Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Dan]

And, strangely enough, both Sangakkara and Gilchrist were excellent glovemen too -- although obviously Sangakkara didn't do it for half of his career because he was worth more to the team winning games as a specialist bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

why do people keep assuming old keepers or keepers with **** batting averages are better with the gloves?

Yeah this. To pick on one example, the gap between yer Healy and yer Gilchrist with the gloves really wasn't really that much. Healy had solid competition for the 'keeper spot within his own country even and many, in fact, rated blokes like Zoehrer higher (Bobby Simpson was a much bigger fan of Heals). Just because he was a specialist 'keeper doesn't make him a far better 'keeper than those who had the added component of being able to bat well.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah this. To pick on one example, the gap between yer Healy and yer Gilchrist with the gloves really wasn't really that much. Healy had solid competition for the 'keeper spot within his own country even and many, in fact, rated blokes like Zoehrer higher (Bobby Simpson was a much bigger fan of Heals). Just because he was a specialist 'keeper doesn't make him a far better 'keeper than those who had the added component of being able to bat well.

It's like people think that cricket is an RPG. When a player starts his career he has to assign a skill points to different things, and everyone has the same amount of total skill points, if you put fewer points into batting it must be because you put more into keeping.

 

[Burner]

Everything is an RPG if you think about it

 

[watson]

The following article was written by Mike Brearley in 1986. It's interesting to speculate whether he has changed his opinion after watching the careers of Gilchrist and Sangakkara.

Alan Knott - a thorough genius

Alan Knott was a great cricketer. In my view he was also the best wicket-keeper of his time. He had a good physique for the job - short, low-to-the-ground, agile and quick (through he himself foresees a new breed of tall 'keepers by analogy with tall goalkeepers, and maintains that he had to stretch so much because he was not particularly supple, especially in the hips). He had marvellous hands. Physically he kept himself extremely fit, and was an assiduous practiser. His technique was not classical; he took catches with one hand when he might have got two to the ball, and he sometimes dived when he could have reached the ball without falling. He had a sound reason for both - simply that for him these methods were more natural and more effective. His judgement about what to go for was unerring. As a first slip I always seemed to know when Alan would go for a catch in front of me, and I was never baulked by him or distracted by any tentativeness on his part. Standing up, he took the low ball without bending his knees and with his legs together. This gave him the right amount of give, against his legs. Moreover, if he missed it with his hands, the ball would not go for byes, and if the edge beat the gloves, there was no knee or elbow sticking out to obscure first slip's view, or to deflect the ball.

....As I say, he would have been in my book a more or less automatic selection for any team on the strength of his 'keeping alone. When his batting was put in the scales, all doubt fell away. For he was also a genius - a minor genius - with the bat. Here too, he was no purist for the sake of orthodoxy. Against fast bowling he realised that he had a better chance of playing a lifting delivery if he changed his grip so as to have his top hand behind the handle; this enables the batsman to hold his hands in front of his face and keep the bat straight. He evolved a kind of French cricket technique for use when he first went in against the quickest bowlers; but soon took every opportunity to attack, clipping the ball square on either side of the wicket and cutting deftly, often, intentionally, over the slips' heads. He reckons that if he were starting his career now he would learn to hook fast bowling, and cites the hours of practice Viv Richards went through, after a disastrous tour of Australia, with Andy Roberts bowling bouncers at him in Antigua.

Against fast bowlers, Knott's grip, stance and technique were totally different from those he adopted against medium-pacers and especially against spinners. He might start an innings in an orthodox vein but quickly ventured into the unusual. He played a sort of off-glide to good effect, particularly against off-spinners. His sweeping was unique; on a drying pitch at Canterbury, he once played fifteen consecutive balls from Edmonds and Emburey with this shot and never missed or mis-hit one. His secret was to get low, watch the ball, and not try to hit it too hard. But many of us could follow all those instructions and still make a hash of it! I remember an innings against India at Bangalore in 1977. The pitch had deteriorated to the point where good spinners were almost unplayable. Yet the flea kept dancing down the pitch to Bedi and Prasanna and chipping them over mid-wicket or extra-cover. The cheek and verve of this innings (he finished with 81 not out) were unmatched in my experience.

Mike Brearley 1986

Wisden - Alan Knott - a thorough genius

 

[Jono]

why do people keep assuming old keepers or keepers with **** batting averages are better with the gloves?

Haha, if it isn't the worst fallacy in cricket, it is right up there. I hate it so much.

 

[OverratedSanity]

why do people keep assuming old keepers or keepers with **** batting averages are better with the gloves?

Haha yeah. I mean sometimes it may be true, but the way older keepers are glorified well beyond current/modern ones is insane.

 

[Coronis]

My favourite thing here is that aussie is willing to ignore Knott's performance at any position other than 7, and yet is willing to attack Gilchrist for an end of career slump, where he still averaged around Knott's career average.

 

[aussie]

This is pure revisionism, it simply is not true. Sure, we've seen a fair share of batsman-keepers in recent years, no doubt about it. But there's been no shortage of excellent glovemen at the international level since 2000.

