Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[vcs]

Fair enough, I don't know much about Australian FC cricket (as you can probably tell by now).

 

[trundler]

A keeper who can't bat is obviously worth less than one who can but I'd rather have great keeper + passable bat over great bat + meh keeper.

 

[Prince EWS]

A keeper who can't bat is obviously worth less than one who can but I'd rather have great keeper + passable bat over great bat + meh keeper.

It really depends on what your definitions of "great", "passable" and "meh" are, but gut instinct is to disagree, at least without knowing the balance of the rest of the side.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Good keeper/meh batsman > Meh keeper/good batsman but
Great batsman/good keeper> Good batsman /great keeper

That was a pretty confusing way to say that keeping quality eventually has diminishing returns but batting quality doesn't, atleast not to the same extent.

 

[cnerd123]

There is a basic minimum standard of wicketkeeping you want from a professional wicketkeeper batsman, and while I get the shift from pure keeper to keeper-batsman, I feel it's gone too far in the opposite direction, to where any batsman who has kept wicket to some degree gets entrusted with the role and is given space to learn on the job.

I think this is why we have several keeper/batsmen around the world who now play as pure batsmen, and we generally accepted a few blunders from new keepers as long as they churn out the runs.

I'm sure they've all done the math and have determined that this wins more games than picking a good keeper and teaching them to bat, I just don't like it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Both of these are bad examples but I agree. If every professional team in world cricket is turning away from the specialist keeper for good you'd think people would take the hint that they're not especially valuable at the top level.

It's also easy to magically assign wicketkeeping points through confirmation bias. This is a problem with fielding analysis in general.

The first part questions why the Aussies are sticking with Paine. The second part explains why.

 

[Red]

Pant was pretty sloppy with the gloves which didnt cost India this series but may well in the future.

 

[CricAddict]

Good keeper/meh batsman > Meh keeper/good batsman but
Great batsman/good keeper> Good keeper/great batsman.

That was a pretty confusing way to say that keeping quality eventually has diminishing returns but batting quality doesn't, atleast not to the same extent.

The symbol there should be "=" not ">".

 

[CricAddict]

Pant was pretty sloppy with the gloves which didnt cost India this series but may well in the future.

Confident that his glovework will improve. But, as long as he scores significant runs compensating for the loss due to sloppy keeping, it should be ok. Not like a Parthiv who was both sloppy and also can't score more than 60.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah Nevill would never have been picked if he was averaging 25 with the bat at Shield level.

TBH I thought he was a bit unlucky at Tests, only ever seemed to come in at 5/50 or 5/500, very few neutral situations where he could make a significant influence. Still hard to argue with his record though and his batting has gone south since being dropped from the team.

Bats like Paine. Can occupy for a long period but doesn’t have enough gears for test match batting.

 

[Burgey]

There is a basic minimum standard of wicketkeeping you want from a professional wicketkeeper batsman, and while I get the shift from pure keeper to keeper-batsman, I feel it's gone too far in the opposite direction, to where any batsman who has kept wicket to some degree gets entrusted with the role and is given space to learn on the job.

I think this is why we have several keeper/batsmen around the world who now play as pure batsmen, and we generally accepted a few blunders from new keepers as long as they churn out the runs.

I'm sure they've all done the math* and have determined that this wins more games than picking a good keeper and teaching them to bat, I just don't like it.

*maths

For the love of dog.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Great batsman/good keeper> Good keeper/great batsman.

I'm guessing this is a typo

 

[morgieb]

Bats like Paine. Can occupy for a long period but doesn’t have enough gears for test match batting.

Yeah given that Gilchrist and Haddin were our keepers for so long that's a problem, it means that the 7 has to be an attacker.

Trouble is I don't know which keepers in Shield cricket can actually strike hard.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah given that Gilchrist and Haddin were our keepers for so long that's a problem, it means that the 7 has to be an attacker.

Trouble is I don't know which keepers in Shield cricket can actually strike hard.

Philippe imo

just needs to learn to keep properly

 

[Burgey]

****, did you see that drop of his the other night? Even by BBL standards it was appalling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you reckon it's harder to turn a great keeper into a very good batsman, or a very good batsman who can't keep into a very good keeper

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

So Pants the real deal?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Confident that his glovework will improve. But, as long as he scores significant runs compensating for the loss due to sloppy keeping, it should be ok. Not like a Parthiv who was both sloppy and also can't score more than 60.

In fairness Bairstow and Prior while being better than Pant is now at the start of their international careers were rubbish but had many years experience on Pant. They improved and I am sure Pant will too because he has to, simple as. Either play him as a bat or stick with him, personally I'd stick with him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In fairness Bairstow and Prior while being better than Pant is now at the start of their international careers were rubbish but had many years experience on Pant. They improved and I am sure Pant will too because he has to, simple as. Either play him as a bat or stick with him, personally I'd stick with him.

I'd hope that Pant becomes a much more competent keeper than either of those 2

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Do you reckon it's harder to turn a great keeper into a very good batsman, or a very good batsman who can't keep into a very good keeper

I think most sides settle for better bat who becomes a good keeper. See Prior and Bairstow.