Was Mark Boucher lucky to play almost 150 tests for a top team like South Africa?

[Line and Length]

He averaged 26 batting at 7. Just one solo century in that position from 124 innings. Stats aren't everything, but those numbers are pretty damning.

How many number 7s would last even 50 Tests with batting output like that?

Fortunate to have the likes of Pollock batting after him for so long.

Your post overlooks the fact that, when batting at 6,7 or 8, he averaged over 30 and scored 5 centuries. While the majority of his knocks were at 7, it's naive to just focus on one position.

 

[howitzer]

Why wouldn't Gilchrist "get a pass" he was an excellent keeper and kept in 100% of the Tests he played

I agree Stewart is underrated but he played quite a lot as a specialist batsmen IIRC

This was more the case earlier in his career. He kept in 54 out of 64 Tests he played post Boucher's debut. It was only 28 out of 69 in the earlier part of his career.

 

[reyrey]

Your post overlooks the fact that, when batting at 6,7 or 8, he averaged over 30 and scored 5 centuries. While the majority of his knocks were at 7, it's naive to just focus on one position.

My post was in response to someone saying he was "a fine number 7" so why wouldn't I focus more on what he did at number 7?

Your "naive" comment is also pointless as I explicitly stated that "Stats aren't everything" after providing that information.

I believe Bouchers batting output regardless of batting position wasn't a huge issue for SA because of the bowling allrounders in the team. It's fine if you disagree with me, but why don't you present a case why you think he was a fine number 7 instead?

I will add that Boucher averages 30 which is the similar to Ben Foakes who I believe is a far better keeper and he was recently just dropped after 25 Tests. Boucher played nearly 150

 

[Bolo.]

Until the tail end of his career, Boucher kept very well to pace. Which means he was keeping well de facto for RSA.

I wonder how many people's impressions of his performances are based on the world XI game.

 

[Dendarii]

I will add that Boucher averages 30 which is the similar to Ben Foakes who I believe is a far better keeper and he was recently just dropped after 25 Tests. Boucher played nearly 150

The game has changed from when Boucher was playing. These days a keeper is expected to average more than 30 but that wasn't the case when Boucher played his 25th test.

 

[reyrey]

The game has changed from when Boucher was playing. These days a keeper is expected to average more than 30 but that wasn't the case when Boucher played his 25th test.

Boucher played most of his cricket when wicket keepers were expected to bat with a lot better average than 30, and if you broke up his career into quarters he was never more than a 30 average type.

People talking about Gilchrist changing the batting expectations on wicktet keepers. I got news for you Gilchrist is 5 years older than Boucher. Yes Boucher debuted 2 years before Gilly, but he also played for 5 years and over 40 more Tests after Gilly had retired. Boucher isn't from a different era like some of you are trying to make out.

Boucher retired in 2012, Prior in 2014, Dhoni 2014, Haddin 2015, Mccullum 2016 (stopped keeping in 2013). These were Bouchers contemporaries.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's right but Boucher went on to play till 2012.

By 2005, trend of specialist keepers had gone with the likes of Prior, Dhoni, McCullum being picked. They weren't world beaters but they were picked because they were expected to keep well and contribute well with bat too.

SL tried Sangakkara as keeper batsman in first half of decade and then they went with Prasanna Jayawardene who was a keeper that could barely average 28.

Pakistan picked Kamran Akmal but it backfired to be honest. Dropped a lot of catches.

Perhaps, South Africa stayed with Mark Boucher because they weren't getting a Gilchrist or Sangakkara calibre batsman who can keep gloves. AB de Villiers certainly had the talent and ability with bat which came out post Boucher's retirement but then he was just superb on field itself. He probably didn't had the concentration and focus which a great keeper should have.

de Villiers was an underrated keeper. I'm not sure he was that much worse than Boucher, if it all tbh. He was a superior keeper in skill to a lot of them going around.

My assumption was that he just didn't have the desire to do it, which is understandable, it's an awful job to have in Test cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

de Villiers was an underrated keeper. I'm not sure he was that much worse than Boucher, if it all tbh. He was a superior keeper in skill to a lot of them going around.

My assumption was that he just didn't have the desire to do it, which is understandable, it's an awful job to have in Test cricket

And well, de Kock replaced him who would had played more than his fair share as a frontline batsman.

 

[Majestic]

de Villiers was an underrated keeper. I'm not sure he was that much worse than Boucher, if it all tbh. He was a superior keeper in skill to a lot of them going around.

