Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[Damon_3388]

Yeah not as silly as it sounds. Bit of a Shane Warne/ McGill situation where if Gilly never takes up the game Haddin is seen as a dominant keeper bat that changed the game

No he didn't.

Well, whether he changed the game or not, what the criteria I illustrated shows is that there's been few better in the game's history in the role he played.

 

[Carl Hooper]

Gilchrist>Haddin>Boucher all time

 

[PhatBoy]

There's a reason he was a half decent number 7 in the grand scheme of things - because he wasn't good enough to bat higher.

where do other perpetual number 7s sit under the same criteria?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Gilchrist>Haddin>Boucher all time

Boucher could keep but I never rated his batting much at all.

 

[PhatBoy]

Boucher could keep but I never rated his batting much at all.

Do you rate Haddin's? There isn't a lot between their batting records.

 

[Carl Hooper]

Haddin could change games with his batting, Boucher was more than handy but just below Haddin

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Do you rate Haddin's? There isn't a lot between their batting records.

I rate Haddin's but do feel he could have finished up with a better average. I didn't always follow SA cricket that closely so my view on Boucher is probably somewhat skewed.

 

[Carl Hooper]

There's a reason he was a half decent number 7 in the grand scheme of things - because he wasn't good enough to bat higher.

where do other perpetual number 7s sit under the same criteria?

Well which keeper could bat higher than 7?

Only maybe Andy flower, but his keeping wasn't much better than a peter handscomb.

Maybe Sanga

 

[chunkylover]

I remember bouchers batting in the 99 world cup semi. Real deer in the headlights stuff. Always good on the chirp to the minnows but went real quiet against australia. Typical saffer

 

[Carl Hooper]

I think De kock will end up being much better than Boucher...

 

[PhatBoy]

Well which keeper could bat higher than 7?

Only maybe Andy flower, but his keeping wasn't much better than a peter handscomb.

Maybe Sanga

Are we talking any time or only before Haddin?

Prior averaged in the 40s, so does Sarfraz, De Kock has a better record than Gilchrist himself. Les Ames played against Bradman and averaged in the 40s. Jonny Bairstow does it easily (though his keeping needs to lift admittedly), BJ Watling is at around 38. Dhoni was similar.
In eras when many sides had players averaging in the 30s batting in their top 6, Knott and Dujon probably could have managed it quite easily.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think Haddin was a bad player by any means, but I think he just sits in the grandstand with the majority of the modern regulars.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think De kock will end up being much better than Boucher...

He's on track to be better than Gilchrist. Sounds like sacrilege but from an admittedly small sample size, he has already put together a phenomenal record.

 

[PhatBoy]

I remember bouchers batting in the 99 world cup semi. Real deer in the headlights stuff. Always good on the chirp to the minnows but went real quiet against australia. Typical saffer

Didn't he smash 60 off 40 to get them home in the 434 game?

Edit: 50 off 43. But guided them home nonetheless.

Though I'm sure he'd swap it for a better effort in the 99 semi.

 

[Carl Hooper]

Are we talking any time or only before Haddin?

Prior averaged in the 40s, so does Sarfraz, De Kock has a better record than Gilchrist himself. Les Ames played against Bradman and averaged in the 40s. Jonny Bairstow does it easily (though his keeping needs to lift admittedly), BJ Watling is at around 38. Dhoni was similar.
In eras when many sides had players averaging in the 30s batting in their top 6, Knott and Dujon probably could have managed it quite easily.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think Haddin was a bad player by any means, but I think he just sits in the grandstand with the majority of the modern regulars.

All time.. Ok, I wasn't thinking hard enough.

I'll say Gilly>Dhoni>Haddin>>Boucher.

He's on track to be better than Gilchrist. Sounds like sacrilege but from an admittedly small sample size, he has already put together a phenomenal record.

Yeah true, Gilly started like him tho, averaging well over 50.. Way too early to call, but definitely has the potential!!

 

[Damon_3388]

There's a reason he was a half decent number 7 in the grand scheme of things - because he wasn't good enough to bat higher.

where do other perpetual number 7s sit under the same criteria?

The list from my previous post shows where he stands in that regard.

Again, the selection criteria for the list:

- Playing for AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no BAN or ZIM)
- Playing against AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no BAN or ZIM)
- Playing in AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no UAE or other neutral venues)
- Playing as designated wicketkeeper
- Batting at #7 or below
- 30 innings batted
- 30 times dismissed
- 1 Test century

Yes, he probably wasn't good enough to bat in the top 6, but was he ever meant to be? Pre-Gilchrist, it was never expected that the keeper be as good as a top 6 batsman. Before Gilchrist's Test debut, there were two players in the history of Test cricket to average above 34 with the bat while playing as designated keepers. One was from the 1930s (Les Ames) and the other was from Zimbabwe (Andy Flower). Hell, pre-'90s, an average of 25 and a Test century to your name as a keeper put you in some pretty elite, unique company, among just 12 players in history. Even post-Gilchrist, no specialist keeper has reached anywhere near his heights as a batsman, but Haddin came closer than most.

