Who's the better keeper Healy or Gilchrist ?

[Krishna_j]

With so much hype on Gilly Six hitting prowess with the bat - would love someone to dissect who's the better keeper Gilly or Healy with the gloves if it came to behind the wickets?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think this might have been mentioned one or five hundred times before. Healy is the superior wicket-keeper.

 

[silentstriker]

Healy is better at wicket keeping, GIlchrist is still the better test player.

 

[Ikki]

Especially because of his batting: Gilchrist everytime.

 

[Krishna_j]

Since we can't keep count of dropped catches by either as a measure of keeping - how about looking at the byes conceded as a measure of superior keeping - assuming the bowling was as accurate on an average

 

[silentstriker]

Since we can't keep count of dropped catches by either as a measure of keeping - how about looking at the byes conceded as a measure of superior keeping - assuming the bowling was as accurate on an average

Overall, especially lately, GIlly hasn't had all that many spills. He's a very good glovesman. Not all time excellent, but more than sufficient and certainly better than most others (Jones, Dhoni, Sangakarra, etc).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Especially because of his batting: Gilchrist everytime.

I think the point is to disregard his batting and judge the two purely on wicket-keeping.

 

[silentstriker]

I think the point is to disregard his batting and judge the two purely on wicket-keeping.

Well then the answer is obvious and does not really merit a thread.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well then the answer is obvious and does not really merit a thread.

I agree, but it's what the OP is asking.

 

[Ikki]

I think the point is to disregard his batting and judge the two purely on wicket-keeping.

I rate Gilchrist highly, just as good if not better than Healy. With my first post I mean't to imply that and added the especially part for his batting only.

 

[Goughy]

Healy was obviously a good keeper. It goes without saying. However, Ive seen him make mistakes just like anyone does.

Gilchirsts batting overshadows his keeping, but his keeping is also good and he has done a great job to Warne.

Personally I think Gilchrist is a better keeper than he is usually given credit for.

However, there is no doubt that wicketkeeping is a hard job to disect and analyse.

I wouldnt want to give an answer but I think it is far closer than many would consider.

 

[adharcric]

Healy, rather obvious.

 

[Stumped]

i cant really say as i was too young too ever see healy play

 

[ripper868]

heals...though they both do say "bowleing shane" rather well.
gilchrist is a good not great keeper, but still the best kepper aus has at moment IMO, despite bill lawrys constant push for berry.

 

[andyc]

Healy was the better keeper.
Gilchrist is by far the better batsman.
Overall, Gilchrist is a more valuable player, at least in my opinion.

 

[JF.]

Healy

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Healy was obviously a good keeper. It goes without saying. However, Ive seen him make mistakes just like anyone does.

Gilchirsts batting overshadows his keeping, but his keeping is also good and he has done a great job to Warne.

Personally I think Gilchrist is a better keeper than he is usually given credit for.

However, there is no doubt that wicketkeeping is a hard job to disect and analyse.

I wouldnt want to give an answer but I think it is far closer than many would consider.

Agreed. Healy was probably a better keeper, but it's certainly not a huge gap or anything. Wicketkeeping is a skill where, at a certain level, the difference between one keeper and another is quite insignificant and can be very hard to judge. Gilchrist is really underrated as a keeper, as most keepers who bat well seem to be. There's a general assumption that a keeper who is a top class batsman must by necessity be a poor keeper, when that isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Slow Love™]

Healy was incredibly unlucky to be followed by a player like Gilchrist. He was very highly regarded during his career as a gloveman, and people really wondered how his successor would fare, keeping to Warne on a regular basis. He was considered more than handy with the bat, too, and had a great feel for what was required in any given situation, and he always kept things busy - it was felt he'd have a lasting legacy, but he got replaced by a guy who'll likely be far more remembered.

The real difference between them in terms of keeping isn't really one that stats would conclusively prove. Gilchrist is just a bit rougher around the edges - I think he's a bit weaker when it comes to stumping, but catches and takes he's very reliable, and might even have a greater reach just due to his height. Jumps pretty well, too. It's mainly a matter of aesthetics - like how someone might elevate a Mark Waugh, in spite of his low 40's average. Healy was smoother.

As a player though, Gilchrist's value, even if he's been going through a tough trot, is definitely higher. I gotta say, Healy seems to take it really well though.

 

[Ikki]

Agreed. Healy was probably a better keeper, but it's certainly not a huge gap or anything. Wicketkeeping is a skill where, at a certain level, the difference between one keeper and another is quite insignificant and can be very hard to judge. Gilchrist is really underrated as a keeper, as most keepers who bat well seem to be. There's a general assumption that a keeper who is a top class batsman must by necessity be a poor keeper, when that isn't necessarily the case.

It's like when you meet someone who is ridiculously good looking and is ALSO very smart and you compare them with someone who is just very smart. For some reason you automatically give the person who is just smart some preference in terms of just that character and lessen the other guy's trait just because it's too uncommon to have both.

I think some of the catches and dives Gilly made Healy couldn't dream of. I think they're certainly close like yourself.