

 

[kyear2]

Walcott was a pretty good keeper while he kept, and I would have him over Flower and Knott both.
Here, we are going of the basis that you can only have one: Knott or Flower, and whoever plays keeps.

Re Walcott, he was a very good keeper to Ramadhin and Valentine, and if an ATG WI where playing on a turner and utilizing Gibbs and Sobers as spinners, he would be the first choice keeper.
But not sure how he would have been to Marshall, Ambrose and co on seaming wicket. But can't be worse than Browne or Murray.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Re Walcott, he was a very good keeper to Ramadhin and Valentine, and if an ATG WI where playing on a turner and utilizing Gibbs and Sobers as spinners, he would be the first choice keeper.
But not sure how he would have been to Marshall, Ambrose and co on seaming wicket. But can't be worse than Browne or Murray.

Keeping to spinners is much more tougher than keeping to pacers, I believe he will do just fine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm lost.

Batting can't be the primary consideration when selecting a wicketkeeper.

Yes it is a factor, way more so than for a bowling attack, but can't be the primary one.

It probably shouldn't be, but it usually is these days. Sometimes a keeper bat is diabolically bad with the gloves such that they're missing 100 runs worth of chances every other game (eg Bairstow 2023 Ashes). And still keep getting picked. It's a bit of a blind spot in modern cricket IMO. Like an over-correction from the days of a keeper not being able to bat at all

 

[Line and Length]

A poll on wicketkeepers should be based on their primary skill - wicketkeeping.

If batting was to be a factor in bowlers polls, we would see Hadlee well ahead of McGrath and Warne well in front of Murali. The argument is likely to be that bowlers come in so low in the order it doesn't matter.
If we apply that logic to wicketkeepers then we should assume they are in a team where they come in after 6 ATG bats and their batting should be adequate but not a determining factor. Gilchrist and Knott warrant their selection on wicketkeeping but Flower?

 

[capt_Luffy]

A poll on wicketkeepers should be based on their primary skill - wicketkeeping.

If batting was to be a factor in bowlers polls, we would see Hadlee well ahead of McGrath and Warne well in front of Murali. The argument is likely to be that bowlers come in so low in the order it doesn't matter.
If we apply that logic to wicketkeepers then we should assume they are in a team where they come in after 6 ATG bats and their batting should be adequate but not a determining factor. Gilchrist and Knott warrant their selection on wicketkeeping but Flower?

I disagree. A bowler makes most if their contribution with the ball, it is not the same for a wicketkeeper. Wicketkeeping is just a specialist fielding position, not much more. The total output of a wicketkeeper is more dependent on their batting. The bowler comparison is a bad one. Had the ranking was for 'only' keeping skills, I would had voted for the likes of Evans, Oldfield, Taylor and Tallon; but it is of overall contribution as a player. Don Tallon, someone who averages 17 with the bat, won't make any national team today no matter how well he keeps, having him ahead of the likes of Prior and Lindsay??

 

[Line and Length]

I disagree. A bowler makes most if their contribution with the ball, it is not the same for a wicketkeeper. Wicketkeeping is just a specialist fielding position, not much more. The total output of a wicketkeeper is more dependent on their batting. The bowler comparison is a bad one. Had the ranking was for 'only' keeping skills, I would had voted for the likes of Evans, Oldfield, Taylor and Tallon; but it is of overall contribution as a player. Don Tallon, someone who averages 17 with the bat, won't make any national team today no matter how well he keeps, having him ahead of the likes of Prior and Lindsay??

I can accept most of your argument. However, at the outset of the poll I did suggest a 70/30 ratio of keeping/batting might be appropriate. Despite this, you and others have argued strongly in favour of batsmen/keepers.
Having Tallon ahead of Lindsay? Why not? Tallon was a specialist 'keeper while Lindsay kept in just 12 of the 19 Tests he played. He certainly wins accolades for his stellar series against Australia when he averaged a Bradmaneque 86.57 but this was just one series. In 5 other series he averaged 22.78 including 2 series against England averaging 18.72 and just 17.2 against New Zealand. These figures are on a par with Tallon's batting but Tallon is acknowledged as one of the finest 'keepers ever.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I can accept most of your argument. However, at the outset of the poll I did suggest a 70/30 ratio of keeping/batting might be appropriate. Despite this, you and others have argued strongly in favour of batsmen/keepers.
Having Tallon ahead of Lindsay? Why not? Tallon was a specialist 'keeper while Lindsay kept in just 12 of the 19 Tests he played. He certainly wins accolades for his stellar series against Australia when he averaged a Bradmaneque 86.57 but this was just one series. In 5 other series he averaged 22.78 including 2 series against England averaging 18.72 and just 17.2 against New Zealand. These figures are on a par with Tallon's batting but Tallon is acknowledged as one of the finest 'keepers ever.