Most keepers who bat in the top 6 regularly in Test cricket only seem to do so because they're either A) exceptional batsmen first and foremost, who can also do OK with the gloves, and B) their country can't consistently field 6 batsmen/all-rounders who are better than them with the bat.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Even with the drop in average Sangakarra enters the discussion, as well as de Villiers.

Hard to compare keepers from yesteryear too.

 

[Damon_3388]

Just as an aside, in these discussions, I'm totally ruling out matches for or against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the ICC World XI, and matches on UAE desert highways or neutral venues, to rule out any accusations of minnow-bashing or flat-track bullying.

Even with the drop in average Sangakarra enters the discussion, as well as de Villiers.

Hard to compare keepers from yesteryear too.

As designated wicketkeepers, playing against and in other "top 8 nations", they have 5 total Test innings between them batting at #7 or below, which rules them out from the point I was making (the traditional lower-order keeper/batsman role). Most of the time, they were essentially playing as batsmen who happened to be keeping wicket too.

Still, for the record, with the opposition and venue criteria I outlined earlier, as designated wicketkeepers batting in any position:

Sangakkara - 40 matches, 71 innings, 39.67 average, 50.74 strike rate (6 hundreds, 8 fifties)

de Villers - 22 matches, 36 innings, 54.36 average, 52.90 strike rate (6 hundreds, 6 fifties)

 

[PhatBoy]

The home and away disparity hurts him big time. Though dhoni would suffer too on that front.

 

[chunkylover]

Didn't he smash 60 off 40 to get them home in the 434 game?

Edit: 50 off 43. But guided them home nonetheless.

Though I'm sure he'd swap it for a better effort in the 99 semi.

Yep thought about that knock as i typed. Looked good that day. He reminds me more of Healy. Can be relied on for getting some tough runs when the team needs it.

 

[Damon_3388]

The home and away disparity hurts him big time. Though dhoni would suffer too on that front.

- Playing for IND/SL
- Playing against AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no BAN or ZIM)
- Playing in AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no UAE or other neutral venues)
- Playing as designated wicketkeeper

Sangakkara
Overall - 40 matches, 71 innings, 39.67 average, 50.74 strike rate (6 hundreds, 8 fifties)
Home - 22 matches, 37 innings, 43.17 average, 51.01 strike rate (4 hundreds, 5 fifties)
Away - 18 matches, 34 innings, 35.84 average, 50.39 strike rate (2 hundreds, 3 fifties)

Dhoni
Overall - 87 matches, 140 innings, 37.16 average, 58.70 strike rate (6 hundreds, 31 fifties)
Home - 42 matches, 61 innings, 45.76 average, 59.55 strike rate (5 hundreds, 15 fifties)
Away - 45 matches, 79 innings, 31.12 average, 57.84 strike rate (1 hundreds, 16 fifties)

 

[Damon_3388]

Yep thought about that knock as i typed. Looked good that day. He reminds me more of Healy. Can be relied on for getting some tough runs when the team needs it.

Kind of wonder what the keeping dynamic would have been like in South Africa if Matt Prior hadn't moved to England at age 11. Would Boucher (the all-time leader in Test dismissals) have been relegated to being SA's version of Chris Hartley, given that Prior is 6 years younger and ended up with a Test batting average 10 runs higher?

 

[Damon_3388]

The idea that Justin Langer was the "slow, defensive one" in his opening partnership with Matthew Hayden was a little bit of a myth.

Yeah, JL had more grit and more of a defensive side and ability to "dig in" when needed than Hayden did, but he played just as many strokes and scored his runs at just as quick a rate when they were paired up, and at pretty quick rate by anyone's standards for the era, really.

- Playing against ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no BAN or ZIM or WXI)
- Playing in AUS/ENG/IND/NZ/PAK/SA/SL/WI (no UAE or other neutral venues)
- Opening together (102 innings total, across 56 Tests)

Hayden - 52.82 average, 60.55 strike rate, 12.29 balls per boundary (17 hundreds, 18 fifties)

Langer - 51.97 average, 58.94 strike rate, 12.62 balls per boundary (16 hundreds, 16 fifties)

People would have you believe Langer as opener was still a grafter with a sub-50 strike rate, which clearly wasn't the case at all. Yes, he was that type of batsman when he was operating at #3 for a large part of his Test career (66 innings across 41 Tests, 40.31 average, 47.99 strike rate against and in top 8 countries), but he also wasn't as good or as prolific in that role, either.

 

[Hellgood]

Haddin a long way down the list IMO.

Sangakarra, Dhoni, Boucher and arguably McCullum all superior of his era. Like Prior, he was a good cricketer with some outstanding runs of form but I think the previously mentioned were better all round cricketers.

 

[JG22]

Gilchrist>Haddin>Boucher all time

Wade>Gilchrist

 

[chargers 09]

Boucher was a better cricketer than Haddin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk