best wicket keepers in tests of all time

here are my top 8 test wicketkeeprs of all time, do u agree, and if not who do you think are

(by the way it isnt in order)

Adam Gilchrist

M.S.Dhoni

Mark Boucher

Kumar Sangakaraa (kept most of his test career)

Ian Healy

Alan Knott

Alec Stewart

Brendon McCullum

No Mention of Andy Flower?
Or Les Ames?

Bob Taylor was widely recognised at the time as an outstanding keeper (tho' not all that good as a batsman)

Jack Russell was excellent.

Dujon also..

Moin Khan.

It depends exactly what you mean by best wicketkeeper. Are you talking about their keeping skills? There batting skills? Or a combination?

For example on keeping skills alone Jack Russell would rate much higher than Stewart, but if the rating is based on a combination of both batting and keeping skills then stewart would probably just pip russell (not suggesting these are the top two, just using them as an exmple).

Also agree that Andy Flower is a must on your list.

It's fairly widely accepted that Alan Knott was the best gloveman (being just about the only keeper who could stand up to Underwood on a sticky wicket). He was also a decent number 7 batsman (iirc, his test average was just over 30). Bob Taylor was almost his equal as a keeper but not in the same league as a batsman.

As far as keeping all-rounders, Flower and Gilchrist are well up the list (Gilly seems to get an undue amount of stick for his keeping, but I don't recall him making many mistakes, and he had to spend most of his career keeping to Warne). Boucher has been good, but not in the same class as these two.

Wouldn't put Alec Stewart anywhere near this type of list - he was a batsman who made himself into a reasonably competent keeper but was not a particularly good technician behind the stumps (fortunately though he didn't mind throwing himself around a lot to compensate). As mentioned above, Jack Russell was a way better keeper but offered less with the bat and so (in the absence of a quality all-rounder for much of the period), Stewie got picked because he balanced the side better.

It's difficult to know how to rate Jeff Dujon as a keeper, as the closest he ever got to the stumps was about 35m away. He was certainly competent at keeping to the ultra quicks and was also a handy lower middle order batsman.

Far too often people use batting prowess as a prerequisite for keepers, when in reality a great keeper who can't bat for peanuts would still be a more integral part of a team than an poor keeper who averages 30+ with the bat.

Too often teams have chopped and changed their glovemen just to fit in a player who bats well, when if he's a good enough batsman he should be in the team anyway and if he's average with the gloves, he'll cost more runs, wickets and overall team confidence than any batsman can offer, unless he's Don Bradman.

Dummy - I'm not so sure it is or was ''failry widely accepted that Alan Knott was the best gloveman''.

My memory of the general view from around that time (I went to my first test match in 1971 - Zaheer Abbas scored a double century for Pakistan against England at Edgbaston) was that, although there was little in it, Bob Taylor just edged it. However, Knott was certainly a far better batsman and that won him a regular test place normally batting at number seven and occasionally at six.

I completely take the point made by ReallyReal but in this case it didn't amount to a disadvantage as both Knott and Taylor were class acts behind the stumps.

RR
Agree with your second paragraph - a missed chance by the keeper can prove far more costly than the difference in runs scored between (for example) Jack Russell and Ales Stewart.

The biggest example would be that Lara was dropped when in single figures in a County match. The keeper (Piper?) is reputed to have turned to first slip and said 'he'll probably make 100 now'. He was wrong, by 401 runs...

cricketfan90 why do you put "all time" in the heading? It should me "my lifetime"

i will write what i wanna write, its my topic that i started.

cricketfan
This is a discussion board.We are supposed to discuss the game.So your statement that "This is my topic.Who are you to ask me?'' is pathetic really.

i never said who r u to ask me

what i meant was if u dont like the topic dont comment.......

cricketfan90 wrote:i never said who r u to ask me

what i meant was if u dont like the topic dont comment.......

If you dont want others to comment then you shouldnt be bringing up a topic.

Like I said there's difference between your lifetime and all time , and it can be seen in all threads you have created.

I totally agree when comparing Knott to Taylor, there was little between them, but England (and others) has gone to the extreme far too often in picking average glovemen just because they're decent batsmen and while I may go too far in the opposite direction, I'd rather a world-class gloveman who averages 5 with the bat than someone who makes a mistake every game but averages 40.

