SA Footy

thought maybe the discussion could be moved to a new topic rather than clogging the game discussion

I wish people would get with the times, these days the keeper needs to be able to bat. Look at every other team and you will notice that their keepers bat.

Last series there was hate for Brendon McCullum not batting.

Squids wrote:I wish people would get with the times, these days the keeper needs to be able to bat. Look at every other team and you will notice that their keepers bat.

Last series there was hate for Brendon McCullum not batting.

Its very reflective of the way modern sport has gone. AFL been the same not to many blokes can hold there spot purely based on one skill, even ruckmen in the AFL are the same today, they cant just be tap specialists they have to be able to get the ball around the ground.

Also in defence of the batsmen keeper i personally thought the Gilchrist vs Boucher contests had alot to do with Australia being so dominant over the Saffies. While Boucher was a brilliant keeper and was handy with the bat we had a bloke who could hit a century batting at number 7 and generally did the basics well as a keeper, held the ones he should, dropped the tough ones etc etc.

We talk about contributions from the tail, when in reality, if the top six cannot be relied upon to score 300+, then why are you expecting your lesser players to score runs?

If the guy with the gloves is such a good batsman, then why is he at seven? If he is selected as a batsman (ala Tom Cooper in the t20 the other night), then shouldn't he be batting up the order?

He is not because he is an all-rounder of sorts. Not good enough to be a specialist batsman, he relies on his abilities behind the wicket.

If Adam Gilchrist was a specialist batsman, he would have batted probably at four, at the expense of Damien Martyn's Test career, and an all-rounder would have played, either a young Andrew Symonds, Ian Harvey, Andrew McDonald, etc...

He is the exception to the rule, because, how many of the following would play Test cricket as a specialist batsman:
Ian Healy, Brad Haddin, Reece Young, Dinesh Chandimal, Mark Boucher? The answer, none.

How many sides have been improved from the following players dropping the wicket keeping role in favour of batting up the order?
Kumar Sangakkara, Brendan McCullum, Neither!

In world cricket today, the only current wicket keeper from any nation that is a Test standard specialist batsman, and the guys that hate him may shoot me down, is Matt Prior.
He is the only wicket keeper in the world today that could justifiably play Test cricket as a specialist batsman, and he is England's best wicket keeper.
If, however, Prior is promoted up the order (lets' say KP is injured), and Steve Davies takes the gloves, the side is lessened.
Firstly, a lesser batsman at seven, and second, a lesser keeper in the team.

Adam Gilchrist changed the perception of the wicket keeper, which previously was to have an average nudging 30. We are slowly learning that he was such a freak. Reece Young is a very talented wicket keeper, with a bright future. Is he going to hammer out run a ball centuries every other innings? No. And we shouldn't expect him to.

When it comes to replacing the keeper, and Australia need to do this soon, you pick the best available keeper. If he can hold an end up, and achieve a job, great. If he can turn a game in a session, even better, but you do not pick a substandard wicket keeper because of their batting ability.

Personally id take the keeper every time.
Yes a keeper should be able to hold up an end but he is not there to make big runs.
Any runs a keeper makes should be an added bonus.
Warne would have had quite a few less wickets had he not had Healy early on.
A good gloveman is so important, Healy was one of the best. He could put pressure on by keeping up to the stumps to the mediums( even saw him do it to McGrath several times)
I would take someone like that with an average of 20 over a keeper/batsman who averages 40 but is poor with the gloves

Media Park wrote:We talk about contributions from the tail, when in reality, if the top six cannot be relied upon to score 300+, then why are you expecting your lesser players to score runs?

If the guy with the gloves is such a good batsman, then why is he at seven? If he is selected as a batsman (ala Tom Cooper in the t20 the other night), then shouldn't he be batting up the order?

He is not because he is an all-rounder of sorts. Not good enough to be a specialist batsman, he relies on his abilities behind the wicket.

If Adam Gilchrist was a specialist batsman, he would have batted probably at four, at the expense of Damien Martyn's Test career, and an all-rounder would have played, either a young Andrew Symonds, Ian Harvey, Andrew McDonald, etc...

He is the exception to the rule, because, how many of the following would play Test cricket as a specialist batsman:
Ian Healy, Brad Haddin, Reece Young, Dinesh Chandimal, Mark Boucher? The answer, none.

