Wicketkeeping

[marc71178]

Yes, capable, but I don't think it will happen.

Why not?

 

[anzac]

During the period of 1997-2001, Adam Parore was an outstanding wicket keeper & he can thank Steve Rixon for that because he made him work very hard.

Infact I don't think I ever saw Parore make a mistake behind the stumps ever during that period of time, that includes stumping chances and making saves down the legside.

yes NZ were fortunate enough to have a couple of good sound 'keepers in Smith & Parore - IMO Parore never quite got the results he deserved, possibly because he was keen on proving himself as a batsman (he took a year off 'keeping to open for Auckland) & his work towards his 'keeping suffered until Rixon, and his off field issues.....

I think both started out when you got judged for your glove work alone, whereas these days your batting comes into it much more as a result of the amount of Limited Overs being played - hence Parore's problems later in his career......these days perhaps not enough time is spent on the fundamentals of keeping to ensure they have the right building blocks to work with while also addressing their batting.......

a further analogy is that the specialist 'keeper is becoming like the hooker's position in Rugby league, particularly when NZ select Vincent or Sinclair as cover for a touring squad!!!!!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

No, I've attempted to explain it - I don't think you need a 10-standard wicketkeeper if you've got an 8-standard one who is as brilliant with the bat as Stewart was.

And how this differs to an 8v6 situation is?

 

[Richard]

8 is better than 6.
8 is Test standard, 6 isn't.
You can't have the best batsman in The World keeping wicket if he's only 6 standard on that scale.
You can have someone of 8 standard.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ok, this scenario:

Batsman - Avg70 - WK skill 6
Batsman - Avg40 - WK skill 8
Batsman - Avg10 - WK skill 10

I can see a legit argument for each selection.

 

[Bazza]

Me too. Most would take an avg 40, 8. Some would argue Gilchrist is an average 55, 7 yet an average 25, 9 is also viable (this is probably the old fashioned specialist keeper).

Anyway, ignoring Gilchrist because everyone knows how good he is:

Stewart 82 145 15 4540 173 34.92 6 23
Boucher 70 95 12 2666 125 32.12 4 16
RJacobs 56 97 18 2201 118 27.86 2 13
Moin K 64 94 8 2553 137 29.68 4 14
Kumar S 26 42 3 1772 230 45.43 4 7
P Patel 13 20 6 382 62 27.29 0 1
T Taibu 12 24 1 482 83 20.95 0 2

I included Stewart because Read hasn't played enough really and he was considered the first wk allrounder. Those are the batting records of these guys as keepers. You can see Stewart stands out but his average was a full 12 points lower when he kept (showing that it's not always the best thing to give a batsman the gloves?). Sangakkara is easily the second best to Gilchrist from that, while Patel and Taibu will probably improve a bit as their record includes when they came into the side rather young (in Taibu's case a poor team also).

Keeping:

Name Matches Dismissals
Stewart 82 241
Boucher 70 269
R Jacobs 56 191
Moin K 67 144
Kumar S 26 86
P Patel 13 27
T Taibu 12 21
Gilchrist 51 214

Of course this isn't conclusive in terms of keeper ability, but it's interesting to see - Gilchrist, Sangakkara and Stewart offered more with the bat, while Gilchrist and Boucher have the best ratio (largely based on bowlers of course). Patel, Taibu and Moin have poor ratios.

Like I say inconclusive because there is no way to measure keeping practically and easily, but it is apparent that an average keeper would average just above or below 30 with the bat, so anything more than that is a real bonus (ie Gilchrist, Sangakkara) so long as they do not detract too much in keeping quality. Anyone who doesn't have this luxury must make do with someone who is good behind the stumps and averages 30 with the bat, although they are at a disadvantage. Having said that, Boucher has done a good job for South Africa (2nd in the world) and he will possibly be 3rd on the all time dismissals list by the end of the series (currently 8 behind Stewart). Gilchrist is at 9 on the list and Jacobs is 12th.

 

[Richard]

Ok, this scenario:

Batsman - Avg70 - WK skill 6
Batsman - Avg40 - WK skill 8
Batsman - Avg10 - WK skill 10

I can see a legit argument for each selection.