My assumption was that he just didn't have the desire to do it, which is understandable, it's an awful job to have in Test cricket

It is basically a case of three friends( Smith, Boucher, de Villiers) ensuring they do whatever is best for each other as long as they possibly can. Boucher kept wickets and gave de Villiers the backing back when he was young between 2005-08 and then de Villiers being his cover to ensure no one takes away his spot including him, as he would keep wickets when Boucher would get injured and go back to specialist job once Boucher is back. All of this under Smith's leadership.

Ultimately by 2012, Boucher retired and de Villiers took the keeping job for two more years before Qdk burst into the scene.

 

[SteveNZ]

It is basically a case of three friends( Smith, Boucher, de Villiers) ensuring they do whatever is best for each other as long as they possibly can. Boucher kept wickets and gave de Villiers the backing back when he was young between 2005-08 and then de Villiers being his cover to ensure no one takes away his spot including him, as he would keep wickets when Boucher would get injured and go back to specialist job once Boucher is back. All of this under Smith's leadership.

Ultimately by 2012, Boucher retired and de Villiers took the keeping job for two more years before Qdk burst into the scene.

This is probably the best explanation. This is why Adam Parore could play for 10 years as an NZ keeper and average 26, while Mathew Sinclair averaged 32 with 2 double tons, but couldn't keep a spot until that era ended. If Parore had Sinclair's personality, he'd have played hardly any Tests, while Sinclair might've played 100 if he was in the hegemonic group like Parore was. There's slightly more to it (because Parore was a great gloveman, and there wasn't a lot of competition, plus Sinclair got into technical issues and refused to get better) but the point being, a lot of 90s NZ cricketers kept their spot through lean trots because they were part of the in-crowd.

 

[Stefan9]

de Villiers was an underrated keeper. I'm not sure he was that much worse than Boucher, if it all tbh. He was a superior keeper in skill to a lot of them going around.

My assumption was that he just didn't have the desire to do it, which is understandable, it's an awful job to have in Test cricket

He didn't like to keep cause he also had struggles with a bad back. Whether that was an excuse to keep bouch in is anyone's guess.

 

[Coronis]

Keepers are generally stuck with longer than other players based on form. The only reason Prasanna came into the SL side is because Sanga wanted to give up the gloves. In general actually, once a player has thoroughly established themselves they are rarely dropped, which is the case for Boucher.

Recently we’ve seen this with Kohli, who was never going to be dropped. Similarly Warner. Once you’ve done “enough” for your team there has to be some pretty extreme circumstances for you to be dropped these days.

Even if Smith continues with a lackluster record as an opener will Australia drop him? I doubt it very much.

 

[thierry henry]

Boucher retired in 2012, Prior in 2014, Dhoni 2014, Haddin 2015, Mccullum 2016 (stopped keeping in 2013). These were Bouchers contemporaries.

But not really though, right? Boucher debuted well before any of those guys and he certainly entrenched himself in the SA side long before any of those guys had entrenched themselves in their respective sides. The era between Boucher debuting and the rise of those batsman/keepers, say 1997-2005ish, basically covers the era where it was fine to average 30-odd.

Was he lucky? Well, yes - in that he debuted at just the right time for his skillset to still be acceptable and to have made himself part of the furniture by the time a 35+ average started to become the new normal.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is basically a case of three friends( Smith, Boucher, de Villiers) ensuring they do whatever is best for each other as long as they possibly can. Boucher kept wickets and gave de Villiers the backing back when he was young between 2005-08 and then de Villiers being his cover to ensure no one takes away his spot including him, as he would keep wickets when Boucher would get injured and go back to specialist job once Boucher is back. All of this under Smith's leadership.

Ultimately by 2012, Boucher retired and de Villiers took the keeping job for two more years before Qdk burst into the scene.

I assume that's what Thami Tsolekile was whinging about. I still don't think he was ever good enough to be in the team over Boucher, who was just a better cricketer. But I could see why he would be annoyed thay he couldn't get a gig even when Boucher was out for whatever reason

 

[SeamUp]

Boucher was also just a valued team member by most of the successful players of the era and first picked by Bob Woolmer who knew a thing or two about spotting a talent.

Also got to remember he burst onto the scene scoring 100s for Border. Which made senior player Steve Palframan leave Border for Boland who had just gone to the 96 WC.