How many sides have been improved from the following players dropping the wicket keeping role in favour of batting up the order?
Kumar Sangakkara, Brendan McCullum, Neither!

In world cricket today, the only current wicket keeper from any nation that is a Test standard specialist batsman, and the guys that hate him may shoot me down, is Matt Prior.
He is the only wicket keeper in the world today that could justifiably play Test cricket as a specialist batsman, and he is England's best wicket keeper.
If, however, Prior is promoted up the order (lets' say KP is injured), and Steve Davies takes the gloves, the side is lessened.
Firstly, a lesser batsman at seven, and second, a lesser keeper in the team.

Adam Gilchrist changed the perception of the wicket keeper, which previously was to have an average nudging 30. We are slowly learning that he was such a freak. Reece Young is a very talented wicket keeper, with a bright future. Is he going to hammer out run a ball centuries every other innings? No. And we shouldn't expect him to.

When it comes to replacing the keeper, and Australia need to do this soon, you pick the best available keeper. If he can hold an end up, and achieve a job, great. If he can turn a game in a session, even better, but you do not pick a substandard wicket keeper because of their batting ability.

Spot on. Pick the best keeper

Media Park wrote:We talk about contributions from the tail, when in reality, if the top six cannot be relied upon to score 300+, then why are you expecting your lesser players to score runs?

If the guy with the gloves is such a good batsman, then why is he at seven? If he is selected as a batsman (ala Tom Cooper in the t20 the other night), then shouldn't he be batting up the order?

He is not because he is an all-rounder of sorts. Not good enough to be a specialist batsman, he relies on his abilities behind the wicket.

If Adam Gilchrist was a specialist batsman, he would have batted probably at four, at the expense of Damien Martyn's Test career, and an all-rounder would have played, either a young Andrew Symonds, Ian Harvey, Andrew McDonald, etc...

He is the exception to the rule, because, how many of the following would play Test cricket as a specialist batsman:
Ian Healy, Brad Haddin, Reece Young, Dinesh Chandimal, Mark Boucher? The answer, none.

How many sides have been improved from the following players dropping the wicket keeping role in favour of batting up the order?
Kumar Sangakkara, Brendan McCullum, Neither!

In world cricket today, the only current wicket keeper from any nation that is a Test standard specialist batsman, and the guys that hate him may shoot me down, is Matt Prior.
He is the only wicket keeper in the world today that could justifiably play Test cricket as a specialist batsman, and he is England's best wicket keeper.
If, however, Prior is promoted up the order (lets' say KP is injured), and Steve Davies takes the gloves, the side is lessened.
Firstly, a lesser batsman at seven, and second, a lesser keeper in the team.

Adam Gilchrist changed the perception of the wicket keeper, which previously was to have an average nudging 30. We are slowly learning that he was such a freak. Reece Young is a very talented wicket keeper, with a bright future. Is he going to hammer out run a ball centuries every other innings? No. And we shouldn't expect him to.

When it comes to replacing the keeper, and Australia need to do this soon, you pick the best available keeper. If he can hold an end up, and achieve a job, great. If he can turn a game in a session, even better, but you do not pick a substandard wicket keeper because of their batting ability.

Was going to bring Matt Prior up myself think he is a great call of how the keeper batsmen can dramatically help a side.

I keep hearing that if the top 6 couldnt do it then its not the keepers problem in football if the ruckmen doesnt win the tap do the midfielders underneath give up and not try and win the ball.

Cant agree with Sangakarra and McCullem both those sides are disadvantaged by the fact there batsmen keeper wont keep. NZ have got a bloke in who cant bat to save his life and once you get 5 wickets they might as well be all out, that adds alot of pressure to your number 5 and 6 them knowing whenever they get out their innining is almost gone.

Lets be honest as well, against the pacemen the only byes keepers let through are generally ones down leg, if your bowler bowls on a reasonable line byes are non issue to a side. Drop catches are an issue but you would never drop Ponting or Watson based purely on their slips fielding would you.

My gut feeling is in years to come we are going to look at the batsmen keeper in the same way we look at modern day fielders diving and sliding around in the field. If you can have a number 7 whether that be a bowling allrounder or a keeper batsmen you are at a massive advantage over the other team, if ther number 7 is just trying to hold an end up.