Denis Lindsay's Australia tour alone is a big part of his batting repute and that he averages 35 in tough SA FC conditions post retirement. His keeping also had pretty praise back then. Tallon, as stated previously, is one of the finest Wicketkeepers of all time, and had the ranking was purely keeping, he would had been in my top 3. But the problem with him is simply that his output with the bat overall is too low for him to be considered making a modern day Test team. I am one of the bigger promoters of older players here (ok, mainly pre WWI), but the one aspect I think the sport has moved on from is having a pure keeper who can't bat. If you have both Tallon and Saha, I think most captains will be forced to select Saha, as any difference on keeping isn't making up for the massive batting difference.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I disagree. A bowler makes most if their contribution with the ball, it is not the same for a wicketkeeper. Wicketkeeping is just a specialist fielding position, not much more. The total output of a wicketkeeper is more dependent on their batting.

I don't think this is accurate. If you're comparing 2 keepers who are similar in keeping ability but one is a much better batsman, then probably pick the better bat. But when the difference in keeping starts getting significant no amount of batting is going to make up for it. Missed chances from poor keeping and a great keeper taking half-chances over time adds up to a far bigger difference in runs

Whether varying keeping ability is "significant" really would have to depend on a case-by-case basis

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think this is accurate. If you're comparing 2 keepers who are similar in keeping ability but one is a much better batsman, then probably pick the better bat. But when the difference in keeping starts getting significant no amount of batting is going to make up for it. Missed chances from poor keeping and a great keeper taking half-chances over time adds up to a far bigger difference in runs

Whether varying keeping ability is "significant" really would have to depend on a case-by-case basis

I think the same also applies to the difference in batting as well. No amount of keeping prowess is leading to the selection of a sub 20 bat. The point where you could afford your keeper not knowing to hold a bat is in distant past. Saha was great keeper, the best one I have seen; but Rishabh was the one who led us to two away BGT wins.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No amount of keeping prowess is leading to the selection of a sub 20 bat

Absolutely and clearly not true. "No amount of keeping prowess" covers a very big range, I don't think that's what you meant to say

 

[capt_Luffy]

Absolutely and clearly not true. "No amount of keeping prowess" covers a very big range, I don't think that's what you meant to say

I am covering a very wide range. A keeper better than Tallon is hard to find in cricket's entire history, he isn't getting selected today. I can't see him making the Australian team ahead of Carey or Inglis today and most supporters and critics being welcoming of that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am covering a very wide range. A keeper better than Tallon is hard to find in cricket's entire history, he isn't getting selected today. I can't see him making the Australian team ahead of Carey or Inglis today and most supporters and critics being welcoming of that.

So what you're saying is that you think no difference in keeping ability among keepers who have played Test cricket, from the very worst to the very best, could justify picking a specialist keeper with an average below 20. I don't agree.

I have seen some awful keepers at Test level that I definitely wouldn't pick over this hypothetical Don Tallon (I don't know how good he actually was) unless they were averaging like 60+ with the bat

 

[capt_Luffy]

So what you're saying is that you think no difference in keeping ability among keepers who have played Test cricket, from the very worst to the very best, could justify picking a specialist keeper with an average below 20. I don't agree.

I have seen some awful keepers at Test level that I definitely wouldn't pick over this hypothetical Don Tallon (I don't know how good he actually was) unless they were averaging like 60+ with the bat

I wouldn't pick, suppose Kamran Akmal over Don Tallon. But on that case, I won't pick either really.
I meant in the sense that it is very far from what any fan of their team would like.

 

[ataraxia]

There's definitely diminishing returns when it comes to great keepers' keeping. But it should be recognised IMO how catastrophic a bad keeper on a bad day, like a Bairstow or a Kakmal, can be.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There's definitely diminishing returns when it comes to great keepers' keeping. But it should be recognised IMO how catastrophic a bad keeper on a bad day, like a Bairstow or a Kakmal, can be.

The cost of bad keeping definitely has a higher ceiling than the extra benefit of an exceptional keeper

 

[Molehill]

The cost of bad keeping definitely has a higher ceiling than the extra benefit of an exceptional keeper

Agreed, see First Ashes Test last year!!

 

[peterhrt]

It's another case of applying today's criteria to yesterday's circumstances. Less uniform pitches then. More standing up to the stumps.

Until the 1970s Australia virtually always picked their best keeper. They knew what they were doing. They wouldn't have given Lindsay the gloves over Wally Grout, let alone fellow Queenslander Tallon. On his 1966-67 form, Lindsay might have made their side as a batsman.

Alan Knott would not have replaced Godfrey Evans. He could not have stood up to the stumps as effectively to Bedser.

As just commented, giving Bairstow the gloves last summer cost England the series.