Was Mark Boucher lucky to play almost 150 tests for a top team like South Africa?

[Dendarii]

I remember there being alot of chatter leading up to and England tour in the mid 2000s about Tsolekile being deliberately groomed to inherit Boucher's keeping glives and and then De Villiers got picked and Tsolekile vanished almost without a trace. It was odd.

Tsolikile was being considered as Boucher's successor but then Boucher got injured on the England tour and De Villiers was forced to step in because he was the backup keeper in the squad. De Villiers already being in the team meant that they had greater flexibility when it came to picking the team, so there were valid cricketing reasons for him keeping the gloves after that tour.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think Boucher was that lucky, there was only really one alternative with not much difference.

That's why he was lucky, because he played for a country without an alternative.

 

[reyrey]

Perhaps better comparisons with Boucher are Healy and Russell. Both averaged 27 with the bat but were obviously far superior glovemen. Russell was generally in and out of the side (54 Tests in 10 years) because his batting was never quite good enough (and Stewart was available as an alternative), but Gilchrist was 28 before he forced Healy out. So it's not like the Aussies caught on straight away to the talent they had available to them (I'm not sure how Gilchrist was performing in FC Cricket up to that point, but he played an ODI 3 years before a Test).

It feels like Gilchrist's Test career was so much longer than 8 years, but he changed the format during that period. I don't think Boucher was that lucky, there was only really one alternative with not much difference. Boucher was largely performing to the expected level of a keeper.

From what I remember some wanted Gilly in the Test side, but they weren't making a huge amount of noise until later. Healys keeping was enough to keep him in the side until it wasn't. (This perspective isn't from an Aussie though)

Boucher and AB were lucky SA didn't try force Stewart/Russell situation on them

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Perhaps better comparisons with Boucher are Healy and Russell. Both averaged 27 with the bat but were obviously far superior glovemen.

Likewise Parore

 

[trundler]

Likewise Parore

And Rashid Latif

 

[TheJediBrah]

From what I remember some wanted Gilly in the Test side, but they weren't making a huge amount of noise until later. Healys keeping was good enough to keep him in the side until it wasn't. (This perspective isn't from an Aussie though)

Boucher and AB were lucky SA didn't try force Stewart/Russell situation on them

Gilchrist was a bit unlucky in that he missed a few years of what was his peak unable to get past Healy. In hindsight probably would have been a better option a bit earlier but Healy wasn't doing a bad job by any means

 

[Molehill]

Gilchrist was a bit unlucky in that he missed a few years of what was his peak unable to get past Healy. In hindsight probably would have been a better option a bit earlier but Healy wasn't doing a bad job by any means

Australia were that far ahead during that time that his position didn't really come under scrutiny. Maybe if you don't have a Top 6 scoring bundles of runs, or McGrath/Warne bailing them out if they don't, people would question whether Healy's input was enough.

 

[Flametree]

The Healy-Gilchrist situations shows why Boucher got such a long run. It's hard to drop a keeper. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You need a lot of evidence to suggest you're getting an upgrade in runs without losing too much behind the stumps. Pakistan chose Kamran Akmal who averaged about 2-3 runs per innings more than their previous keepers, but cost them multiple tests with his ineptitude with the gloves.

South Africa could have replaced him with de Villiers who was likely to score more runs than him, which would have freed up a spot for another batsman. Who would that have been, and would the (new batsman vs Boucher) gain be more than the (de Villiers' runs as keeper vs de Villiers' runs not as keeper) potential loss? Not all batsmen who take the gloves see their runs diminish - Flower didn't. But generally (Walcott, Stewart, Sangakkara) the evidence is that they will. And so if you're turning a great middle-order bat into a 40-average keeper so you can play say a mid-30s player like Petersen or Duminy in preference to Boucher, are you gaining anything?

Was going to say that Boucher always had Pollock behind him at 8 so that insulated him a bit, but just checked and in 2008-09 they beat Australia 2-1 with an 8-11 of Harris, Morkel, Steyn and Ntini.... and of course in the second test that lower order took them from 140-6 to 459...

 

[Molehill]

Was going to say that Boucher always had Pollock behind him at 8 so that insulated him a bit, but just checked and in 2008-09 they beat Australia 2-1 with an 8-11 of Harris, Morkel, Steyn and Ntini.... and of course in the second test that lower order took them from 140-6 to 459...

That's one crazy scorecard, JP and Steyn with career best knocks in the same innings. I'm guessing Brett Lee got injured which would certainly have helped.

 

[Coronis]

The Healy-Gilchrist situations shows why Boucher got such a long run. It's hard to drop a keeper. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You need a lot of evidence to suggest you're getting an upgrade in runs without losing too much behind the stumps. Pakistan chose Kamran Akmal who averaged about 2-3 runs per innings more than their previous keepers, but cost them multiple tests with his ineptitude with the gloves.

South Africa could have replaced him with de Villiers who was likely to score more runs than him, which would have freed up a spot for another batsman. Who would that have been, and would the (new batsman vs Boucher) gain be more than the (de Villiers' runs as keeper vs de Villiers' runs not as keeper) potential loss? Not all batsmen who take the gloves see their runs diminish - Flower didn't. But generally (Walcott, Stewart, Sangakkara) the evidence is that they will. And so if you're turning a great middle-order bat into a 40-average keeper so you can play say a mid-30s player like Petersen or Duminy in preference to Boucher, are you gaining anything?

Was going to say that Boucher always had Pollock behind him at 8 so that insulated him a bit, but just checked and in 2008-09 they beat Australia 2-1 with an 8-11 of Harris, Morkel, Steyn and Ntini.... and of course in the second test that lower order took them from 140-6 to 459...

Stewart is valid but tbf with Sanga and Walcott, both kept earlier in their careers and then became great batsmen - possibly due to giving up the gloves, possibly due to simply becoming better batsmen. Of course its not directly comparable across formats, but Sanga kept keeping in ODIs when he dropped the gloves in tests, and his record similarly improved in ODIs alongside his test record.

Bairstow’s record indicates keeping hasn’t impacted his batting. As did Wade’s. Then again you have McCullum. Then you have AB.

 

[Molehill]

Stewart is valid but tbf with Sanga and Walcott, both kept earlier in their careers and then became great batsmen - possibly due to giving up the gloves, possibly due to simply becoming better batsmen. Of course its not directly comparable across formats, but Sanga kept keeping in ODIs when he dropped the gloves in tests, and his record similarly improved in ODIs alongside his test record.

Bairstow’s record indicates keeping hasn’t impacted his batting. As did Wade’s. Then again you have McCullum. Then you have AB.

Jamie Smith may end up being an interesting example. I wonder if we'll ever know what his batting would be like without keeping, outside of County level.