Jayawardene was brilliant with the gloves, pre-injury Baz was spectacular. Watling, though I wasn't convinced by him at first, is very sound technically and deserves the OPWB (if not WPWB) label. Peter Nevill is a star behind the sticks. Parore was a **** but could catch. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Mark Boucher or Tatenda Taibu, and Saha is very good with the gloves too.

So we've had cricketing revisionism, the keeper-batsman false dichotomy, and the played-on-too-long-so-destroyed-his-legacy fallacy. It's like CW is back in 2009.

Yes no doubt Boucher, Parore, Latif, Kalu, Taibu should be mention, i just stated the the first 4 names of former excellent glovesmen that came to mind when initially making the post.

Generally I agree with this, I wasn't ever suggesting that top-class glovesmen ceased to exit - just was saying I think James Foster was the best since 2000 & i rate him a notch ahead of guys like P Jayawardene and others you stated who played regular international cricket.

Probably need to see Nevill keep more post Ashes to be sure of his glove-work standard.

 

[aussie]

My favourite thing here is that aussie is willing to ignore Knott's performance at any position other than 7, and yet is willing to attack Gilchrist for an end of career slump, where he still averaged around Knott's career average.

At the risk of going around in circles, if some of CW seem to miss the point that's fine - however I'm glad someone writing for ESPN CRICINFO basically is repeating what I'm saying:

The magnificent seven | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

"Alan Knott was probably the greatest seven of the 20th century, averaging 41 in 81 innings (compared with 23.73 in 68 innings elsewhere in the batting order; batting at seven was evidently for Knott what having '80s rock-star hair was to Old Testament celebrity strongman Samson). From 1968 to 1977, the years in which Knott was a regular seven, his average (41.55) was 55% better than all other Test sevens combined (26.73).""]"Alan Knott was probably the greatest seven of the 20th century, averaging 41 in 81 innings (compared with 23.73 in 68 innings elsewhere in the batting order; batting at seven was evidently for Knott what having '80s rock-star hair was to Old Testament celebrity strongman Samson). From 1968 to 1977, the years in which Knott was a regular seven, his average (41.55) was 55% better than all other Test sevens combined (26.73)."

But even if I want to go by your suggestion Knott still wins, because Gilchrist average 30 at the back end of his career struggling against the two best attacks he faced in Ashes 05 & S Africa home/away 05/06.

While Knott average of 32 in all his positions was done while scoring notable runs against some the best pace/spin attacks in tests history - while he was among the A list elite glovesmen in cricket history - Gilly was not in this category.

 

[Grumpy]

How's it going, War? Surprised to see you here. Thought you weren't a fan of CW.

 

[aussie]

Sorry, but Laxman falls exactly into this category. His averages at 3 takes away from his over all averages. As it does for Knott or Ponting.

Well obviously based on simple math, him averaging slightly less @ 3 than 5/6 would reduce his overall average. But reality is at his best, VVS was equally competent at 3 than at 5/6.

I'm sure you are aware no player in test history was at the peak from test 1 until retirement my friend, every quality player in the games history had his peak moment whether as a batsman in a specific or versatility across a few positions or a bowler when used a certain in a targeted role i.e new ball/first change bowlers for quicks or attacking/defensive bowler for spinners.

A career average is just a guide, not a 100% clear definition of how good a player is/was.

 

[aussie]

How's it going, War? Surprised to see you here. Thought you weren't a fan of CW.

Generally I'm not for historical reasons, just passing through for here for a bit to get some none PC feedback on a few issues.

 

[cnerd123]

Did aussie just quote Andy Zaltzman? Really?

 

[cnerd123]

At the risk of going around in circles, if some of CW seem to miss the point that's fine - however I'm glad someone writing for ESPN CRICINFO basically is repeating what I'm saying:

Yea, a noted comedian famous for writing satire articles and twisting statistics around to prove absurd theories. Congratulations. Good job.

 

[Grumpy]

Generally I'm not for historical reasons, just passing through for here for a bit to get some none PC feedback on a few issues.

I see. Fair enough. Always fascinating to read your insights. I'm surprised you get any feedback nowadays on PC. Last I checked, cricket discussion seemed dead over there.

 

[aussie]

Yea, a noted comedian famous for writing satire articles and twisting statistics around to prove absurd theories. Congratulations. Good job.

Except the cricket monthy doesn't do satire articles, editor of chief Sambit Bal specifically commissioned that part of CRICINFO for well researched pieces by the sites writers and for once Zaltman did such a article.

His partner Jarod Kimber is also a bit of comedian too, but that don't stop him for being the bravest journalist in recent cricket history by doing a mini Andrew Jennings on ICC with his Death of a Gentleman cricket film that everyone is praising.

 

[aussie]

I see. Fair enough. Always fascinating to read your insights. I'm surprised you get any feedback nowadays on PC. Last I checked, cricket discussion seemed dead over there.

It is in some area's yea ha.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Greatest keeper-batsman => Gilchrist
Greatest Batsman who sometimes/previously played as a keeper => Sangakara

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Did aussie just quote Andy Zaltzman? Really?

Plus he quoted Andy Zaltzman without the hair. Grave mistake.