Who should be England's wicket-keeper?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Rachael are you sure that Kieth Andrew was that good a keeper?

I did a lot of digging around recently and struggled with lots of conflicting stuff. The biggest problem was working out who actually understood enough about wicket-keeping at the very highest level to actually be critical about people like Knott and Evans.

It's not like Knott or Evans were anything other than outstanding... and we're talking differences in style more than anything: Knott's critics don't dispute that he had great hands... they just think he was horrendously negative and set a precedent for the wicket-keeper being a glorified fielder rather than an essential partner to the bowler... and Evans' critics don't dispute that he was outstanding... they just point out that where Evans would often take balls with a trademark dive / roll... Andrew would do the same with nimbler footwork and the dive in reserve.

Bob Taylor may have been as good as Andrew... I just don't know: he was STACKS more aggressive than Knott... and had the glovework to match.... but critics say he actually went too far the other way.. taking risks when they were not called for.

What's clear is that no matter HOW you divide these guys... they all belong at the top of the tree... and of the four.. I find no-one I can take seriously quibbling with Andrew's right to be considered top dog.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bob Taylor may have been as good as Andrew... I just don't know: he was STACKS more aggressive than Knott... and had the glovework to match.... but critics say he actually went too far the other way.. taking risks when they were not called for.

I watched both Bob Taylor and knott - and with respect Rachael I don't know what you mean, I have to say Knott was far more aggresive than Taylor.
Both were outstanding keepers some would say Taylor was better, others swore by knott.

I don't know who was best - one thing I do know, Knott would have been Fletchers dream, and true top class, even great keeper who could bat.

Even in those days - Taylor was unlucky because he could not bat, he was worse than G O Jones - and England lost a fine keeper.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I don't know what you mean, I have to say Knott was far more aggresive than Taylor.

Taylor was almost evangelical about standing up to the stumps: as far as he was concerned, that was what wicket-keeping was about and he'd only retreat for the out and out quicks. He comes across (everywhere you look) as positively disparaging of KNott's preference to retreat to the fast-medium swing / seam bowlers, regarding it as negative, defensive and compromising the impact of the 'keeper as partner to the bowler.

Less evangelical folk sometimes argue that Taylor could take this too far: that he was occasionally too aggressive... and Knott has apparently had no qualms about defending his defensive approach, not denying that he was less aggressive... but noting that his approach ensured every routine edge was taken (even if fewer came along).

Russell worshipped Knott.. but towards the end of a career spent (mostly) following Knott's lead... he eshcewed the path of his idol and started playing more in Taylor's fashion: I've never heard him be openly critical of KNott... but he IS critical of his own reluctance to take the aggressive route until so late in his career.

[pie_chucker]

But as Knott spent a lot of his career keeping to Underwood on uncovered pitches, he must also have been Bl**dy good standing up.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

But as Knott spent a lot of his career keeping to Underwood on uncovered pitches, he must also have been Bl**dy good standing up.

Absolutely first rate, but he would NOT, for instance, (except in extreme circumstances) have stood up to (for example) James Anderson or Plunkett... whereas Taylor would have done so (the overwhelming majority of the time). My impression is that both were somewhat dogmatic on this front.. whereas others (Andrew, late-career Russell, etc) might have been more comfortable standing up most of the time but retreating when the new ball was swinging, seaming and beating the bat.

Note: my impression remains that in Andrew's day, players like Plunkett (mid 80s seam / swing) would have got to the current stage of their career with county first-XI 'keepers standing up to them most of the time: some might have retreated as of this winter when he found an extra half-yard of pace (high 80s)... but what is considered exceptional now might well have been considered routine before Knott set a precedent for negativity and playing the percentages!

ps. with that much experience of bowling to a 'keeper stood up... methinks more young seamers would have mastered utilising the 'keeper at a young age: the astonishing guile of Bedser would have been exceptional... but youngsters would have had more encouragement to emulate him!

[Ernest]

I see what you mean Rachael over Bob Taylor - but I am far from convinced about the merits of standing up to a seamer except in certain circumstances like Hoggard.

Most a keeper could stand up to would be of a pace like Hoggard - so I would not like to see a keeper standing up to a seam bowler to often, it would be the sign of a weak attack IMO.
Also some catches could be caught better with the keeper standing back - the only real advantage I can see, is keeping a batsman in his crease.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Absolutely first rate, but he would NOT, for instance, (except in extreme circumstances) have stood up to (for example) James Anderson or Plunkett... whereas Taylor would have done so (the overwhelming majority of the time). My impression is that both were somewhat dogmatic on this front.. whereas others (Andrew, late-career Russell, etc) might have been more comfortable standing up most of the time but retreating when the new ball was swinging, seaming and beating the bat.

Back in the day, I actually watched a fair bit of Bob Taylor.

He would NOT have stood up to Plunkett, or Anderson.

He'd've been very happy standing up to County trundlers in his period. But I don't think those two lads qualify for that term.

How useful would he have been standing up in the recent ODI series? "Whoah five wides! And that's five more wides, and five more wides."

No, no, you gotta pick the bowlers to stand up to, and those two are certainly not the right guys.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

He would NOT have stood up to Plunkett, or Anderson. He'd've been very happy standing up to County trundlers in his period. But I don't think those two lads qualify for that term.

Plunkett's gain half a yard of pace over this winter... and given that he gets decent bounce he'd be worth standing back to when he's swinging the new ball... but up until this last few months I'd have thought Plunkett would have been a classic instance of a bowler asking for the Taylor treatment.

Anderson started life on the nippier side... and recently rediscovered some nippier form... but in between he's been a classic medium pacer: most deliveries in the 84-86 mph range. He doesn't get the sort of bounce to worry a 'keeper.... and has a nice line in slower balls. Sure, when he's swinging the new cherry or hitting close to 90 mph the 'keeper should be stood back... but once the shine has gone I'd like to see Read standing up to him.

It shouldn't be any harder than standing up to Gladstone Small!

ps. you imply later in your posts that wides would be an issue... but I'd suggest they were some of the easiest balls to take when stood up: any good 'keeper picks the line up early... and with a wide there's generally no problem with the batsman getting in the way - leg byes strike me as a far tougher proposition!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. you imply later in your posts that wides would be an issue... but I'd suggest they were some of the easiest balls to take when stood up: any good 'keeper picks the line up early... and with a wide there's generally no problem with the batsman getting in the way - leg byes strike me as a far tougher proposition!

Rachael have you ever played cricket?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Rachael have you ever played cricket?

Yes... and certainly enough to know that a ball that's deflected from 6' away when coming straight at you is tougher to deal with than a ball that takes an unbroken trajectory from 22+ yards and requires you to move 3' left or right!

Most ODI wides are not very wide... at least not when passing the bat and the stumps: the 'keeper only has stacks of ground to make up (in most cases) when stood back to the ball that carries on swinging after going PAST the bat and stumps.

ps. if you think catching a wide when stood up is tough you should try returning a well placed slice serve in tennis - that's often 100+ mph and requiring a HUGE move to one side!