He also started his international career excellently with the bat. I thought he was a well above average WK personally. But his batting didn't seem to hit the heights as it could have although he seemed to play a lot of the backs to the wall or crucial innings in both formats. I'm thinking with his positivity scoring that 30 odd not out on that absolute Bunsen to get us over the line to win our first test series in India. Or being there to get us over the line in that 438 game. The ARs also didn't help his cause. He would come in at 9 some time and really whilst guys like Prior/Dhoni came along, the value of the wk was still there.

Plus there were many pretenders to push him for his position but the only 3 of any quality were Errol Stewart, Nic Pothas and Morne van Wyk. Personally, I don't believe any were better than him for the role particularly having to bat with the lower order and or score late order runs/hitting boundaries in limited overs cricket.

 

[reyrey]

But not really though, right? Boucher debuted well before any of those guys and he certainly entrenched himself in the SA side long before any of those guys had entrenched themselves in their respective sides. The era between Boucher debuting and the rise of those batsman/keepers, say 1997-2005ish, basically covers the era where it was fine to average 30-odd.

Was he lucky? Well, yes - in that he debuted at just the right time for his skillset to still be acceptable and to have made himself part of the furniture by the time a 35+ average started to become the new normal.

Some were saying the game (batting standards for keepers) changed from when Boucher was playing which isn't accurate. The game changed whilst Boucher was playing would be more accurate.

Similarly it might be more accurate me saying Prior, Dhoni etc were also his contemporaries, as were those averaging 30 and less in the early part of his career. Worth pointing out that 3 out 5 or whatever (haven't checked) of the highest averaging keepers ever playing were also his contemporaries. Gilly, Sanga and Flower, plus Stewart. Yeah he was very lucky

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Why wouldn't Gilchrist "get a pass" he was an excellent keeper and kept in 100% of the Tests he played

I agree Stewart is underrated but he played quite a lot as a specialist batsmen IIRC

Well we had the best keeper in the world and one of the best openers around so of course we made our good opener keep wicket to play Ramprakash who averaged the same as Russell. You know it makes sense.

As for Boucher he was a solid but unspectacular performer with gloves and bat but with him at 7 and Pollock at 8 you had a very solid lower order.

 

[howitzer]

Boucher was also just a valued team member by most of the successful players of the era and first picked by Bob Woolmer who knew a thing or two about spotting a talent.

Also got to remember he burst onto the scene scoring 100s for Border. Which made senior player Steve Palframan leave Border for Boland who had just gone to the 96 WC.

He also started his international career excellently with the bat. I thought he was a well above average WK personally. But his batting didn't seem to hit the heights as it could have although he seemed to play a lot of the backs to the wall or crucial innings in both formats. I'm thinking with his positivity scoring that 30 odd not out on that absolute Bunsen to get us over the line to win our first test series in India. Or being there to get us over the line in that 438 game. The ARs also didn't help his cause. He would come in at 9 some time and really whilst guys like Prior/Dhoni came along, the value of the wk was still there.

Plus there were many pretenders to push him for his position but the only 3 of any quality were Errol Stewart, Nic Pothas and Morne van Wyk. Personally, I don't believe any were better than him for the role particularly having to bat with the lower order and or score late order runs/hitting boundaries in limited overs cricket.

Would personally have taken Pothas over him from about the Millennium onwards myself.

 

[Molehill]

Perhaps better comparisons with Boucher are Healy and Russell. Both averaged 27 with the bat but were obviously far superior glovemen. Russell was generally in and out of the side (54 Tests in 10 years) because his batting was never quite good enough (and Stewart was available as an alternative), but Gilchrist was 28 before he forced Healy out. So it's not like the Aussies caught on straight away to the talent they had available to them (I'm not sure how Gilchrist was performing in FC Cricket up to that point, but he played an ODI 3 years before a Test).

It feels like Gilchrist's Test career was so much longer than 8 years, but he changed the format during that period. I don't think Boucher was that lucky, there was only really one alternative with not much difference. Boucher was largely performing to the expected level of a keeper.

 

[andruid]

I assume that's what Thami Tsolekile was whinging about. I still don't think he was ever good enough to be in the team over Boucher, who was just a better cricketer. But I could see why he would be annoyed thay he couldn't get a gig even when Boucher was out for whatever reason

I remember there being alot of chatter leading up to and England tour in the mid 2000s about Tsolekile being deliberately groomed to inherit Boucher's keeping glives and and then De Villiers got picked and Tsolekile vanished almost without a trace. It was odd.