Who is your Wicket Keeper for the Post Packer Dream XI?

[kingkallis]

Boucher... still probably not the best glove man of the era.

Agreed! I said Gilly.....................................Boucher..Sangakkara!

So Gilly was the only choice!

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Parore by miles.

 

[haroon510]

For me it comes down to three wicket keepers

Gilchrist, Flower and Sangakara..

Gilchrit.. i really enjoyed watching this guy. i mean he could do wonders whether it was Test one day or even twenty 20. despite his averages of 46, at times he wouldn't be that reliable..

Sangakara.. The only problem with him is when he plays as a wicket keeper he doesn't bat well.. so i think despite his wonderful wicket keeping skills ( i still belive that he is the best wicket keeper right now) i much rather have him play as a batsman rather than wicket keeper batsman.. He is more reliable that way..

Andy Flower.. i voted for him because of his average and he is more reliable than both Sanakara and Gilly.. through out his career he was the only fighter and played amazing innings.. not to forget some of them against much better bowling line up.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I went Gilchrist purely because he fits the balance of the team better. There are better players to bat at three, four and five than Sangakkara and Flower; and I'd rather Gilchrist at seven.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist. Slighty the better batsman and comfortably the better keeper of the lot.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh so the record book should not be checked? My bad...

My point is - the OP has started the debate on the basis of BEST Wicketkeeper and not Wicketkeeper batsman!

Thats why I have not mentioned Flower in my TOP 3!

Sangakkara used to be just as good a WK as Boucher anyway. His job was a lot harder, standing up to Murali on turning tracks.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Gilchrist. Slighty the better batsman and comfortably the better keeper of the lot.

Highly debatable as to whether he was purely a better batsman than Andy Flower.

 

[Precambrian]

Gilchrist easily.

Probably followed by Sangakkara and then Boucher.

Gilly was lucky to be selected for test matches when he was peaking to his best, and enjoyed his first 4-5 years in that peak and averaged an amazing 56 from his first 46 matches. Thereupon the slow fade started and the next 4 years he averaged 37 from the remaining 43 matches (Note all minnows/ICCWorldXIjokematch excluded). Still an amazing player overall, and his keeping was first class for majority of the time.

 

[Ikki]

Highly debatable as to whether he was purely a better batsman than Andy Flower.

Why? Because he batted at 7?

Andy's record is boosted a lot by his annihilation of India and Adam's is dented considerably because of his failure against them. Andy played 9 games against then, Adam played 8. The averages look stunningly different when India is removed and the rest are looked at.

Gilchrist: 54
Flower: 45

So for every opponent bar India...those are the records. Removing minnows:

Gilchrist: 52
Flower: 43

----

Take what you want from it. For me, it's telling how that one team shifts the parameters. And when you look at Gilly's SR, it's ridiculously good.

 

[Anil]

Choose one Wicket Keeper from the list below for your Post Packer Era Dream XI. The poll will close after five days.

I've gone for Gilchrist, the most devastating no.7 in history. he would have been a strong contender for the middle order even if he were not the great stumper that he was.

do you mean the best wicket keeper or best wicket keeper batsman? for best wicket keeper, it would easily be healy in that list...

 

[subshakerz]

Why? Because he batted at 7?

Andy's record is boosted a lot by his annihilation of India and Adam's is dented considerably because of his failure against them. Andy played 9 games against then, Adam played 8. The averages look stunningly different when India is removed and the rest are looked at.

Gilchrist: 54
Flower: 45

So for every opponent bar India...those are the records. Removing minnows:

Gilchrist: 52
Flower: 43

----

Take what you want from it. For me, it's telling how that one team shifts the parameters. And when you look at Gilly's SR, it's ridiculously good.

Too bad Gilchrist failed against India then. The fact of who is a better batsman is arguable, but Gilchrist is still a far better keeper.

 

[bagapath]

do you mean the best wicket keeper or best wicket keeper batsman? for best wicket keeper, it would easily be healy in that list...

i think everyone decided to choose a wk-batsman because this is ultimately a team selection. so the value addition of a keeper who could bat well assumes importance.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why? Because he batted at 7?

Andy's record is boosted a lot by his annihilation of India and Adam's is dented considerably because of his failure against them. Andy played 9 games against then, Adam played 8. The averages look stunningly different when India is removed and the rest are looked at.

Gilchrist: 54
Flower: 45

Why doesn't India count though? Gilchrist failing against India and Flower succeeding against them are points in the affirmative for Flower. As I said, Gilchrist was comfortably the better keeper/batsman but Flower was the better bat.

You really do seem to be coming more and more biased lately, possibly just for the sake of it, so I'm not going to bother beyond this post.

 

[Ikki]

Too bad Gilchrist failed against India then. The fact of who is a better batsman is arguable, but Gilchrist is still a far better keeper.

I agree that it's arguable. I think Gilchrist was slightly better though.

Why doesn't India count rgoufg? Gilchrist failing against India and Flower succeeding against them are points in the affirmative for Flower. As I said, Gilchrist was comfortably the better keeper/batsman but Flower was the better bat.

You really do seem to be coming more and more biased lately, possibly just for the sake of it, so I'm not going to bother beyond this post.

It doesn't have anything to do with bias. If you are looking at their averages and wish to be statistical about it you must look at these kind of discrepancies.

Player A may average 30 against 9 teams and average 100 against the 10th team and take his average to 40.

Player B may average 44 against 9 teams and average 20 against the 10th team and bring his average to 39.

On the whole, it looks like Player A was more successful than Player B, but in reality it is Player B who had more success - if you measure success in that he had the consistency to score higher against a broader range of opponents.

Gilchrist v Flower is not as stark as that but it's certainly a big difference when because of one team a player rises/falls 5-8 points in his career average.

 

[Athlai]

Bit of bias coming into it, I honestly think if Gilchrist was from Zimbabwe and Flower Australia you'd rate Flower as a far better batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Bit of bias coming into it, I honestly think if Gilchrist was from Zimbabwe and Flower Australia you'd rate Flower as a far better batsman.

Definitely not. It would be Gilchrist regardless. For me, the only sure name after Bradman in an all-time XI is Gilchrist.

Of course, I am Australian and there is a natural bias there, but I take things like which I've explained here and give them heavier weightings. For me, as you may have been privy to such debates, SR is so important. That many runs and at that rate...unstoppable if you ask me. I remember there was a certain poll about the greatest batsmen of all-time and in the context of that thread I actually voted Gilchrist in the top 5. Apart from Sehwag, there is no one else you can compare him to.

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag > Gilchrist though.

 

[Athlai]

Richards > Gilchrist + Sehwag

 

[bagapath]

guys... this is about wicket keepers.

 

[Athlai]

guys... this is about wicket keepers.

Yeah batting shouldn't be important.