Haddin's future

[outabounds]

Do not think that Haddin has done too much wrong. Paine can wait.

 

[big_e]

Haddin has a better batting average and better strike rate. He's certainly the worse keeper of the two, but not bad enough to offset the advantages in the other areas (particularly in ODI cricket).

Stats aren't actually that different, in ODIs at least. Batting averages are 32.41 (Paine) and 32.39 (Haddin), while Haddin's strike rate isn't massively better - 83.10 vs 72.84.

 

[Caesar]

Stats aren't actually that different, in ODIs at least. Batting averages are 32.41 (Paine) and 32.39 (Haddin), while Haddin's strike rate isn't massively better - 83.10 vs 72.84.

I was comparing First Class stats since I figured we were ultimately talking about which was the better cricketer overall. But you make a good point.

 

[Toshowyouwhy]

Haddin is not any where near yhe bst gloveman in Australia, and although I think he's better, Paine has looked iffy as well at times. Haddin mentally is poor and posesses a couple of very fatal flaws in his keeping technique, the result of which is a lot of dropped catches and fecked up dives.

The problem is the want a Gilchrist clone. Not going to happen. For years he was the best keeper and the best keeper/batsman in Australia, and the world. Our number one priority should be to pick the best keeper. If he can bat, great. Keeping in mind Mitchell Johnson could happily fill a number 7 role, we could comfoprtably bat our test keeper at 8. Not sure if Paines the man yet, but he, in theory, should be ahead of Haddin

 

[Avi20]

Haddin is not any where near yhe bst gloveman in Australia, and although I think he's better, Paine has looked iffy as well at times. Haddin mentally is poor and posesses a couple of very fatal flaws in his keeping technique, the result of which is a lot of dropped catches and fecked up dives.

The problem is the want a Gilchrist clone. Not going to happen. For years he was the best keeper and the best keeper/batsman in Australia, and the world. Our number one priority should be to pick the best keeper. If he can bat, great. Keeping in mind Mitchell Johnson could happily fill a number 7 role, we could comfoprtably bat our test keeper at 8. Not sure if Paines the man yet, but he, in theory, should be ahead of Haddin

Australia selectors have shown that they prefer batters that can keep, over keepers that can bat.

And i disagree while johnson is a good batter hes inconsistent.
For memory i think he only made one fifty in the ashes, which would not be a good enough for a no.7.

 

[Toshowyouwhy]

Australia selectors have shown that they prefer batters that can keep, over keepers that can bat.

And i disagree while johnson is a good batter hes inconsistent.
For memory i think he only made one fifty in the ashes, which would not be a good enough for a no.7.

granted that they wont make that decision, I thik its a real shame that that has happened, and although Gilchrist has done great things for the country with his batting and keeping, he really has screwed the up and coming wicket keeper. Doesnt matter how good a keeper he is, if hes not scoring tons at a run a ball hes toast.

 

[Caesar]

I disagree Haddin drops a lot of catches. If he did, he wouldn't be in the team. He does let through a lot of byes (although if you look at the stats, he wasn't really any worse than Prior during the Ashes). The argument could be made that he doesn't have the ability to turn the odd slim chance into one of those spectacular dismissals that Gilly and Heals got every once in a while. I'm not sure how valid this argument is, but it's certainly worth considering - how often does a chance go begging that someone like Manou could reasonably be expected to take? I'm not sure they're that frequent, to be honest.

You have to select a keeper who can convert half-chances and won't spill catches. After that point, it's really about balancing the ability to prevent byes against the ability to score runs. Gilchrist and Healy probably weren't the best wicketkeepers in the country, but they were very good - and more importantly, good enough. Zohrer and Seccombe may have let through a couple less byes each match, but their averages were far inferior.

Pick a wicketkeeper/batsman - not a batsman/wicketkeeper, or a pure wicketkeeper.

 

[PalaceGun]

I disagree Haddin drops a lot of catches. If he did, he wouldn't be in the team. He does let through a lot of byes (although if you look at the stats, he wasn't really any worse than Prior during the Ashes).

That's saying very little, Prior is a poor keeper as well.
Haddin's footwork has been poor for years and doesn't seem to improve.

Time for the selectors to be brave and go with Paine in test cricket, a much better keeper. Do what they want in other forms of cricket, doesn't really matter.