Gilchrist was woeful behind the stumps at the start of his career taking a couple of years to gain confidence, he ended up as a decent standard gloveman, but no more than that and if he'd scored runs at a slow rate, he'd be almost forgotten already, the exact same thing could be said for many wicketkeepers nowadays and personally, I'd take Jack Russell over any international keeper ATM

Gilchrist was more than a 'decent' gloveman but by no means our best ever.

Linebreaker wrote:Gilchrist was more than a 'decent' gloveman but by no means our best ever.

Would he have made the team if he averaged just 20 with the bat, in fact, would he have made any pro team on earth if he was just an average batsman?

ReallyReal - on the recent thread ''worst player to ever play test cricket for England'' some of us tried to come up with a worst ever England XI with all the team as far as possible in their usual positions.

That eminent and highly respected poster CorporalHumblebucket suggested Richard Blakey as our keeper. Blakey certainly seems to meet the criteria that you rightly denounce - ie very ordinary with the gloves but capable of hitting a few runs. In his two game England career Blakey also failed badly with the bat which gave him a nailed on place in our XI

Clearly the days are long gone when a decent batsman or bowler can make a side even if they're fat, slow and can't catch, the game has moved on since players like that were common, or at least not uncommon and it's better for all (except them) that it has.

Boycott is loved and hated in equal measure, but he's 100% right when he continually moans about bowlers being picked just because they're decent number 8 batsmen (or whatever number), or when average allrounders are picked ahead of specialists, just becasue they can turn their arm, or slog a couple of boundaries.
Everyone wants another Botham in their team, but just because someone is half decent at all disciplines, it doesn't mean they're good enough at any of them to get picked and this is just as important when thinking about wicket keepers.
Do you want a guy who makes so few mistakes that every bowler is confident in him behind the stumps, someone who gives that confidence to the whole team, or do you want a guy who chips in occasionally with the bat, but will never be totally comfortable with the gloves on?

RR
Have a look at that 'worst England player' thread, and you'll see a preponderence of nominations for the sorts of 'bits and pieces' players you are describing - those who, unlike Botham, are only all rounders in the sense that they were equally not good enough as both batsmen and bowlers at the highest level.

I'm biased, in that I used to keep wicket, but I agree that it is such an important position that your default setting should always be to select the best gloveman first rather than someone who might score you 15 more runs per innings on average. Only when you have 2 very closely matched keepers should batting really become an issue.

dummy_half wrote:
I'm biased, in that I used to keep wicket, but I agree that it is such an important position that your default setting should always be to select the best gloveman first rather than someone who might score you 15 more runs per innings on average. Only when you have 2 very closely matched keepers should batting really become an issue.

I was a poor keeper in the two games I played as such and have the utmost respect for those who do the job well and I agree 100% that batting talent should only ever be considerewd when keeping/bowling talent is virtually equal, afterall, a few extra runs scored here and there hardly ever equates to extra wickets or runs saved.

All time is a bit ridiculous. You arent comparing like with like and frankly we afre only basing our opinions on what weve heard and read.

In teh period Ive been following cricket perhaps Jack Riussel as a pure keeper. The like sof Dhoni, Sangakarra and Gilchrist are legends because they were decent keepers and better batsmen. Stewart, wasnt even that good a batsman...England were just that bad.

Stewart wasn't even that good a batsmen? Seriously? 15 centuries and 45 half-tons in 130+ Test in a era including a glut of the best bowlers of all-time, in an era in which he was in an England team desperatley underperforming, with archaic coaching and management, and an era in which he shunted up and down the order, opened and kept wicket.

Again, seriously?

liverbnz wrote:Stewart wasn't even that good a batsmen? Seriously? 15 centuries and 45 half-tons in 130+ Test in a era including a glut of the best bowlers of all-time, in an era in which he was in an England team desperatley underperforming, with archaic coaching and management, and an era in which he shunted up and down the order, opened and kept wicket.

Again, seriously?

