Replacing Gilchrist: the specialist glovemen...

[Rachael]

No country in World Cricket has greater respect for specialists than Australia... so whilst the rest of the world goes around looking for batsmen who can might be able to "do a job" behind the stumps... it strikes me that the long term replacement for Gilchrist is as likely to be the best gloveman as the best batsman who can keep.

That said... Gilchrist was a hideous compromise: Darren Berry or Wade Seccombe should really have been the Aussie keeper of the last decade....

We're all aware that pole position has been bagged by Brad Haddin, 29 years 59 days, and arguably the guy who should have been Australia's wicket-keeper since before the summer of 2005 (surely in at least the same class as Gilchrist with the gloves, and arguably the better batsman).

Many seem to see Adam Crosthwaite, 22 years 90 days, as the longer-term heir. Nothing I've read convinces me though: he's time on his side but he may need it - he's surely nothing special as yet.

I'm drawn towards Chris Hartley, 24 years 211 days

The 2005-06 season was also productive with the bat - he hit 401 runs in the Pura Cup and added 188 at 31.33 in the one-day competition - but it was his glovework that was most impressive. Collecting seven catches in the Pura Cup final victory, he finished his first full summer with 53 dismissals and continued the fine tradition of Queensland wicketkeepers.

Of the younger generation that just seems to leave Luke Ronchi, 25 years 242 days, whose write up suggests he's a batsman not a 'keeper...

[Haha]

I'm sorry - are you saying having Gilly in the team has been a mistake????

[Man_in_Perth]

Gilchrist a hideous compromise ?

Haddin a better batsmen ? That should make for an interesting arguement............

[Paoli]

Once you get to know Rachael, you'll get to know her style of overexaggerating things tenfold, andh holiding a ruthless belief in what she says.

Point is, Berry couldn't bat for pants. Made four first class tons (all against New South Wales incidentally...) and had stints batting as low as 11 for Victoria! I remember at least one game where he came in last, but was normally about a No.8 or No.9. Seccombe wasn't a bad keeper, but wasn't anything special with the gloves.

And many, for some stupid reason, see Gilchrist as a crap gloveman. He's probably the best international gloveman in the world. Doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and the fact that there are very few good gloveman in the world gives him a rating higher than merely 'competent'. Shade lower than World Class, but test class no less.

Just on Rach's points-

Haddin: < than Gilchrist with the gloves, < than Gilchrist with the bat. That said, he is most likely to assume the keeping spot when Gilly gives it away. Funny Gilly's only played tests for 7 years! One only needs to see Haddin's averages to realise that he is nowhere near as destructive as Gilchrist with the bat. Gilchrist in an ODI will give you a century in 30 overs- Haddin's likely to be there at the end with 120 not out. In a test, Gilchrist will come in and give you a quick hundred when you're 5-200, Haddin can't do that...boggles my mind saying he is better.

Crosthwaite: Went to the ODD game between Victoria and NSW the other day, and I thought he was fantastic. Made a brillaint leg side stumping from the bowling of Cameron White and seems confident up at the stumps to most bowlers...that said, most in the domestic comp are merely medium pacers! Good lower order batsman, but I wouldn't be rushing him in to soon. Seen a bit of him on the telly, and think he's definitely our most promising under 25. His batting needs to improve though.

Hartley: Very good batsman, good gloveman. Caused Wade Seccombe to retire, who was a loyal servant for oh so many years to Queensland. Gives very good value with the bat, probably equal with Haddin. His glovework seems to have not too many flaws. Could be one to watch out for. Will most likely be thereabouts when Gilly retires.

Ronchi: Darkhose, a la Ryan Campbell (who actually wasn't a bad gloveman at all!). Started his career as a bat, has been keeping for a few years now. Never know, the ODI team might look closely at him, but of those I've mentioned is probably fourth. Explosive with the bat.

Summing up the case: Haddin will become Australian keeper in both forms when Gilchrist retires, Hartley his understudy. To be honest, I can't see Haddin carving out a career like Gilchrist's and will probably be dropped from at least one team within two years, leaving Hartley or Crosthwaite to take that position up.

Whatever it may be, I can assure you- the next seven years of Australian glovemen will be much more interesting than the last seven.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Paoli

Point is, Berry couldn't bat for pants. Made four first class tons (all against New South Wales incidentally...) and had stints batting as low as 11 for Victoria! I remember at least one game where he came in last, but was normally about a No.8 or No.9. Seccombe wasn't a bad keeper, but wasn't anything special with the gloves.

Interesting. I await other reports to see how opinion stacks up. My impression is that on strict glovework criteria... the two had the edge over Gilly: that's not saying Gilchrist was poor (I'd agree that he's been in Stewart's class and a class above Boucher, Akmal, Jones and co... but would not like to see him bracketed with Russell or Read).

Originally Posted by Paoli

Haddin: < than Gilchrist with the gloves, < than Gilchrist with the bat [...] In a test, Gilchrist will come in and give you a quick hundred when you're 5-200, Haddin can't do that...boggles my mind saying he is better.

I did say "arguably"... and that's based on Gilchrist having looked a complete waste of space when it really counts: I can't imagine Haddin could have done worse (or looked more out of his depth) in the 2005 Ashes (for example) and as I rate ability to support top order colleagues when the going is tough over slogged cameos when given a license to hit through the line... I've never bought into the hero-worship of Gilly's batting.

[acker]

Would you pick Jack Russell ahead of Adam Gilchrist in your team ?

[Rachael]

Of course

[KennyG]

Brad Haddon would probably have made more runs than Gilchrist in test match cricket over the last year and abit but he is no where near Gilchrist when they are both in form.
Gilchrist is good,not perfect behind the stumps.
With the bat he is one of the few players that bowlers fear and crowds adore.
Haddon to me looks about the same behind the stumps but at best will retire with a batting average in the mid 30s.

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I did say "arguably"... and that's based on Gilchrist having looked a complete waste of space when it really counts: I can't imagine Haddin could have done worse (or looked more out of his depth) in the 2005 Ashes (for example) and as I rate ability to support top order colleagues when the going is tough over slogged cameos when given a license to hit through the line... I've never bought into the hero-worship of Gilly's batting.

If you're saying that Gilchrist only bats well when Australia are cruising, you are dead wrong. Gilchrist has saved Australia's skin with the bat many times. It's not usually recognised as such because he usually smashes Australia out of trouble before anybody recignises Australia is struggling. A recent example is the test series in New Zealand in 2005, where Gilchrist consistently saved Australia's neck. You can read about one of those knocks here http://www.smh.com.au/news/Cricket/G...567735887.html

Adam Gilchrist further inscribed his name into the record books and Simon Katich cemented his Test place in a rearguard double-century stand today. The left-handed Australians both belted centuries in a 212-run partnership that has the first Test against New Zealand's on a knife edge entering the final two days at Jade Stadium.<snip>

The pair came together with the scoreboard 6-201, 232 behind on the first innings (433).

But only three hours later the lead was whittled away to 20 when Gilchrist fell only a metre short of a seventh six on the small Christchurch ground, holing out off Vettori (5-106 off 40.2 overs)."

It was the same in the second test where Gilchrist came in at 5/247 before smashing 162 http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/newz...ry/146288.html

[Rachael]

Neither were Test innings: they were cameos of hitting through the line that (unfortunately, because the bowling wasn't good enough) paid off - it was playing baseball on a cricket field... and whilst this era of unsporting, covered wickets means conditions for such hitting are commonplace... such innings hardly warrant great praise (and scoring a sackful of runs when your team has 200+ on the board and with a partner cashing in the other end is hardly the biggest challenge: I'm pretty sure Gilchrist has walked to the crease with the score on 50/60 before now - a far tougher position).

Since when did good attacks on sporting pitches allow batsmen to hit through the line without undue risk? Never. So if Gilchrist is hitting through the line and scoring... either he's taking stupid risks and getting away with it (which is no more admirable than taking stupid risks and perishing)... or he's not facing a good attack ona sporting pitch.

ps. I did once think Gilchrist was excelling in such a situation. He was playing is Sri Lanka... the side was in real trouble... undone by the sort of lateral movement as Vaas and co exploited damp conditions. Sadly, whilst being made to look like muppets the top order did see off the danger whilst the pitch dried out... and predictably, once the ball stopped swinging.... the bowling lacked any sort of threat... and Gilchrist cached in.

pps. Australia were in trouble a few times in 2005 when Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff were reverse swinging the ball and when Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard were getting conventional swing... and on each occasion that Gilchrist faced such a test.. he looked the biggest muppet of the lot. The situations called for genuine Test batsman's innings rather than a baseball player's "good eye for the ball"... for leaving anything that was not ging to hit the stumps, lingering on the back foot to counter the movement and using the pace on the ball rather than hitting through the line - and Gilchrist failed.

Could Haddin have done worse? I doubt it!