ICF All Time Test XI : Wicketkeeper

[Prakat]

b. McGrath c. Healy

[Vijay.Sharma]

Although I voted for Gilly, I think as a pure keeper Knott is the best there has been.

[The Outsider]

Underwood....what a pie chucker he was..saw his bowling in videos posted by Robe Linda. He was very much like Michael Bewan as bowler.

What a moronic post - Underwood and Bevan were not even similar bowlers to begin with. One was a finger spinner, the other a wrist spinner. It's like saying Kumble and Rohit Sharma are similar bowlers.

[rkt.india]

What a moronic post - Underwood and Bevan were not even similar bowlers to begin with. One was a finger spinner' date=' the other a wrist spinner. It's like saying Kumble and Rohit Sharma are similar bowlers.[/quote'] Not similar in ways. I didnt say Underwood was Chinaman, but their approach to the stumps was similar. Underwood wasn't a traditional left arm spinner like Bedi who could use flight and turn the ball as well, Underwood looked more like Chris Harris kinda bowler with Bewanish runup.

[The Outsider]

Not similar in ways. I didnt say Underwood was Chinaman' date=' but their approach to the stumps was similar. Underwood wasn't a traditional left arm spinner like Bedi who could use flight and turn the ball as well, Underwood looked more like Chris Harris kinda bowler with Bewanish runup.[/quote'] Underwood was more in the Chandra and Kumble category if you really want to draw an analogy - though he was left handed and a finger spinner unlike Chandra and Kumble. He was one of the deadliest bowlers on uncovered wickets and Gavaskar's ordinary record against England is a result of his struggles against Underwood. In one of his books he talks about how difficult it was to face Underwood and here you are comparing him to a bits and pieces part time bowler!

[Vijay.Sharma]

Underwood....what a pie chucker he was..saw his bowling in videos posted by Robe Linda. He was very much like Michael Bewan as bowler.

And yet this pie chucker got the great Sunny Gavaskar out 12 times in 20 Tests! come on rkt, do u even know about these players? keeping to Underwood was like keeping to a left handed Kumble

[rkt.india]

And yet this pie chucker got the great Sunny Gavaskar out 12 times in 20 Tests! come on rkt, do u even know about these players? keeping to Underwood was like keeping to a left handed Kumble

Yaar look at the video which I saw he did not look anything and he thrived on uncovered pitches as Outy said.

[rkt.india]

Underwood was more in the Chandra and Kumble category if you really want to draw an analogy - though he was left handed and a finger spinner unlike Chandra and Kumble. He was one of the deadliest bowlers on uncovered wickets and Gavaskar's ordinary record against England is a result of his struggles against Underwood. In one of his books he talks about how difficult it was to face Underwood and here you are comparing him to a bits and pieces part time bowler!

The video i saw suggested this and he thrived on uncovered pitches which we do not have anymore.

[Crookbond]

The video i saw suggested this and he thrived on uncovered pitches which we do not have anymore.

Same old recycling :bird: This is an "All Time Test XI". What if there was a change in the ICC rule to play on uncovered wickets? There was already a discussion on this for the Indian domestic season [1]. Anyways, you are a product of your environment. So, you pick players on how they have performed given the best they had. If tomorrow, cricket is played in the desserts of Mongolia you wouldn't make Rohit Sharma a better batsmen than Sachin Tendulkar. Comprende? Another way to look at it was that if bowling on uncovered wickets was so easy why aren't the other bowlers rated so high? There was definitely something about Underwood which makes him great - uncovered wickets or not. [1] http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/568184.html

[rkt.india]

Same old recycling :bird: This is an "All Time Test XI". What if there was a change in the ICC rule to play on uncovered wickets? There was already a discussion on this for the Indian domestic season [1]. Anyways, you are a product of your environment. So, you pick players on how they have performed given the best they had. If tomorrow, cricket is played in the desserts of Mongolia you wouldn't make Rohit Sharma a better batsmen than Sachin Tendulkar. Comprende? [1] http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/568184.html

We are not talking about what happens in future. We are choosing team for how game is played today, not considering past and future. Any bowler who can bowl well on pattas of today can easily bowl well on uncovered pitches as well but opposite is not always sure.

[The Outsider]

The video i saw suggested this and he thrived on uncovered pitches which we do not have anymore.