"even THAT good"..bother to read. Good, but not great.
As I said, it was a case of England being that bad at the time that A made him look good, B made him a top figue in English cricket, and C meant he was picked as an allrounder rather than a batsman which kept far better keepers like Russel out of the side.

He was nowhere in the class of Flower, Sangakarra, Gilchrist, or Dohni in terms of acheivements or ability with the bat. Those 3 are amongst the best batsmen of their era reagdrkess of keeping, Stewart wasnt. Matt Prioir, who isnt a bastman, has better average than Stewart did ... would you inlcude him in the greatest keepers of all time because of that? He certainly keeps as well if not better than Stewart did. Ok yes the point about differnet eras is correct, an avergae just below 40 was much better than than it is now..but in the same era Flower managed an average of over 50 with the bat without the benefit of facing zimbabwes bowling "attack". That makes Stewart a good, but not that good batsman in my eyes. At the time relative to other England players he was very good, but relative to world standards then and now he wasnt anything special.

Then if you go on to his keeping he was adequate at best.

As the primary role of a wicket keeper is to dismiss batsmen and not concede byes. Mark Boucher stands above them all. He has the record for the most runs conceded by a test team without any byes. He also holds the record for the most dismissals by a wicket keeper.

Fair dos biscuitman - point conceded.

I don't think Adam Gilchrist, Andi Flower, MS Dhoni, Kumar Sangakkara, or even Alec Stuart can be considered average keepers who could bat. They are all good batters who are decent behind the stumps as well. among the contemporary keepers, the best case for a horrible keeper being picked for his average batting is Kamran Akmal.
The others may not be the greatest keepers around, but they are generally safe, and makes pretty important contributions with the bat.
among the presentday wicket keepers, I think Prasanna Jayawardene is the best, as he is pretty sound with the gloves, and is a much improved batsman as well. Mahendrasingh Dhoni edges Mat Prior for the 2nd place.

The point is msp that they were selected for the role because they could bat, not because they could keep. Certainly in Stewarts cas ehe was nowhere near the best gloveman at the time. Same can be said for Prior, now , he was widely slated for a long time when he first came in.
I cant really say about Sangakarra, maybe Sri Lanka didnt have significantly better glovemn available. Obviously now hes gotten older its hard to keep for long tests and they have found a decent gloveman to replace him who can bat fine too. I think it is fair to say that Dhoni hasnt always been the best gloveman in the world through his career, and was selected on his batting.
The point is that all those guys are legends not because of their keeping, but because of their batting. Any of them could have made their respective sides as pure batsmen, perhaps with the exception of Gilchrist in tests. If the keeper wasnt allowed to bat how many of them would have made the side?
Certainly they werent dreadful behind the stumps but in the same way that Id describe Stewart as a good not great batsman I wouldnt describe any of them as truely great keepers in a pure gloveman sense.
They are modern era batsmen keepers. Going back keepers were selected on their keeping first, and then gradualy the expectation on the to bat better built. Alan Knott probably wouldnt get a look in todday, but is still renowned as the best keeper England ever had. A large portion of the internet used to regulalry wet itself over James Fosters glovework, yet he barely got a sniff of England.

Kamran Akmal is a weird one because when he wanted to he could keep well. Pakistani selection is a murky workld its best not to even speculate about. Its not like Pakistan have had a clutch of awesome keepers to replace him. But again yes if he couldnt bat he wouldnt have got near trhe side unless perhaps he had a very rich uncle.

Best keeper now? Its tough isnt it. Priors actually the one whos got the best batting average playing as keeper of anyone current regular. His actual keeping has improved a lot too, hes very athletic and even manages to stump someone at leats once a year now.
Theres not really a standout candidate though for currerent keepers. Lots of guys who are competant. Jayawardenes certainly done his reputation as a keeper and batsman no harm on what was a tough test series for Sri Lanka. I hope he can go on to become another great player and help keep Sri Lanka comeptitive, because really we could do with a new generation of superstar test players coming through.

PSW
My point is that going for a better keeper in place of GillyDhoni....... may not of serious benefit to the team. They don't miss that many, and their batting add much more to the team.
Modernday WK should be someone who is safe behind the stumps firstly, and capable enough with the bat in the top 7.