For me it's simple - you pick the 70-average player as a batsman (which only a totally insane selector wouldn't do anyway) and don't worry about making him keep wicket.
You then pick the player averaging 40 as your designated wicketkeeper.
I really don't see the point in picking someone who averages just 10 even if they don't drop a single catch or miss a single stumping. If you've got someone available who averages 40 and hardly ever drops sitters and occasionally drops slightly harder ones that's good enough for me.

 

[Arjun]

There are a few who mentioned Geraint Jones, since he is a better batsman. But is he good enough to make it to the team as a batsman, like Gilchrist or Stewart? Those 2 could make it to the team on batting alone and could do a very good job with the gloves (unlike Dravid, who was just not right for the job), so they made valid selections.

There is no point picking an unknown wicketkeeper because he can 'bat a bit', or average in the 40's. If he can replace a top-6 batsman in the higher team, he should be considered, but not otherwise and DEFINITELY NOT if he is not fit to don the gloves, like a certain Indian wicketkeeper who was instrumental in Carl Hooper's double century knock in Georgetown, Guyana.

Anyway, if you pick a rather young wicketkeeper who's very good with the gloves and decent with the bat, then it's not so bad either, since even 20-30 runs at the bottom of the order can change a match. It is necessary if you are playing 6 batsmen, like in the Indian team, but if you go in with a batsman less, you will need a better batting wicketkeeper. For weak fielding sides, the wicketkeeper HAS TO BE THE BEST behind the stumps, since they are not quick, or alert, or accurate on the field, so at least behind the stumps, they get some support, and it spreads to the whole team. Also, if he does not score too much, it does not matter if he saves a lot of runs, and even takes a few extra catches or stumpings. Of course, in my plans, the wicketkeeper bats at 8 or 9.

 

[Richard]

IMO Jones could be good enough to make the team purely as a batsman.

 

[luckyeddie]

IMO Jones could be good enough to make the team purely as a batsman.

It could be argued that because he is a gloveman, he has actually been left behind in the pecking-order for a place.

 

[marc71178]

IMO Jones could be good enough to make the team purely as a batsman.

Based on 2 thirds of a season when you've stated that players should string together 2 or more good seasons to get in...

 

[Richard]

Based on 2 thirds of a season when you've stated that players should string together 2 or more good seasons to get in...

Should, yes. In an ideal World.
In this case, suggest someone who there is even a remote suggestion could do an equal job.
Anyway, while selection would ideally be done on 2 seasons or more of consistent performance, my judgement can be made on a handful of games.
Once again, you're mincing words. I said "IMO Jones could be good enough to...etc. I never mentioned anything, in this post, about "he should be selected here and now".

 

[Richard]

It could be argued that because he is a gloveman, he has actually been left behind in the pecking-order for a place.

I have thought this once or twice.
I thought exactly the same about Stewart in 2002, before Foster broke his arm. When it became clear Foster would keep wicket (had he not been injured) Stewart should immidiately have been handed a recall as a batsman. Fortunately, in the end, fate forced the selectors' hands.

 

[marc71178]

Should, yes. In an ideal World.

Yet you said he should be in as a batsman only after 1 season when there's a hell of a lot players with better records than him over multiple seasons.

In this case, suggest someone who there is even a remote suggestion could do an equal job.

Erm, what's wrong with Read? He had a bad spell in Asia, but the conditions there are ones he won't see again for a fair while.

 

[Richard]

Like I say, I'll give Read a couple of Tests in West Indies. But his First-Class form last season was very poor by the standards he set in 2002.
And regarding Jones, this is getting beyond belief, I never said he should be in the team as a batsman based on 2\3s of a seaosn - I said that I made a judgement on that period that he could, possibly be good enough to make the team as a batsman. But I have NEVER said he should be in the team as a batsman now. Even Flintoff has a better case!

 

[Shane Warne]

This is something I would dispute - I don't think he'd be that good a player if he were just a batsman and were batting in the middle order since I feel his style of play comes from having the keeping to fall back on.

baffling comment