He is my choice ahead of Gilchrist as well.Knott would be my chioce of keeper for an all time World XI
In this match you would have been shocked 6 times in the first innings and shocked 17 times in the second innings.For years I expected every catch and stumping to be taken and every throw to be handled smoothly. A bye was a shock.
Name.......... tests...... Ct... St..... Dismissals.... ave dismissals/Test
M Boucher.... 139...... 499... 22........ 521.................. 3.75
A Gilchrist...... 96...... 379... 37........ 416.................. 4.33
I Healy .........119....... 366... 29....... 395................... 3.32
R Marsh......... 96....... 343.. 12........ 355.................. 3.70
A Knott.......... 95....... 250... 19....... 269................... 2.83
Indeed.Dismissals/test isn't a very useful statistic, doesn't really say much other than how good the attack is.
You'd tend to concede more byes if you attack took 150 overs to take ten wickets than if they took 50 overs as well. In terms of currently available statistics I think you'd have to go by something like byes per 100 overs, but even that is very flawed for the reason you just gave. Short of someone keeping track of dropped catches and missed stumpings so we could work out percentages, wicket keeping in one area of the game we really have to just rely on our eye for.Indeed.
Byes per inning may be the best stat I can think of if you can rustle it up.
Even then if you have more crappy bowlers bowling to you like Mitchell Johnson on a bad day then you will probably have bad stats.
Nope.
Benchy makes not one but two posts in a thread about one of my features that doesn't involve a reference to my matrimonial history.Dismissals/test isn't a very useful statistic, doesn't really say much other than how good the attack is.
Actually I would say there are quite a few players that I don't consider nearly as good now as I did in the 70s.I remember watching Knott and he was a good keeper, but its amazing how the players I watched in the 70's and 80's have improved over time.
You are missing a word in your first sentence and I would like to know what you have to say.Actually I would say there are quite a few players that I don't consider nearly as good now as I in the 70s.
Keith Fletcher, Denis Amiss and Rod Marsh to name just three.
Even then it wouldn't be a proper stat as the "scorer" would have to use his own judgement on what counts as a chance.Short of someone keeping track of dropped catches and missed stumpings so we could work out percentages
Yeah, I'd still be willing to roll with it though, to some degree. It'd be flawed but it'd be worth something.Even then it wouldn't be a proper stat as the "scorer" would have to use his own judgement on what counts as a chance.