Who should be England's wicket-keeper?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

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!

Well hush my mickey-taking mouth then!

But how hard would that serve be to take with three immoveable obects and a decidedly mobile one standing immediately in front of you?

Most 'keepers stand up, when A) they trust the bowler to stick the thing in their gloves, and B) when they're trying to stop the batsman from sashaying down the track to plant the ball in the stands.

Those opening balls from Plunkett in the last couple or three ODIs would have gone for five wides everytime. Perhaps the off-side ones might've been fielded by the slips with the 'keeper standing up, but unless there was a deep fine leg or a backward square on the boundary even Bob Taylor would have dropped his arms and groaned at the leg-side dross, unless of course, he'd been standing back.

I don't know what books you've been reading Rach, but I suggest that you are misinterpreting "standing up" to the seamers with "standing forward" or "further forward" or something.

I shall have a look in my cricket archives and see if I can find some pictures of Bob Taylor "standing up" to Chris Old, Paul Allott, Ian Botham, Bob Willis, etc.,

I suggest, that he did not.

[Oliver]

The most familiar image I can find of Bob Willis bowling on the internet is one from the 1981 Test v. Australia at Headingly.

The wicket-keeper, one R.W.Taylor is standing way back in the distance somewhere, extremely adjacent to first slip and not remotely close to the stumps.

I am looking forward distinctly to scouring "Botham Rekindles the Ashes" if I can find it, when I get home later this evening.

A similarly famous picture from the 1982/3 Ashes game at Melbourne shows Taylor miles off in the distance as Botham bowls to Jeff Thomson. Granted he wouldn't've been attacking too much at that juncture, but nevertheless...

[pie_chucker]

Plunketts always had that yard of pace, for some reason he's started to use it in International cricket.

[Rachael]

LOL. Up until this recent ODI series I've struggled to see what Rod Marsh saw in Plunkett (but have reserved judgement on the basis of Plunkett's youth and out of respect for Marsh's judgement). I'm still wary.. as 21 year old prospects have so commonly failed to kick on to greater things... but he does now look more promising than he did previously.

Bottom line: even at his recent pace he's not significantly faster than Gladstone Small.. to whom Russell kept at the wicket to GREAT effect... so what we're looking at is the cusp between a bowler to whom an outstanding (aggressive) 'keeper would stand up a LOT... and a bowler to whom an outstanding (aggressive) 'keeper would stand up only on slower pitches where the ball isn't doing much either in the air or off the seam.

ps. I do find it odd that the difference between 84 mph and 89 mph makes such a critical difference in determining whether a 'keeper should stand up: at 84-85 the case seems cut and dried.. and yet even at 87-88 the case causes concern. This may be because we're simply unused to wicket-keepers playing as aggressively as they did in the past... but it's an area in which I continue to seek truly authoritative opinion.

[Ernest]

Rachael I said earlier in this thread standing up to seam bowlers could cost wickets - or words to that effect.


Read this and you may come to my way of thinking click here .

Evans had put paid to the notion of the quiet, sphinx-like keeper. Parks had triumphed over the dictum that the best keeper should always be selected. Now Knott would change traditional thinking on standing up to the wicket.

My Post here

[Quagmire]

I think it is pointless to stand up to a pace bowler because more than likely you are not going to get catches as easily and it takes away the bouncer and there is also a great risk of four byes if it is down leg side. I know that doing it to a batsman like Hayden for example will make him uncomfortable because he likes to bat a mile out of his crease, but it doesn’t give the bowler a license to attack the batsman as much. Sangakkara, Gilchrist, McCullum, Boucher, Read, Dhoni and Akmal could all keep up to the stumps to all the quick’s in the world, excluding the super quick’s like Ahtkar, Malinga, Lee and Tait. There is no reason too and it is dangerous.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL. Up until this recent ODI series I've struggled to see what Rod Marsh saw in Plunkett (but have reserved judgement on the basis of Plunkett's youth and out of respect for Marsh's judgement). I'm still wary.. as 21 year old prospects have so commonly failed to kick on to greater things... but he does now look more promising than he did previously.

