Andy Flower vs Alan Knott

[Thala_0710]

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.

With the current options, Jurel doesn't get in. I was merely stating that as a theoretical scenario that IND could think about doing it if our batting form goes downhill.

 

[peterhrt]

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

From Hussain's autobiography:

It may sound controversial for the purists, but I believe it is easier to turn a player with real cricket talent into a wicketkeeper competent enough to perform at the highest level - for instance Marcus Trescothick could be England's wicketkeeper if we really wanted him to be - than it is to turn a natural keeper into a Test batsman. That's why I rang Duncan Fletcher and David Graveney when I first set eyes on Geraint Jones when he played for Kent against Essex. I said to them, "I think I've spotted someone a bit special here." And that had nothing to do with his wicketkeeping skills, which were perfectly adequate, but everything to do with his batting.

Rod Marsh when England selector favoured Chris Read as keeper, but was overruled by Fletcher and captain Vaughan. Another reason Vaughan didn't want Read was because he was too quiet!

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Both Jamie Smith and Kyle Verynne have already surpassed Knott.

Both England and SA won’t replace them with someone like Knott.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

I

From Hussain's autobiography:

It may sound controversial for the purists, but I believe it is easier to turn a player with real cricket talent into a wicketkeeper competent enough to perform at the highest level - for instance Marcus Trescothick could be England's wicketkeeper if we really wanted him to be - than it is to turn a natural keeper into a Test batsman. That's why I rang Duncan Fletcher and David Graveney when I first set eyes on Geraint Jones when he played for Kent against Essex. I said to them, "I think I've spotted someone a bit special here." And that had nothing to do with his wicketkeeping skills, which were perfectly adequate, but everything to do with his batting.

Rod Marsh when England selector favoured Chris Read as keeper, but was overruled by Fletcher and captain Vaughan. Another reason Vaughan didn't want Read was because he was too quiet!

Its so simple.

Catching a ball with gloves on is a far far inferior skill to batting and bowling, people don’t use their brain at all and just want to side with the popular opinion created by pastry chefs in England, you don’t need a special person to keep wickets.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Both Jamie Smith and Kyle Verynne have already surpassed Knott.

Both England and SA won’t replace them with someone like Knott.

Alan Knott was basically the Ben Foakes of his era

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Alan Knott was basically the Ben Foakes of his era

To be honest, Knott might be a better keeper bcoz I saw Foakes in India and he gave more chances than Pant.
Still the difference would be miniscule.

 

[Coronis]

Did nobody else see Smith drop a sitter that basically gave Pakistan a win?

 

[Johan]

Did nobody else see Smith drop a sitter that basically gave Pakistan a win?

people have subjective perception of reality

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Did nobody else see Smith drop a sitter that basically gave Pakistan a win?

Which sitter was that and would England have won if he didn’t drop it?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Which sitter was that and would England have won if he didn’t drop it?

Jamie Smith Drop Easy Catch #PAKvENG #TestAtHome #SportsCentral #Shorts #PCB M3G1K

For Latest Updates Follow Us On Facebook & Instagram NOWhttps://www.facebook.com/Sports-Central-100403292093264/https://instagram.com/sportscentral_drmWelcom...

youtube.com

This one I believe. Tbf I am 90% confident England won't had won either way, but it looked pathetic and definitely costed the team.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Jamie Smith Drop Easy Catch #PAKvENG #TestAtHome #SportsCentral #Shorts #PCB M3G1K

For Latest Updates Follow Us On Facebook & Instagram NOWhttps://www.facebook.com/Sports-Central-100403292093264/https://instagram.com/sportscentral_drmWelcom...

youtube.com

This one I believe. Tbf I am 90% confident England won't had won either way, but it looked pathetic and definitely costed the team.

Yeah obviously they wouldn't have won.

But guess what, they will win this one because of Jamie.

 

[Coronis]

Which sitter was that and would England have won if he didn’t drop it?

Not for a certainty.

Pakistan at 122/5

Salman Agha on 4. Ends up putting on 59 more runs himself and due to that Pakistan have an extra 99 runs. England has a far more chaseable target, but Agha’s innings put it beyond doubt.

 

[kyear2]

Did nobody else see Smith drop a sitter that basically gave Pakistan a win?

And they're also countless examples through history, but they "have the ability to make up for it", so it's ok apparently.

For anyone who's watched Ian Healy keep wicket and think that anyone can do it, has a disconnect from reality.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah obviously they wouldn't have won.

But guess what, they will win this one because of Jamie.

A bit premature for that one, but even if....

That's how it works now? I'll lose this one but I'll try to win the next one?

 

[sayon basak]

Alan Knott was basically the Ben Foakes of his era

Why do you like to oversimplify things so much?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do you like to oversimplify things so much?

Replybait.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A bit premature for that one, but even if....

That's how it works now? I'll lose this one but I'll try to win the next one?

No.... It works that he may dropped a catch most likely wouldn't had changed the outcome in the previous match; but in the next one he scored enough to be the difference. Some catches will be dropped more, more such innings will come.

In other words, you would had wanted that catch to be taken (which was unlikely to change the results) and were fine to lose this one?

 

[CodeOfWisden]

A bit premature for that one, but even if....

That's how it works now? I'll lose this one but I'll try to win the next one?

No, it doesn't work like that because he didn't actually lose that match for Eng.

They lost by 152 runs not 50, so as I said a wicketkeeper losing the match for a team exclusively bcoz of poor keeping is quite rare.

If you are a decent keeper that's good enough, let's say if I have a keeper who would catch 90/100 catches but averages 30 odd with the bat , I will straightaway trade him with someone who averaged 40 and catches 80/100.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

No, it doesn't work like that because he didn't actually lose that match for Eng.

They lost by 152 runs not 50, so as I said a wicketkeeper losing the match for a team exclusively bcoz of poor keeping is quite rare.

If you are a decent keeper that's good enough, let's say if I have a keeper who would catch 90/100 catches but averages 30 odd with the bat , I will straightaway trade him with someone who averaged 40 and catches 80/100.

And to take those 90/100 catches you have to be a damn good keeper, probably one of the best ever. Even that won't be good enough to balance that 10 points difference plus the impact of those knocks.

 

[kyear2]

No, it doesn't work like that because he didn't actually lose that match for Eng.

They lost by 152 runs not 50, so as I said a wicketkeeper losing the match for a team exclusively bcoz of poor keeping is quite rare.

If you are a decent keeper that's good enough, let's say if I have a keeper who would catch 90/100 catches but averages 30 odd with the bat , I will straightaway trade him with someone who averaged 40 and catches 80/100.

That makes no sense, but carry on.