The 4th Greatest Wicket keeper Batsman?

[kyear2]

And I don't have evidence to term liability, on the contrary his keeping seems to be competent. Not taking Kumble's word, but that comparison definitely suggests competency, as does the fact that Zimbabwe didn't just field a specialist keeper until Taibu rolled by (who could had made his way as a batsman as well). So yeah, definitely not taking Healy ahead of him.

I've watched a couple extended clips of various guy's spells and he wasn't proficient behind the stumps. There was often references to dropped catches and I saw a couple.

He wasn't in any way comparable to Gilchrist as a keeper.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This might depend team to team though. A Zimbabwe would definitely opt over Flower for Healy because they need that batting that much. Prime Australia would prefer Healy taking every edge possible of Warne, McGrath and Gillespie rather than the extra batting help

Even me getting prime Australia, I would go with Flower.

 

[kyear2]

This might depend team to team though. A Zimbabwe would definitely opt over Flower for Healy because they need that batting that much. Prime Australia would prefer Healy taking every edge possible of Warne, McGrath and Gillespie rather than the extra batting help

Not might, if you want to play Flower, select him as a batsman.

He's not a good or test standard keeper.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I've watched a couple extended clips of various guy's spells and he wasn't proficient behind the stumps. There was often references to dropped catches and I saw a couple.

He wasn't in any way comparable to Gilchrist as a keeper.

He looked pretty alright to me. Not an exceptional keeper, but decent enough for the job.

 

[kyear2]

It's wild to me.

Everyone speaks to how important fast bowlers are, but fail to recognize that most wickets they take are catches behind the wicket.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's wild to me.

Everyone speaks to how important fast bowlers are, but fail to recognize that most wickets they take are catches behind the wicket.

Yes. And most doesn't require the keeper to dive 20 feets. Anyone with decent hands will grab 90% of those. Keeping to pacers isn't even that tough for the most part.

 

[kyear2]

Yes. And most doesn't require the keeper to dive 20 feets. Anyone with decent hands will grab 90% of those. Keeping to pacers isn't even that tough for the most part.

A few weeks ago we were discussing something about Sunny and I was reading through some match reports from '71. In at least two matches it was mentioned that India didn't win those matches due to dropped catches behind the stumps (think both were in the slips)

There seems to be a belief that these aspects of the game are abstract and have no real world consequences and literally win and lose matches.

The wicket keeper handles the ball more than any other player in any given match, to say that someone who's barely competent is a viable selection because of his batting is a little ridiculous.

 

[peterhrt]

You guys will know as much about these players as I do.

Personally I would class Sangakkara and Walcott as 3 + 1 because they did not keep wicket in most of their Tests. Agree they were better keepers to spin than Flower, Pant etc. Walcott took up keeping as insurance early on in case the runs dried up, never intending to do it forever. Once established as a batsman he gave up the gloves, claiming a sore back. Sanga said on commentary a couple of years ago that he hated keeping wicket in Tests and that a keeper must want the job.

De Kock is different in that he kept wicket in nearly all his Tests. Not sure whether he was a 2 or a 3 as a keeper. Seemed competent enough. And a better bat than his 38 average would suggest.

Waite was described by teammate Roy McLean as "good but not in the Evans class", suggesting he might be a 2 as wicket-keeper. Again a better batsman than his average, given the low-scoring era and often batting up the order.

There is a poster here who knows far more about wicket-keepers that I do and has seen them all since the war. He places Engineer in the first rank. All four of the leading Indian spinners of the 1970s told the selectors they wanted Kirmani behind the stumps rather that Engineer. That was towards the end of Engineer's career when he may have been past his best. Several Indian writers and ex-players (eg Ram Guha, Harsha Bhogle, Viswanath, Srikkanth) consider Kirmani to be India's best-ever wicket-keeper so he should be in the 1 category behind the stumps.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A few weeks ago we were discussing something about Sunny and I was reading through some match reports from '71. In at least two matches it was mentioned that India didn't win those matches due to dropped catches behind the stumps (think both were in the slips)

There seems to be a belief that these aspects of the game are abstract and have no real world consequences and literally win and lose matches.

The wicket keeper handles the ball more than any other player in any given match, to say that someone who's barely competent is a viable selection because of his batting is a little ridiculous.

Difference between being competent and ****. If your slippers and keeper are as bad as Pakistan in the 90s, I can see the reason. Above a certain degree of competency, most aren't dropping dolies.

 

[Coronis]

Yes. And most doesn't require the keeper to dive 20 feets. Anyone with decent hands will grab 90% of those. Keeping to pacers isn't even that tough for the most part.

I’m sure Salman Agha would rather you pick Flower too.

 

[kyear2]

You guys will know as much about these players as I do.

