The Wicket-Keeper Batsman Conundrum
Eat Cricket, Drink Cricket, Sleep Cricket
By Guest Blogger Baseer A. Rana
Traditional wisdom suggests that a wicket-keeper is a player who keeps wickets. In fact apart from Les Ames in the 1930s, wicket-keepers in general hadn’t really been great batsmen till the 1990s - certainly not to the extent where they could merit a place in their teams on their batting alone. Whilst that changed with the likes of Alec Stewart and Andy Flower in particular coming through, it was really the emergence of Adam Gilchrist that revolutionised the role of the wicket-keeper in the modern game. Rather than blaming Gilchrist for causing headaches by being “unnecessarily” good with the bat, cricketing countries have actually seeked to identify their own versions of the Aussie southpaw!
In the quest for the all-round keeper, what many people forget is Gilchrist is a splendid gloveman first and a fantastic batsman second. So much so that there has been a tendency to pick keepers on their batting ability. It is a delicate balance. Whom do you pick? A keeper who averages 20 with the bat but holds on to (almost) all his chances or one who can average an impressive 40 yet isn’t competent enough with the gloves and is likely to miss a (few) chances along the way? The answer isn’t really simple. You also have to consider that a keeper usually bats a 7 in contemporary test teams and one who bats better can potentially score very valuable runs in partnerships with one of the top six and with the tail.
On the contrary though, dropping a catch or missing a stumping can be costly especially if the beneficiary is the premier batsman in the opposition. Imagine dropping a catch of a Kallis or a Tendulkar and he goes on to add another hundred to his tally! What’s more is such a lapse can cause momentum to shift and shoulders to drop in one’s team and if a regular occurrence, it can dent the bowler’s confidence in the keeper.
Its a hard one and perhaps comes down to the requirement of the individual team really. Some teams like NZ/SA have been lucky to have keepers like Boucher and McCullum who are good with the gloves as well as with the bat. India after trial and error have landed on Dhoni, whose glovework wasn’t great at the start of his career, but his keeping graph would indicate an upward curve. Pakistan seem to be stuck with Akmal despite the fact that his keeping has been shocking for the past 2 years; apparently because he can bat!
England have been chopping and changing since Stewart hung his gloves up. The recent man in possession, Matt Prior, had an impressive start to his test career with the bat averaging over 40 which includes a similar average in the recently concluded test series in Sri Lanka. However in an astonishing turn of events, he has been left out from the squad for England’s forthcoming tour of New Zealand. I bet Ryan Sidebottom won’t be too despondent considering Prior’s dropped 8 chances of him. Although surprising, I’d have to say the decision is a good one for it reinforces my personal opinion that regardless of how well a keeper can bat, his primary task is always with the gloves first!
Tags: adam-gilchrist, alec-stewart, wicketkeeperRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Game of Cricket
8 opinions for The Wicket-Keeper Batsman Conundrum
Uncle J rod
Jan 8, 2008 at 11:28 am
I am not sure i can agree with you about Gilchrist being a great wicket keeper.
He has never been the best keeper in Australia. He could not even get a game for New South wales as a keeper.
Darren Berry, Ian Healy, Wade Seccombe and Ryan Campbell, Brad Haddin and even Phil Emry are all far superior keepers.
But you are right about one thing, he has changed the way teams look for keepers.
Australian keepers used to bat at number 8,9, or 10 in the old days.
Coins, Cricket, and Conspiracy
Jan 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm
[…] forget to check out Baseer’s post. Billy Bowden, Border Gavasker Trophy, harbhajan singh, india vs. australia, perth test, Steve […]
Baseer
Jan 8, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Uncle J Rod,
As far as I recall, Adam Gilchrist had to go from New South Wales to Western Australia because Phil Emery was at NSW and was the captain. Obviously Gilly wasn’t going to get a chance when there was an established player in the team already so he did the smarter thing at that point of time by switching to WA. I am sure he would have got his chance for NSW sooner or later but there was no point in waiting for his opportunity.
Besides, I never said was the best Aussie gloveman ever. But there is no denying that he is a pretty good one.
Uncle J rod
Jan 9, 2008 at 12:45 am
It was more than the fact Emery was captain, it was because they thought Emery was the better keeper. And although i hated Emery, they were correct. Funny thing about was 3 or 4 years later, Brad Haddin came along, and they still wouldn’t drop Emery, he had to play for the ACT team and make alot of runs, before they eventually realised they couldnt lose Gilchrist and Haddin because of the modestly talanted Emery.
I personally think Gilchrist is not a very good keeper, he misses alot of stumpings, and drops too many catches. The sad part of this is he is still in the top 3 keeping at international level today.
If you compared him to Jack Russell, Ian Healy, Wasim Bari or Rodney Marsh i think you’d see his skill as a keeper is quite low in comparison.
Its sort of like saying Jacques Kallis is a great all rounder, right at the moment he is the best all rounder in test cricket, but you wouldn’t compare him to the all rounders of the 80’s.
Scorpicity
Jan 9, 2008 at 5:18 am
Baseer… just out of curiosity, were you a keeper at some point?
Baseer
Jan 9, 2008 at 10:16 pm
No, I have never been a wicket-keeper myself, Scorpicity.
Baseer
Jan 9, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Uncle J Rod,
Yeah I’d agree with Gilly not being the same class as a Bari or Marsh as far as wicket-keeping is concerned.
I have to say the standards of a lot aspects have gone down in the past 20 years, not just keeping. The number of quality fast bowlers around has probably taken the biggest hit - they seem to be in dearth sadly!
Swahealey
Feb 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I have grown very tired of Gilchrist being referred to as a Keeper/Batsmen.
Rather a Batsmen/Keeper, he has never been in the class of the great Ian Healey.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: