Are Wicketkeeper generally

[kabira]

most innovative? If you see wicketkeepers like McCullum, Boucher, Karthik, Dhoni, even Nixon, this all tend to play some outrageous strokes...deft reverse sweep, traditional sweep etc etc. I feel they are blessed with quickest reflexes or rather their skill set demands quick reflexes. The best innovator was Andy Flower again a wicket keeper.. so in general wickies are pain in ass, because they tend to play unconventional cricket at times...Is it ok to generalize?

[The Outsider]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally Sounds like a fair enough point. Even keepers from yesteryears like Healy, Kirmani, More, Marsh, Smith had unconventional yet successful batting approaches. However, there are also keepers who have been pretty orthodox in their batting like Gilchrist, Stewart, Engineer.

[kabira]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally Engineer was not orthodox I believe... Even Alan Knot was quite unconventional in his approach..

[The Outsider]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally I might be wrong but from what I've read Engineer, though aggressive had a pretty conventional batting technique. Amongst the unconventional ones, Moin Khan is another one who would be right up there. Also, Boucher generally has a pretty conventional technique more so in tests.

[kabira]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally >Also, Boucher generally has a pretty conventional technique more so in tests. I do not mean technique..I mean approach....those cheeky deft touches....lot of wrist work.....quick reflexes...

[gator]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally even Dravid re-invented himself in batting and took to smart and deft touches coupled with booming strokes after he took up keeping...

[Predator_05]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally The wicketkeepers you mentioned tend to bat like that because they are all primarily lower-order batsmen. Any batsman who is at a position of #5 or lower in the batting will be forced to play during the slog overs, and the outrageous strokes develop as a consequence. So i wouldn't say that this can be a valid generalisation for all wicketkeepers. The ones who bat higher up the order are better batsmen and technically correct, ie; Gilchrist or Sangakkara. We've definitely seen the quality of wicket-keepers improve over the last few years though. During the 90's; 'keeping wasn't the two-fold, all-round task it is today as these guys were picked on their 'keeping ability first and foremost. Batting lower down the order, they weren't worth any runs. Remember 'keepers like Parore, Richardson, Mongia, Latif, Kaluwitharana, Healy ? None of them would find a place in their respective teams had they played their cricket during this era.

[gator]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally u may be generally right, predator... though Latif is 1000 times better than the money-face...

[King]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally Watching from behind helps you a lot as a batsman. You kind of get used to watching the ball from the hand when you are wicket keeping and that helps you when you get to bat. Even the wicket keeprs that are not blessed with good technique develop good eye hand given how closely they watch the ball. When someone lacks technique they make it up with hands eye. No wonder there are not many wicket keepers that can't bat well.

[Predator_05]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally

u may be generally right' date=' predator... though Latif is 1000 times better than the money-face...[/quote'] As a 'keeper, yes - as a batsman ? I don't think so. Swap Latifa's name with Moin Khan though, and you might have a point.

[gator]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally Latif had a much more formidable reputation and less of an FTB than Monkey-boy.... personaly, Moin was better than both....

[The Outsider]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally

personaly, Moin was better than both....

Moin wasn't a patch on Latif as far as keeping was concerned. Moin, the keeper, was terrible and Latif, the keeper, was superb.

[gator]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally we r talking about batting here, Shwetabh....

[Predator_05]

Re: Are Wicketkeeper generally

Even the wicket keeprs that are not blessed with good technique develop good eye hand given how closely they watch the ball. When someone lacks technique they make it up with hands eye. No wonder there are not many wicket keepers that can't bat well.

...but Ravi, what about the great wicket-keepers who couldn't bat for peanuts ? ie; Kirmani, Kaluwitharana, Richardson, etc. Brilliant keepers they may have been, their keeping ability had no influence on their batting at international level. I personally don't agree with people who claim that Dravid's improvement as a batsman was a result of his wicket-keeping. My point of view is that Dravid was approaching the peak of his career at that stage anyway, and 'keeping had nothing to do with his development as a batsman. Of course, one can argue that 'keeping made him fitter and therefore able to bat longer periods, but he didn't transform into a great batsman solely because of that.