Bottom line: even at his recent pace he's not significantly faster than Gladstone Small.. to whom Russell kept at the wicket to GREAT effect... so what we're looking at is the cusp between a bowler to whom an outstanding (aggressive) 'keeper would stand up a LOT... and a bowler to whom an outstanding (aggressive) 'keeper would stand up only on slower pitches where the ball isn't doing much either in the air or off the seam.

ps. I do find it odd that the difference between 84 mph and 89 mph makes such a critical difference in determining whether a 'keeper should stand up: at 84-85 the case seems cut and dried.. and yet even at 87-88 the case causes concern. This may be because we're simply unused to wicket-keepers playing as aggressively as they did in the past... but it's an area in which I continue to seek truly authoritative opinion.

What Rod Marsh saw in Plunkett was the ability to bowl 87-90mph outswingers. At the moment he's still too inconsistant, even at Durham. In the CC he could bowl 5 overs for 40 or 10 overs and take 4-20. At Durham he's always been though of as a 90mph bowler. What people have to remember a couple of years ago he remodelled his action due to back problems and he states even now he has to be careful he doesnt go back to his "old" action.

I would never have thought Gladstone Small was a 88-90mph bowler, more like 82-85mph, anyway 4mph is a yard of pace and it does make a heck of a differance.

To bowlers like Hoggy, with an old ball, standing up can be a useful ploy. Against most batters it would be a waste.

[EllN]

I agree, but it is a very negative tactic as it takes out certain deliverlys such as the bouncer, an it is set too stop the batsman scoring runs meaning that less risk is taken by the batsman meaning less chance of a wicket like ashley giles bowling over the wicket to a right hander, the argument could be pressure causes wickets but ashley giles isnt the most prolific wicket taker, and wickets win matches look at monty by the end of the ashes they had him bowling ngativily and he hardly took a wicket, this is why i belive we should stick with plunkett he has showen to be able to bowl wicket taking deliverys, economical bowling will come with experiance, but at 21 unlike mal loye paul nixon and other "over 30 " players making debuts he can learn effectivly in an around england cricket team.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by EllN

I agree, but it is a very negative tactic as it takes out certain deliverlys such as the bouncer, an it is set too stop the batsman scoring runs meaning that less risk is taken by the batsman meaning less chance of a wicket.

I couldn't disagree more.

Firstly, no delivery is as negative as the bouncer, which can be played by any muppet wearing a helmet be the simple act of (as Dravid does) dropping the hands and watching the ball (delighting in the fact that the bowler has just wasted lots of energy making sure the wicket-keeper is awake).

The sole object of the bouncer is to discourage the batsman from advancing down the wicket... and the 'keeper standing up achieves the same result (more effectively) without the bowler wasting energy on short balls.

Secondly, the basis of the seam bowler's craft (and the basis of attacking bowling) is convincing the batsman to drive at balls that deviate either in the air or off the pitch: without the wicket-keeper stood up, most bowlers lack the confidence to do this... so tend to err on the short side, bolwing a negative, back of a length "heavy ball" to slow scoring rather than take wickets.

Thirdly, if you set the straight fielders in close catching positions rather than patrolling the boundary you can invite the drive (by leaving the boundary unprotected) and give the batsman a choice between staying in the crease and lofting the ball at catchable height or advancing and risking a stumping in order to play the ball along the deck.

You CAN be negative with the 'keeper stood up... but you don not HAVE to be negative!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The sole object of the bouncer is to discourage the batsman from advancing down the wicket... and the 'keeper standing up achieves the same result (more effectively) without the bowler wasting energy on short balls.

Bowling a bouncer is not negative except when a bowler wishes to bowl a dot ball, so the bowler ar the other end can bowl at maybe a lesser, not new batsman - even that ploy is possitive.

Bouncers are bowled to player like Strauss - Flintoff to induce the 'hook shot', that is possitive play.

A bouncer is to intimidate a batsman - thus hoping for a catch from the bouncer being fended off.

Most aspects of short pitched bowling is aggresive positive play.

Originally Posted by Rachael

You CAN be negative with the 'keeper stood up... but you don not HAVE to be negative!

There is no other point to a keeper standing up to slower pace bowlers like Small, or Hoggard, than to be negative - it just stops a batsman leaving his crease.

A keeper could not keep standing up to a genuine pace bowler like Lee Flintoff or Shoaib, he would have no chance of catching an edge, and would be prone to serious injury.

A keeper like Read should stand back to bowlers like Flntoff - Mahmood - Harmison or Plunkett, to catch the inevitable edges in English conditions.