Interesting stats from the first test against India.

Brad Haddin let in a total of 0 byes and dropped 0 catches if i remember correctly

batting wise he hit 27 in a 72 run partnership which got AUS from a evenly poised 6-214 to a more comfortable 7-286

Now if that was a keeper who barely batted he could of done no more with the gloves than what Haddin did. Yet could he have had the ability to put on that kind of partnership remembering our first inning lead was only 50 runs. That 70 run partneship becomes pretty valauble.

ON THE FLIP SIDE!!!

The batsmen keeper in the 2nd test is not required to bat due to a great batting display and then drops the oppositon openener at the end of days play which could become very crucial.

So far this test series

1 ALL!

whufc wrote:Interesting stats from the first test against India.

Brad Haddin let in a total of 0 byes and dropped 0 catches if i remember correctly

batting wise he hit 27 in a 72 run partnership which got AUS from a evenly poised 6-214 to a more comfortable 7-286

Now if that was a keeper who barely batted he could of done no more with the gloves than what Haddin did. Yet could he have had the ability to put on that kind of partnership remembering our first inning lead was only 50 runs. That 70 run partneship becomes pretty valauble.

ON THE FLIP SIDE!!!

The batsmen keeper in the 2nd test is not required to bat due to a great batting display and then drops the oppositon openener at the end of days play which could become very crucial.

So far this test series

1 ALL!

Haddin dropped Sehwag when he was in his 30's for memory. Sehwag made 67.

Jim05 wrote:

whufc wrote:Interesting stats from the first test against India.

Brad Haddin let in a total of 0 byes and dropped 0 catches if i remember correctly

batting wise he hit 27 in a 72 run partnership which got AUS from a evenly poised 6-214 to a more comfortable 7-286

Now if that was a keeper who barely batted he could of done no more with the gloves than what Haddin did. Yet could he have had the ability to put on that kind of partnership remembering our first inning lead was only 50 runs. That 70 run partneship becomes pretty valauble.

ON THE FLIP SIDE!!!

The batsmen keeper in the 2nd test is not required to bat due to a great batting display and then drops the oppositon openener at the end of days play which could become very crucial.

So far this test series

1 ALL!

Haddin dropped Sehwag when he was in his 30's for memory. Sehwag made 67.

Yep you could be right i did miss some action when we were fielding. I would still say in this test Haddin would be slightly ahead. The Haddin/Siddle partnership was crucial and without that the Aussie would have struggled to post a decent first innings total due to the top 6 not doing their job.

Keepers set the agenda in the field. They are key to the defence of any total.
If your keeper is average and lets you down with a missed stumping, dropped catch or four byes that should've been stopped...the whole team deflates.

Dogwatcher wrote:Keepers set the agenda in the field. They are key to the defence of any total.
If your keeper is average and lets you down with a missed stumping, dropped catch or four byes that should've been stopped...the whole team deflates.

Can't recall which ABC radio commentator said this today but the Keeper is the drummer of the band. If he is flat then the whole team is flat. If the keeper is also captain then he should create the position of a 'bubble captain' who has the responsibility of lifting the other team members when at 4/600 because at 4/10 everyone is up and about.

South Africa right now is the prime example of a team with a real conundrum.

Mark Boucher averages low thirties with the bat, and I consider 30 a passmark for a keeper.
In recent times, he has struggled with the bat, but retains the mantle of the best "pure" keeper in that country.

Because of Smith, Amla, Kallis, DeVilliers (and any of Prince, Peterson, Rudolph), he is not under much pressure, because the 400-odd is generally up by the time he comes in.

Now if that team was often 5/50, we might focus on his batting. But if we only focus on his batting when the team struggles, then we are really devaluing the importance of the wicket keepers role.

Interesting thread this one.
Also seems teams these days compared to 20-30 years ago are expecting their 8-10 bowlers to better batsmen, and can afford only one bunny, because, obviously, everyone has to bat, but not vice versa. But you'd never pick a slightly lesser bowler just because he might average 30 instead of 15.
If we had a gun keeper who was a genuine no 10, would Australia consider batting Watson at 7 and expect him to bowl 20+ overs each innings as the first change bowler? Perhaps the only time that would occur would be if we had a gun leggie again a la Healy's keeping to Warne.