Personally I would class Sangakkara and Walcott as 3 + 1 because they did not keep wicket in most of their Tests. Agree they were better keepers to spin than Flower, Pant etc. Walcott took up keeping as insurance early on in case the runs dried up, never intending to do it forever. Once established as a batsman he gave up the gloves, claiming a sore back. Sanga said on commentary a couple of years ago that he hated keeping wicket in Tests and that a keeper must want the job.

De Kock is different in that he kept wicket in nearly all his Tests. Not sure whether he was a 2 or a 3 as a keeper. Seemed competent enough. And a better bat than his 38 average would suggest.

Waite was described by teammate Roy McLean as "good but not in the Evans class", suggesting he might be a 2 as wicket-keeper. Again a better batsman than his average, given the low-scoring era and often batting up the order.

There is a poster here who knows far more about wicket-keepers that I do and has seen them all since the war. He places Engineer in the first rank. All four of the leading Indian spinners of the 1970s told the selectors they wanted Kirmani behind the stumps rather that Engineer. That was towards the end of Engineer's career when he may have been past his best. Several Indian writers and ex-players (eg Ram Guha, Harsha Bhogle, Viswanath, Srikkanth) consider Kirmani to be India's best-ever wicket-keeper so he should be in the 1 category behind the stumps.

That's an interesting interpretation of events, lol.

 

[kyear2]

Difference between being competent and ****. If your slippers and keeper are as bad as Pakistan in the 90s, I can see the reason. Above a certain degree of competency, most aren't dropping dolies.

I was talking about India in the 70's, wasn't the only time I saw it either.

And it's not only about not dropping the easy ones, it's about grabbing the half chances and making chances out of nothing.

Think Flower takes close to the chances that Dujon snapped up?

Think Javed took some of the chances that Lloyd, Hooper or Waugh took? No.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was talking about India in the 70's, wasn't the only time I saw it either.

And it's not only about not dropping the easy ones, it's about grabbing the half chances and making chances out of nothing.

Think Flower takes close to the chances that Dujon snapped up?

Think Javed took some of the chances that Lloyd, Hooper or Waugh took? No.

No Flower didn't. But what he did was made up for more than what could had been snapped with the bat. I believe whatever Dujon took Flower would had taken 80% of that. And their batting difference more than makes up for 20%-30% of such chances dropped.

 

[kyear2]

No Flower didn't. But what he did was made up for more than what could had been snapped with the bat. I believe whatever Dujon took Flower would had taken 80% of that. And their batting difference more than makes up for 20%-30% of such chances dropped.

I don't know how you disregard the wicket-keeping art like you do. It's still a specialist position in some places.

And just a reminder that each drop is a chance missed, a wicket lost, well not lost, bit you get the point.

Would like to see a poll between Flower and Knott... @PlayerComparisons ?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't know how you disregard the wicket-keeping art like you do. It's still a specialist position in some places.

And just a reminder that each drop is a chance missed, a wicket lost, well not lost, bit you get the point.

Would like to see a poll between Flower and Knott... @PlayerComparisons ?

I don't think the era is still one where a slightly better keeper with a 30 avg will play ahead one with 35. It's just evolution. Do you think Healy would get a game for the current India?? Flower will. Each drop chance is a wicket miss, but an additional 20-25 runs an innings?? Sign me up. Flower wasn't just a good Batsman, he was a top echelon ATVG.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think the era is still one where a slightly better keeper with a 30 avg will play ahead one with 35. It's just evolution. Do you think Healy would get a game for the current India?? Flower will. Each drop chance is a wicket miss, but an additional 20-25 runs an innings?? Sign me up. Flower wasn't just a good Batsman, he was a top echelon ATVG.

Then that's ridiculous.

And re Flower, then bat him at 5 and get a real keeper.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Then that's ridiculous.

And re Flower, then bat him at 5 and get a real keeper.

Think of the case 1 as whether you will have Wridhiman Saha in your team, or Quinton de Kock. I think most will take QdK despite Saha being a much superior keeper.
Nope. Flower gonna keep. It's giving an additional Batsman. If my back up batsmen aren't ****, and are say, 40+ averaging, Healy isn't making the team.

 

[kyear2]

Think of the case 1 as whether you will have Wridhiman Saha in your team, or Quinton de Kock. I think most will take QdK despite Saha being a much superior keeper.
Nope. Flower gonna keep. It's giving an additional Batsman. If my back up batsmen aren't ****, and are say, 40+ averaging, Healy isn't making the team.

No, that's your opinion. You can't speak for everyone.

Many would still prefer the better keeper once he can hold a bat and contribute.

 

[sayon basak]

Couldn't find any footage from tests.

 

[Coronis]

Couldn't find any footage from tests.

You can find highlights of anything tbf

Pakistan’s best keeper