Best Test Wicket-Keeper Batsman

I don't know much about Les Ames. His test average certainly seems impressive (43.40 when keeping wicket), how good was his wicketkeeping though?

His wicketkeeping was decent enough to keep George Duckworth out of the side most of the time, but his batting-average is actually a touch deceptive - he was almost - and I say, almost - the Hayden of his day.

Doesn't Boucher make the list?

He's hardly up there with the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of all-time TBH. Not even the best in SA's history.

Richard said:

Absolutely no way was Knott a proverbial mile ahead of Stewart, and certainly not even ahead at all IMO.

Click to expand...

Alan Knott was light years ahead of Stewart as a wicketkeeper.

As a wicketkeeper he may have looked better but I highly doubt he dropped many fewer catches or missed many fewer stumpings.

As a wicketkeeper-batsman, as I say, Stewart has a substantial case for being the better of the two.

Gilchrist by quite a long way. Best batsman on the list IMO, and close to best keeper as well.

Richard said:

As a wicketkeeper he may have looked better but I highly doubt he dropped many fewer catches or missed many fewer stumpings.

As a wicketkeeper-batsman, as I say, Stewart has a substantial case for being the better of the two.

Click to expand...

Well I suppose "highly doubting" makes a change from someone coming up with a blaze of statistics.
Stewart was the better batsman but not in the same league as a keeper. I suppose it depends how much balance you think there should be between the two arts.

There's far more scope to be a good batsman; being a good wicketkeeper is a fairly short scale based almost exclusively on the ability to catch a ball and, very very occasionally, whip off the bails.

Stewart missed little by the time he was keeping wicket regularly in 1996; Knott probably missed little too. I doubt there's that much between them as wicketkeepers, unless you count who had the best-looking dive.

As far as "coming-up with a blaze of statistics" is concerned - regrettably, stats on catches dropped and stumpings missed are exceedingly hard to find.

Lillian Thomson said:

Alan Knott is the best keeper by the proverbial mile and until the recent generations produced Gilchrist and Sangakarra he was also a contender for the greatest keeper/batsman of all time. He now falls behind those two although he stays ahead of Flower just for his far superior keeping.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough tho quite a lot of folk who were around at the time reckon it was Knott's batting that kept out the (supposedly) superior glove-work of Bob Taylor. It's a shame luckyeddie isn't around still (for all sorts of reasons, actually, but particularly here) as I'm sure he'd have an opinion on it.

Anyway, Gilchrist clearly. Has redefined the role completely & is a genuine keeper too rather than a batter who's been lumbered with the job (as one suspects Sanga & Flower are).

BoyBrumby said:

Anyway, Gilchrist clearly. Has redefined the role completely & is a genuine keeper too rather than a batter who's been lumbered with the job (as one suspects Sanga & Flower are).

Click to expand...

Sanga is a genuine keeper as well IMO.

Let's hope Brendon McCullum can work his way up the ranking order in years to come

There's something about Sanga, he's just...mmmmmm

But yes, I'd still choose Gilly to be in my side any day, even if his keeping can be dubious at times.

Richard said:

Therefore, Gilchrist, with 4 years of phenomena and 4 years of mediocrity, has to top the list.

Click to expand...

Four years averaging 38. Would you really say that's mediocre? Obviously it's not up to the standard that Gilchrist had set himself in the first segment of his career, but it's still pretty good.

i think Gilly is underrated in the keeping departments ie. gloves

Obviously Gilchrist.

Lillian Thomson said:

Alan Knott is the best keeper by the proverbial mile and until the recent generations produced Gilchrist and Sangakarra he was also a contender for the greatest keeper/batsman of all time. He now falls behind those two although he stays ahead of Flower just for his far superior keeping.

Click to expand...

AWTA, big fan of Alan Knott. Off school once with the flu and they had something on ESPN and I had taped the legends of cricket and great Test matches, and they showed some high-lights of and Ashes tour either in the 70's or 81 (I can't remember), but he came in with England not looking good and got a century with Geoff Boycott. Still have him in my all-time team though.

But then I choose to be different.

Richard said:

being a good wicketkeeper is a fairly short scale based almost exclusively on the ability to catch a ball and, very very occasionally, whip off the bails.

Click to expand...

There's always plenty of nonsense written on this board, often deliberate and often tongue in cheek, but if that's meant to be taken as a serious observation it qualifies as the most clueless thing ever written.

Good job of explaining why.

If you're going to make OTT accusations like that, it helps to counter it with something other than "that's a stupid thing to say".

Perm said:

Four years averaging 38. Would you really say that's mediocre? Obviously it's not up to the standard that Gilchrist had set himself in the first segment of his career, but it's still pretty good.

Click to expand...

Gilchrist has averaged 36.89 in his last 61 innings over the last 4 years. Looks impressive enough at first glance, but nearly all of that came in 9 innings in the space of a few months. In the other 52 innings he averages just 26.67. So the last 4 years has been made-up of one very short sensational period and plenty of extreme mediocrity in between. However, like Botham, the memorable has tended to be very memorable and hence due to past glories the for-the-most-part inadequacy has been glossed-over.

Now this hasn't mattered terribly, because only in The Ashes has the rest of the Australian batting also been dismantled; he's barely been needed. This also applied earlier, however, and even when coming in with a large score already on the board could usually be relied-upon to make it even bigger.

But Gilchrist has been hugely, hugely lesser than he was in his first 61 innings over his first 4 years. Had he kept on like that, he'd have had quite some case for being the 2nd-best since Bradman.

You've excluded his innings against Bangladesh there, which is a bit unfair as - general feelings about Bangers aside, that was a damn fine innings. I know, I know why and what you're going to say, but its a case where this kind of selectiveness ends up inaccurately diminishing the player you're talking about.