Andy Flower vs Alan Knott

[capt_Luffy]

That is weirdly cheap. That's normal cable, not something like IPTV? I pay a similar amount for IPTV, but I think cable is usually in the 50 dollar range in most countries I've lived in.

Nope that's for the cable. I pay around 800 for Internet and tv combined.

 

[Bolo.]

Nope that's for the cable. I pay around 800 for Internet and tv combined.

Noice.

I knew you get good deals on phone and internet, but am surprised by the cable prices.

For reference, Malawi is the poorest coumtry I have lived in. Something like 20% of the GDP per capita of India, and full cable costs around 7 times that amount.

 

[peterhrt]

Really beginning to see this as either a generational or regional / cultural divide.

This is exactly right.

England and South Africa generally picked their best wicket-keeper until the 1960s (when John Murray and Dennis Gamsy lost out to better batsmen). Australia held out longer until 1970. West Indies and Pakistan had been more sympathetic to the batsman-keeper than India, New Zealand or Ceylon. In 1972 Wisden stated that top wicket-keepers were born not made. For some time afterwards the MCC Coaching Manual counselled always to pick your best keeper as missed chances were unlikely to be compensated by extra runs.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, with more uniform pitches and less spin, the wheel had turned full circle. Duncan Fletcher and Nasser Hussain reckoned that with a bit of practice virtually anyone could become a Test wicket-keeper. They identified Marcus Trescothick, trying him out in five ODIs before abandoning the idea when he averaged 12 with the bat. Fletcher believed all international cricketers should be two-dimensional, contributing in more than one area. He predicted that late-order runs would decide most close series. Bob Willis countered that those series were more likely to be decided by dropped catches, fuming at the selection of Geraint Jones and later Matt Prior.

One can imagine what Willis would have made of Jamie Smith keeping wicket for England while reserve to Foakes at Surrey. Soon after Smith's costly dropped sitter in Multan last week, it was no surprise to hear Hussain change the subject to say how much better Smith was than Foakes at batting with the tail.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is exactly right.

England and South Africa generally picked their best wicket-keeper until the 1960s (when John Murray and Dennis Gamsy lost out to better batsmen). Australia held out longer until 1970. West Indies and Pakistan had been more sympathetic to the batsman-keeper than India, New Zealand or Ceylon. In 1972 Wisden stated that top wicket-keepers were born not made. For some time afterwards the MCC Coaching Manual counselled always to pick your best keeper as missed chances were unlikely to be compensated by extra runs.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, with more uniform pitches and less spin, the wheel had turned full circle. Duncan Fletcher and Nasser Hussain reckoned that with a bit of practice virtually anyone could become a Test wicket-keeper. They identified Marcus Trescothick, trying him out in five ODIs before abandoning the idea when he averaged 12 with the bat. Fletcher believed all international cricketers should be two-dimensional, contributing in more than one area. He predicted that late-order runs would decide most close series. Bob Willis countered that those series were more likely to be decided by dropped catches, fuming at the selection of Geraint Jones and later Matt Prior.

One can imagine what Willis would have made of Jamie Smith keeping wicket for England while reserve to Foakes at Surrey. Soon after Smith's costly dropped sitter in Multan last week, it was no surprise to hear Hussain change the subject and say how much better Smith was than Foakes at batting with the tail.

Will say though, I would also take Chris Read over Geraint Jones in almost all instances, not so much for Prior. As for Smith and Foakes, when Smith broke into the English team and scored 70 in his debut and a few other runs in his initial matches, the response was overbearingly positive, even here as well. I think if Smith plays a crucial knock in the next match win, most people will no longer be too mad at this drop. Like for instance, in the other India vs NZ match, Pant dropped a chance. But since he scored 99 in the 2nd innings, he hardly got it much hard. I think Smith really has to prove himself with the gloves, but think writing him off for one drop will be a little unfair.

 

[kyear2]

if this is correct, why do modern teams consistently pick the better bat vs the best pure wicket keeper. I assume they are not actively trying to lose

Wouldn't you choose Jurel over Pant?

 

[Thala_0710]

Wouldn't you choose Jurel over Pant?

If I could only have one in my team and he was forced to be the wkb, I would still have Pant.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If I could only have one in my team and he was forced to be the wkb, I would still have Pant.

Pretty much that. Jurel is in the competition for his batting anyways. I don't think a single of us souls would consider giving a game again to Srikar Bharat, though he was moderately good behind the stumps.

 

[kyear2]

Again filtering through polls as you like to prove your point..... Classic!! Saying it was done to prove you wrong is top meme material! Anyways, asking who should be in an ATXI attack and asking who the better cricketer are two very different things. Also, never said slip fielding didn't matter. I voted yes for the above poll. It just matters no way you made it to be. And you really have a habit of glorifying the fielding of a few and underrating that of others.

You're the one that started bringing out polls to prove a point we weren't even discussing.

But regards to said polls, you said I'm pushing a narrative when the forum goes the other direction, that's wrong.

Also wasn't only discussing who was better, you're were arguing that everyone would always select the one who can bring additional batting, the bowling attack poll and this one prices that isn't true. People still appreciate the fact that guys could / should be picked primarily on their primary skill.

It think having a great cordon matters just as much as having a capable no. 8 and possibly a tad more than having a more than capable 5th bowling option. Not making it out to be anything more than that. I think you greatly over rate the relevance of batting balance for your keeper (immensely so for this one), and your bowlers. You can't be picking your no. 10 and thinking about his batting, pick the best damn bowler at that point.

And to close this off, id you think the catching of Sachin and Kallis is even comparable, you don't understand the sport. Not about glorifying and underrating, they aren't remotely in the same league far less tier. Same way Root isn't.

 

[kyear2]

Because everyone is still searching for their own Gilchrist

Exactly, and no one has.

 

[kyear2]

Because the old model of wicketkeeper is outdated and skills have developed

Keeping skills have regressed.

 

[kyear2]

If I could only have one in my team and he was forced to be the wkb, I would still have Pant.

But you're not forced. Jurel is easily the better keeper, relieve Pant of the gloves.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You're the one that started bringing out polls to prove a point we weren't even discussing.

But regards to said polls, you said I'm pushing a narrative when the forum goes the other direction, that's wrong.

Also wasn't only discussing who was better, you're were arguing that everyone would always select the one who can bring additional batting, the bowling attack poll and this one prices that isn't true. People still appreciate the fact that guys could / should be picked primarily on their primary skill.

It think having a great cordon matters just as much as having a capable no. 8 and possibly a tad more than having a more than capable 5th bowling option. Not making it out to be anything more than that. I think you greatly over rate the relevance of batting balance for your keeper (immensely so for this one), and your bowlers. You can't be picking your no. 10 and thinking about his batting, pick the best damn bowler at that point.

And to close this off, id you think the catching of Sachin and Kallis is even comparable, you don't understand the sport. Not about glorifying and underrating, they aren't remotely in the same league far less tier. Same way Root isn't.

I brought in polls directly comparing the players. Not some "pick 3 bowlers for an ATG attack" type of ****.

Again, see the direct comparisons or overall player rankings. Were pretty unanimous overall. You can't ask a question, and take an answer to a different question.

Nope, never argued that. Don't put words in my mouth. I argued for overall output. If one player has that greater than another, then 'speciality' isn't cutting much.

I don't agree. Simply that. I don't think slip fielding can in anyways, shape or form below compared to lower order batting of a 30+ averaging bat. I think you stupendously overplay slip fielding, ignoring that most competent fielders takes most catches going there way, and bowlers are a very rare breed. Also re output, just think Flower will have much bigger one overall than Knott, even dropping some. It's not batting balance, just overall output. And for that matter, batting position isn't really the deal for me, but team strength is. Will take Pollock ahead of Cummins even to bat at 11, though I rate Cummins slightly ahead as a bowler.

To close to this off, if you really think Kallis gets a massive buff over Sachin due to catching, you are delusional. Ofcourse Kallis is a much better catcher, a tier ahead. But in practicality, that won't matter anyways near you dream of.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Exactly, and no one has.

Mohammad Rizwan. Quinton de Kock. Rishabh Pant.

Keeping skills have regressed.

Lol. Was expecting something similar. This officially kills this discussion on my behalf.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But you're not forced. Jurel is easily the better keeper, relieve Pant of the gloves.

Srikkar Bharat was an even better keeper. Don't see you asking us to pick him. In fact, we pretty much kicked him out and I can assure you, 99.94% of Indian fans rejoiced that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Srikkar Bharat was an even better keeper. Don't see you asking us to pick him. In fact, we pretty much kicked him out and I can assure you, 99.94% of Indian fans rejoiced that.

No he wasn't bharat was shite with the gloves and the bat

 

[capt_Luffy]

No he wasn't bharat was shite with the gloves and the bat

Seems like I remembered him much better due to his **** batting and KL replacing him. Now that's embarrassing. Who is India's best keeper now anyways?

 

[ma1978]

Keeping skills have regressed.

Because they aren’t that important

 

[Thala_0710]

But you're not forced. Jurel is easily the better keeper, relieve Pant of the gloves.

That could be done, especially with Rahul so out of form. But if there was a spot for only one I wouldn't do it, and that is probably the criteria for a wkb. Saha is one of the best keepers in this century, I would choose Pant over him too

 

[capt_Luffy]

That could be done, especially with Rahul so out of form. But if there was a spot for only one I wouldn't do it, and that is probably the criteria for a wkb. Saha is one of the best keepers in this century, I would choose Pant over him too

Rahul is certainly going to be benched, but it's quite tough to bench Sarfaraz now. Jurel can be argued for ahead of Gill, but don't want Virat to bat at 3. Regarding this argument, Jurel is almost making the team as a batsman alone, given an injury or something. Not the same as taking a specialist keeper like Saha.

 

[kyear2]

This is exactly right.

England and South Africa generally picked their best wicket-keeper until the 1960s (when John Murray and Dennis Gamsy lost out to better batsmen). Australia held out longer until 1970. West Indies and Pakistan had been more sympathetic to the batsman-keeper than India, New Zealand or Ceylon. In 1972 Wisden stated that top wicket-keepers were born not made. For some time afterwards the MCC Coaching Manual counselled always to pick your best keeper as missed chances were unlikely to be compensated by extra runs.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, with more uniform pitches and less spin, the wheel had turned full circle. Duncan Fletcher and Nasser Hussain reckoned that with a bit of practice virtually anyone could become a Test wicket-keeper. They identified Marcus Trescothick, trying him out in five ODIs before abandoning the idea when he averaged 12 with the bat. Fletcher believed all international cricketers should be two-dimensional, contributing in more than one area. He predicted that late-order runs would decide most close series. Bob Willis countered that those series were more likely to be decided by dropped catches, fuming at the selection of Geraint Jones and later Matt Prior.

One can imagine what Willis would have made of Jamie Smith keeping wicket for England while reserve to Foakes at Surrey. Soon after Smith's costly dropped sitter in Multan last week, it was no surprise to hear Hussain change the subject to say how much better Smith was than Foakes at batting with the tail.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your keeper to be able to handle a bat, and yes, everyone is looking for the next Gilly, but he was "one of one" for a reason, they aren't growing on trees.

But at the end of the day, at least let the keeper be capable, tidy and don't cost your team games.

How about instead of teaching a batsman to keep, you don't work on a keepers batting.