Uncovered or covered, how does it make a difference to Knott's keeping skills which is the subject of discussion here. You think Underwood was a pie chucker, fine, though Gavaskar having faced him would disagree but how does the fact that Knott kept brilliantly to him depend on Underwood's performance on covered and uncovered pitches? BTW, Underwood took out Gavaskar mostly in India where pitches were covered.

[Crookbond]

We are not talking about what happens in future. We are choosing team for how game is played today' date=' not considering past and future. [b']Any bowler who can bowl well on pattas of today can easily bowl well on uncovered pitches as well but opposite is not always sure.

[1] What do you mean by "All time" Test XI. My understanding says a team for all conditions, times etc. [2] How do you come to that (bold) conclusion?

[rkt.india]

Uncovered or covered, how does it make a difference to Knott's keeping skills which is the subject of discussion here. You think Underwood was a pie chucker, fine, though Gavaskar having faced him would disagree but how does the fact that Knott kept brilliantly to him depend on Underwood's performance on covered and uncovered pitches? BTW, Underwood took out Gavaskar mostly in India where pitches were covered.

I am not talking about Knott's keeping. My comment was about Underwood's bowling.

[rkt.india]

[1] What do you mean by "All time" Test XI. My understanding says a team for all conditions, times etc. [2] How do you come to that (bold) conclusion?

Regarding your first point, did you see what were the conditions in 1940s, I think no. Second point. Uncovered pitches are those pitches which will help bowlers more than usual. To be successful on pattas, bowlers need special skills, but dustbowls, uncovered pitches, or too much seaming tracks narrows that gap and even substandard bowler looks world class on such tracks. On such pitches, bowlers do not need to do much, pitch itself does do enough.

[The Outsider]

I am not talking about Knott's keeping. My comment was about Underwood's bowling.

I'll take Gavaskar's and several other great players' word on Underwood's bowling. However the impression that I got was that you would not take Knott's keeping seriously because he kept to Bevan as far as spinners are concerned, which is completely wrong.

[rkt.india]

I'll take Gavaskar's and several other great players' word on Underwood's bowling. However the impression that I got was that you would not take Knott's keeping seriously because he kept to Bevan as far as spinners are concerned' date=' which is completely wrong.[/quote'] No. He must have kept to others too and that too in English conditions, especially keeping to swing bowlers in England is one of the toughest job. My point was only about your example of Underwood. If Gavaskar has said something about Underwood then I must take those words too. But then I also watched likes of Desmond Haynes talking about Andy Roberts and company on TV programs that they used to bowl over 100 miles per hour while we all think 100 mph is still an aberration let alone over 100 mph. Now, whose words should I take.

[The Outsider]

No. He must have kept to others too and that too in English conditions, especially keeping to swing bowlers in England is one of the toughest job. My point was only about your example of Underwood. If Gavaskar has said something about Underwood then I must take those words too. But then I also watched likes of Desmond Haynes talking about Andy Roberts and company on TV programs that they used to bowl over 100 miles per hour while we all think 100 mph is still an aberration let alone over 100 mph. Now, whose words should I take.

Yeah, present day commentators say, "Oh that turned a mile" so should I take their word at face value when I know that the dimension of the entire stadium is less than mile?

[rkt.india]

Yeah' date=' present day commentators say, "Oh that turned a mile" so should I take their word at face value when I know that the dimension of the entire stadium is less than mile?[/quote'] You didn't answer my question.

[The Outsider]

You didn't answer my question.

I don't see any question in your previous post, but guessing that you are talking about taking people's word at face value, I've already answered it. If Haynes says Roberts used to bowl at 100 mph it means that Roberts used to bowl really quick just like saying it turned a mile means it turned a lot, not that the turning ball went out of the stadium.

[rkt.india]

I don't see any question in your previous post' date=' but guessing that you are talking about taking people's word at face value, I've already answered it. If Haynes says Roberts used to bowl at 100 mph it means that Roberts used to bowl really quick just like saying it turned a mile means it turned a lot, not that the turning ball went out of the stadium.[/quote'] Let me tell you the reference. Haynes was talking about today's bowlers in that reference. He was asked how quick Roberts used to bowl. He said like this when I see Brett Lee, Akhtar clocking 100 mph, then Roberts must be bowling over 100 mph. Similarly like Gavaskar said things about Underwood, Tendulkar also said many times that Abdul Razzaq is one of the toughest bowlers he has faced and even he said similar things about Hansie Cronje.