If Haddin continues to drop a catch every test then not only does he have to average what Gilly or at least Marsh and Healy does but the runs he cost his side with the drop. Gambhir could get a real sniff tomorrow. The worse you keep the better bat you have to be and right now Haddin sucks at both. I'd be Wading right in with the next cab off the rank before Hadds causes us any more Paine.

regards,

REB

The "best" keeper in the country may not even be playing Shield cricket. I say that because the pressure to have close to a 7th batsman in your side is as strong at state level as it is at International level. At every level the pure technical keeper is under pressure from the keeper-batsman. The keeper who can't bat is weeded out at each higher level.

I think any team is improved with a legitimate keeper-batsman over the specialist keeper. Australia went to another level when Gilly arrived. Yes, he was a freak but even if he only averaged 40 we were still a stronger team with that 7th batsman. That's not to diss Ian Healy who was a good batsman in his own right. I'd argue he was even a keeper-batsman of sorts and if he averaged under 20 with the bat he probably wouldn't have played as many games as he did. The fact was that he averaged close to the 30 bench mark which was good enough at the time but not good enough to save his spot which let's be honest he lost to Gilchrist eventually. There was a choice made by the selectors and Heals felt he could have gone on.

So, no, IMO there's no room in a test playing side for a really great keeper who can't bat. How you define "can't bat" is up for debate. I'd say he would have to average 30 or very close to it. If not, unless you think there your brilliant keeper will make up for his lack of runs with extraordinary keeping, then you take the keeper-batsman. You have to. You can't have a tail that starts at 7 just because you don't demand that your keeper and your bowlers can hold a decent bat.

I say all this independently of the Haddin debate - it is not a post for or against Haddin. It is just about the philosophy of the keeper-batsman v the keeper.

Just on the Healy comparisons, don't forget the bowling that he had to face and also the different era he played in. Haddin or any other modern day player hasn't come up against attacks featuring guys like Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Holding, Patterson, Bishop, Akram, Waqar, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Donald, Malcolm, etc. etc. (I'm sure i've missed some obvious ones).

I'm sure Healy would've averaged more had he been able to bat against some of the bowling we see today and on the wickets that are being produced.

Because Haddin is a hack, right...

We're all thinking it...

Hondo wrote:The "best" keeper in the country may not even be playing Shield cricket. I say that because the pressure to have close to a 7th batsman in your side is as strong at state level as it is at International level. At every level the pure technical keeper is under pressure from the keeper-batsman. The keeper who can't bat is weeded out at each higher level.

I think any team is improved with a legitimate keeper-batsman over the specialist keeper. Australia went to another level when Gilly arrived. Yes, he was a freak but even if he only averaged 40 we were still a stronger team with that 7th batsman. That's not to diss Ian Healy who was a good batsman in his own right. I'd argue he was even a keeper-batsman of sorts and if he averaged under 20 with the bat he probably wouldn't have played as many games as he did. The fact was that he averaged close to the 30 bench mark which was good enough at the time but not good enough to save his spot which let's be honest he lost to Gilchrist eventually. There was a choice made by the selectors and Heals felt he could have gone on.

So, no, IMO there's no room in a test playing side for a really great keeper who can't bat. How you define "can't bat" is up for debate. I'd say he would have to average 30 or very close to it. If not, unless you think there your brilliant keeper will make up for his lack of runs with extraordinary keeping, then you take the keeper-batsman. You have to. You can't have a tail that starts at 7 just because you don't demand that your keeper and your bowlers can hold a decent bat.

I say all this independently of the Haddin debate - it is not a post for or against Haddin. It is just about the philosophy of the keeper-batsman v the keeper.

Great post and thats pretty much how i read the situation, you are definatly right about the best keeper may not even be playing state level. The keeper batsmen mentality filters all the way down through to grade cricket and even ammo cricket.

While everyone goes on about Gilchrist i think that Prior is another great example how it has helped take another side to an extra level. His keeping his ok, he takes what he should and drops the occasional, to the spinners he misses the occasional stumpings and generally doesnt take those half chances BUT what he does bring is an extra batsmen. He occupies the crease and gives the specialist batsmen a chance to go on and make the big scores. The specialist batsmen doesnt have to change the way they bat either as Prior is generally agressive and keeps the score board ticking over.