Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of Wicketkeepers Poll

[capt_Luffy]

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

I think how bad comes into play here. Akmal level bad, definitely; even I would take Tallon before him. Pant level bad, I don't think so. So yeah, horrible keeper/can bat<great keeper/can't bat; but anything above a competent keeper and I don't think it's still applicable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

I think the game has changed since significantly, and giving Rishabh the gloves over a much superior keeper Saha (who actually can hold a bat to boot) actually helped us in winning two away BGTs.

 

[peterhrt]

I think the game has changed since significantly, and giving Rishabh the gloves over a much superior keeper Saha (who actually can hold a bat to boot) actually helped us in winning two away BGTs.

The game has changed. But in those two series Pant was easily worth his place on batting alone.

Perhaps the choice should have been between Saha and the seventh best batsman: .somebody like Vihari.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The game has changed. But in those two series Pant was easily worth his place on batting alone.

Perhaps the choice should have been between Saha and the seventh best batsman: .somebody like Vihari.

Point noted, but Vihari also saved India the 3rd Test match. All I am saying is, you really can't afford a bunny with the bat for a keeper. I have a simple theory, if a keeper is a worse batsman than the nominal bowling allrounder, then it's tough for them to play today for a long career. Blackham, Oldfield, Tallon, Grout, Jarman; but since Gilchrist, I don't think Australia can go back that way any longer.

 

[ma1978]

There are diminishing returns to a wicket keeping excellence after a certain baseline standard. No one is choosing Prasanna Jayawardene over Rishabh Pant or even Dhoni.

 

[kyear2]

There are diminishing returns to a wicket keeping excellence after a certain baseline standard. No one is choosing Prasanna Jayawardene over Rishabh Pant or even Dhoni.

If I have Murali or Warne in my team, possibly.

 

[kyear2]

Point noted, but Vihari also saved India the 3rd Test match. All I am saying is, you really can't afford a bunny with the bat for a keeper. I have a simple theory, if a keeper is a worse batsman than the nominal bowling allrounder, then it's tough for them to play today for a long career. Blackham, Oldfield, Tallon, Grout, Jarman; but since Gilchrist, I don't think Australia can go back that way any longer.

Would you take Walcott over say a Dujon for a WI team?

 

[ma1978]

Would you take Walcott over say a Dujon for a WI team?

yes probably

 

[TheJediBrah]

How does Pant in 2020/21 support this argument?

1) he missed straight forward chances that an average keeper would take making his team need to score more runs to make up for it. Him scoring those runs isn't proof that picking him was right
2) in one of the games they won (I think) he didn't even keep, Saha did, because of the injury swap.

Just a bad example all around

 

[capt_Luffy]

Would you take Walcott over say a Dujon for a WI team?

Yes, in a heartbeat.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How does Pant in 2020/21 support this argument?

1) he missed straight forward chances that an average keeper would take making his team need to score more runs to make up for it. Him scoring those runs isn't proof that picking him was right
2) in one of the games they won (I think) he didn't even keep, Saha did, because of the injury swap.

Just a bad example all around

1) That's the point. If the series was after he already had improved his keeping, it would had been an easier discussion. It wasn't. He was still **** with the gloves, but impacted the games more with the bat than Saha possibly could had with the gloves.
2) That was the drawn Test I believe, and Saha kept only in the 2nd innings due to a concussion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

1) That's the point. If the series was after he already had improved his keeping, it would had been an easier discussion. It wasn't. He was still **** with the gloves, but impacted the games more with the bat than Saha possibly could had with the gloves.

Did you not read what you quoted? This isn't a given at all. It might be true for that one series but it's not representative for cricket in general. I could give plenty of examples of the opposite where keeping failures decided series.

It's also not correct from a general standpoint. A handful of moments from a keeper a game, even just 1 or 2, can potentially have a 100-200+ run effect. Obviously not every game, but more than you think. You can argue that you think in the long run better batting makes up for it and that would be correct in some instances (but not in others).

But saying that better keeping couldn't possibly impact games more than batting is clearly incorrect

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did you not read what you quoted? This isn't a given at all. It might be true for that one series but it's not representative for cricket in general. I could give plenty of examples of the opposite where keeping failures decided series.

It's also not correct from a general standpoint. A handful of moments from a keeper a game, even just 1 or 2, can potentially have a 100-200+ run effect. Obviously not every game, but more than you think. You can argue that you think in the long run better batting makes up for it and that would be correct in some instances (but not in others).

But saying that better keeping couldn't possibly impact games more than batting is clearly incorrect

Yeah, I agree, the statement turned out too generalised to be true. Keeping misses can also have dire results and can lead to series losses. That was wrong of me.
But I do believe that over a certain degree of competence, you're better choosing the stronger batsman than the keeper for most of situations and over the longer run.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But I do believe that over a certain degree of competence, you're better choosing the stronger batsman than the keeper for most of situations and over the longer run.

Might be the case but the question is where the point is

A lot of modern keepers I've seen I would say are well below that point of competence

 

[capt_Luffy]

Might be the case but the question is where the point is

A lot of modern keepers I've seen I would say are well below that point of competence

I would say that point is around the level of competence of Pant before the crash or something a bit worse. Anything better is always very welcome, I would still prefer Knott over him almost everywhere and Healy in turners; but Oldfield is mostly a no no. Anyways, not really a keeper of the level of Bairstow Or Kakmal.
To put it simply, I won't like Rahul keeping but also won't want Bharat to replace him. Jurel is a good balance.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would say that point is around the level of competence of Pant before the crash or something a bit worse. Anything better is always very welcome, I would still prefer Knott over him almost everywhere and Healy in turners; but Oldfield is mostly a no no. Anyways, not really a keeper of the level of Bairstow Or Kakmal.
To put it simply, I won't like Rahul keeping but also won't want Bharat to replace him. Jurel is a good balance.

It's still not that simple because the level of keeping difference you'd be willing to accept will depend on the difference in batting ability.

Like if the choice is between a hypothetical gun keeper and Andy Flower, I would take the keeper even if they averaged 20-25. But if it was between the keeper and Gilchrist I wouldn't take the keeper unless they averaged at least 40-45, probably even more depending on their batting style

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's still not that simple because the level of keeping difference you'd be willing to accept will depend on the difference in batting ability.

Like if the choice is between a hypothetical gun keeper and Andy Flower, I would take the keeper even if they averaged 20-25. But if it was between the keeper and Gilchrist I wouldn't take the keeper unless they averaged at least 40-45, probably even more depending on their batting style

The difference also very much dependent on the team strength really. Flower would had made any team in the world any time as solely a batsman. But had the choice was equivalent to "this or that" I think the team strength, the pitch, the bowling attack all comes into play. Overall, I don't think I will take an even 30 averaging gun keeper ahead of Flower.

 

[Coronis]

The difference also very much dependent on the team strength really. Flower would had made any team in the world any time as solely a batsman. But had the choice was equivalent to "this or that" I think the team strength, the pitch, the bowling attack all comes into play. Overall, I don't think I will take an even 30 averaging gun keeper ahead of Flower.

Flower would make any side in cricketing history as a batsman, surely.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Flower would make any side in cricketing history as a batsman, surely.

That's what I said. I said "if" you could take him only as a keeper or you can't.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's what I said. I said "if" you could take him only as a keeper or you can't.

It's just a silly scenario. Logically speaking, if playing him as a batsman is not an option then you must already have 6 batsmen that are better than him keeping him out of the side, in which case you're even more likely to pick a specialist keeper