Gilcirhist or healy

[andmark]

Who was a better wicketkeeper Adam gilcrihist or Ian healy

 

[andyc]

Better wicketkeeper- Healy
Better batsman- Gilchrist
Better for the team- Gilchrist

 

[Pratters]

Better wicketkeeper- Healy
Better batsman- Gilchrist
Better for the team- Gilchrist

He really only asked who the better keeper was. Why go on answering a million other questions not asked?

 

[Perm]

Purely in terms of wicket keeping it would be Ian Healy. But like andy said, in terms of overall importance to the team it definately has to be Adam Gilchrist.

 

[SJS]

Healy for tests and Gilchrist for ODI's

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gilchrist for me. The difference between keeping ability is negligable when compared to the huge gap in batting ability. If Gilchrist kept like Dhoni I'd think twice about it, but he's good enough.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I always find it a bit irksome people talk down Gilchrist's keeping so much. It's almost as if that because he's a world-class batter he can't also be an exceptionally decent keeper too.

 

[Turbinator]

He really only asked who the better keeper was. Why go on answering a million other questions not asked?

He only answered 2 other.

 

[Jono]

I always find it a bit irksome people talk down Gilchrist's keeping so much. It's almost as if that because he's a world-class batter he can't also be an exceptionally decent keeper too.

Its one of the things that **** me on this board. People don't even point out Gilly's flaws either, they just say "he's only a mediocre keeper" with minimal to no evidence. As you said, its like he's automatically not a good keeper because he's such a good batsman.

 

[Xuhaib]

Healy the best pure keeper ever but his batting was sooooo ugly.

 

[Jono]

He had one of the ugliest stances ever. Would have put the bowler off I reckon.

 

[SJS]

I always find it a bit irksome people talk down Gilchrist's keeping so much. It's almost as if that because he's a world-class batter he can't also be an exceptionally decent keeper too.

You know BB, one can be an 'exceptionally decent' keeper and still be a bit less than Healy.

There is no shame in not being as good as Healy who was one of the finest keepers of the modern era.

Gilchrist is not a great keeper but he is very good and in fact one has seen those who have played as pure keepers who havent been as good as him behind the stumps.

 

[Jono]

You know BB, one can be an 'exceptionally decent' keeper and still be a bit less than Healy.

There is no shame in not being as good as Healy who was one of the finest keepers of the modern era.

Gilchrist is not a great keeper but he is very good and in fact one has seen those who have played as pure keepers who havent been as good as him behind the stumps.

Agreed, but those that put down Gilly's keeping aren't just merely saying he's no Healy or Knott or Marsh. They're saying he's not very good with the gloves at all, which is false.

 

[Xuhaib]

Isn't it ironic that despite being such a class keeper Heals was the culprit in Aus two most famous defeats in the 90's.

Dropping lara at Bridgetown and missing Inzi's stumping at Karachi, both the games Aus lost by a single wicket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You know BB, one can be an 'exceptionally decent' keeper and still be a bit less than Healy.

There is no shame in not being as good as Healy who was one of the finest keepers of the modern era.

Gilchrist is not a great keeper but he is very good and in fact one has seen those who have played as pure keepers who havent been as good as him behind the stumps.

Oh, I do agree & I wasn't meaning this thread particularly. I was just observing a tendancy really. I just think some people don't give Gilly's keeping the credit its due. I personally think if he averaged (say) 30 he'd be hailed as a much better gloveman.

 

[SJS]

Agreed, but those that put down Gilly's keeping aren't just merely saying he's no Healy or Knott or Marsh. They're saying he's not very good with the gloves at all, which is false.

I think this may partly be BECAUSE he is such a fantastic batsman.

When he has a bad day behind the stumps, which can heppen to anyone, or even a bad couple of matches, he is never in danger of losing his place in the side. This is seen by detractors as, "being tolerated because of his batting". This isnt really true but it does happen to all all rounders.

Even a bowling all rounder, when he has a bad day or a bad match or even a bad series with , say the ball, he may continue playing because he is an all rounder and his batting sees him through while it is expected he will get back into the wickets too.

Unfortunately, this consideration isnt shown to keeping all rounders with keeping being consider a REAL specialist job, perhaps because there is just one keeper in the team.

I think Brumby is right about people not expecting a fantastic batsman to somehow not likely to be an equally good keeper.

I have read so many times that although Ames was by far one of the finest keepers in the world, his rarest error was blown up because somehow people couldnt accept that one of England's best batsmen could also be, by far, her best keeper.

 

[JF.]

Healy - simple.

It's also worth remembering that until Gilchrist came along, a batting average of 25+ was considered very good from a keeper. Gilly has changed the way we think about keeping.

I just hope that when Gilly retires, we don't go down the England road. We should always select a guy on keeping ability first, batting second. Gilly is the exception to the rule.

 

[Anil]

better keeper - healy by a mile

 

[SJS]

Healy - simple.

It's also worth remembering that until Gilchrist came along, a batting average of 25+ was considered very good from a keeper. Gilly has changed the way we think about keeping.

I just hope that when Gilly retires, we don't go down the England road. We should always select a guy on keeping ability first, batting second. Gilly is the exception to the rule.

Thats an interesting theory.

You think England changed their policy from selecting the best wicket keeper to the best batsman who could keep since, say, Alec Stewart ? Or do you think its because of the pressures of one day cricket and a drop in the quality and availabilty of bowling all rounders ?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Healy was a better 'keeper obviously, but that wouldn't change the fact that I'd pick Gollum in my side given the opportunity, his batting cannot be ignored it's as simple as that.
Gollum is decent enough with the gloves, probably in the second division when compared with the great 'keepers of all time but hey, whadyagannado.