ICF All Time Test XI : Wicketkeeper

[rkt.india]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Underwood played in the same era as Lillee, Thompson, Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Roberts, Bedi, Chandra etc. etc. and averaged around the same as them - all pie chuckers, brah? :hmmm:

I was just joking.:winky: BTW, Underwood's SR is 73 which is pathetic even for a spinner. He was nothing special bowler. Strike Rate makes a bowler deadly. His average is 25 because of the era in which he played when teams used to score at 2 rpo. While in this era, I doubt he would have averaged 25 with that SR. He would have been averaging over 35 with an SR of 73. Kumble has an SR of 65 averages around 30, Warne has an SR of 57 and then he averages 25 as good as Underwood because he played in high scoring rate decade. Harbjahan Strike rate 68 average 32, Murli SR 55, average 22. They are very proportional to each other. If one has High SR, he has high average as well because they all played in modern era, but Underwood has high SR but average as good as 25 which indicates that batsmen were scoring at slower pace on those days which lead to lower averages. Now look at Bedi, SR 80 and average 28, any bowler nowadays with an SR of 80 would average at least 40. Look at Richi Benaud himself SR of 77 and still average 27 even better than Kumble whose SR is 65. Even Steyn whose SR is 40 average 23 because his economy rate is high 3.39. If he had bowled in that era he would have had an economy of around 2 odd and then he would have had averaged certainly between 15-20. Now I give you an example of a modern left arm spinner who is very talented and that is Pragyan Ojha. He has though only played 14 tests, he averages 34 much worse than Underwood, but his SR is close to Underwood's that is 74. It tells you the difference in then and now.

[The Outsider]

Even Steyn whose SR is 40 average 23 because his economy rate is high 3.39. If he had bowled in that era he would have had an economy of around 2 odd and then he would have had averaged certainly between 15-20. Now I give you an example of a modern left arm spinner who is very talented and that is Pragyan Ojha. He has though only played 14 tests, he averages 34 much worse than Underwood, but his SR is close to Underwood's that is 74. It tells you the difference in then and now.

I am sorry, but you've completely lost it. At one point you were saying you were joking, are you joking again? Test cricket has become a faster game than it was 30 years back - that means strike rates have improved in modern times and economy rates have gotten worse. The average of world class bowlers has remained around the same. Akhtar has a much better strike rate than Imran, so Imran would average 30 today? Your favorite Ambrose has a much worse strike rate than Darren Gough, so Gough is a better bowler? Hadd hoti hai kisi bewaqoofi ke point ko kheenchne ki yaar!

[rkt.india]

I am sorry, but you've completely lost it. At one point you were saying you were joking, are you joking again? Test cricket has become a faster game than it was 30 years back - that means strike rates have improved in modern times and economy rates have gotten worse. The average of world class bowlers has remained around the same. Akhtar has a much better strike rate than Imran, so Imran would average 30 today? Your favorite Ambrose has a much worse strike rate than Darren Gough, so Gough is a better bowler? Hadd hoti hai kisi bewaqoofi ke point ko kheenchne ki yaar!

I was joking regarding comparing Lohman and Underwood. But I would not accept Underwood was any better than Dan Vettori or even Ojha. My argument is SR and averages are very much proportional to each other. Now apart from Steyn, no one average close to him because he has such a fantastic strike rate that even with high economy he has maintained his average. While look at second best test fast bowler right now James Anderson who has SR of 57, average 30, and economy on higher side at 3.14, but because he has high SR, he has high average when we compare him to Steyn because both have very similar kind of economy rate with Steyn marginally higher economy. and You are saying test cricket has become fast, yes and that is the reason I say Underwood would average in mid 30s now. Regarding your example of Gough and Ambrose, their career has been pretty much intermingles with each other and then there is not much difference in their SRs. It just says that Ambrose had better economy which keeps his average to 20 even with high SR than Gough anmd it also says he was a much better alround bowler than Gough because he had a good SR as well good economy so it tells us that he rarely used to give any leeway to the opposition neither in terms of runs nor wickets.

[Sidhoni]

Dhoni is an average wkt keeper. Makes no sense to include him in a World XI' date=' even if he were one of the better batsmen.[/quote'] He definitely is above average as a wicketkeeper. He drops catches very rarely and does not let go of much extras behind the stumps.

[The Outsider]

I was joking regarding comparing Lohman and Underwood. But I would not accept Underwood was any better than Dan Vettori or even Ojha. My argument is SR and averages are very much proportional to each other. Now apart from Steyn, no one average close to him because he has such a fantastic strike rate that even with high economy he has maintained his average. While look at second best test fast bowler right now James Anderson who has SR of 57, average 30, and economy on higher side at 3.14, but because he has high SR, he has high average when we compare him to Steyn because both have very similar kind of economy rate with Steyn marginally higher economy. and You are saying test cricket has become fast, yes and that is the reason I say Underwood would average in mid 30s now.

You've got the entire concept upside down. The basic statistics in cricket is the average and only when the the average is in the same range that you start looking at other things. Why? Because cricket is a game of scoring the maximum number of runs you can per wicket lost (only talking of test cricket, just to clarify). That fundamental concept has not changed for more than 100 years. If we go down your route of judging bowlers by their strike rates instead of their averages on a primary basis - and I am ignoring ones with small sample sizes or who are close in strike rates one would get results like: 1. Gough > Ambrose 2. Waqar > Imran 3. Gillespie > Walsh 4. Lee > Akram etc. etc. You really think these rankings reflect reality? Look at what has stayed constant from cricket in the 70s and today - it's not strike rate and economy rate, it's the average. So if you are going to make a comparison across the two times it has to be done on the basis of the constant. You really believe Steyn would average 15 if he bowled 25 years back? :hysterical:

[rkt.india]

You've got the entire concept upside down. The basic statistics in cricket is the average and only when the the average is in the same range that you start looking at other things. Why? Because cricket is a game of scoring the maximum number of runs you can per wicket lost (only talking of test cricket, just to clarify). That fundamental concept has not changed for more than 100 years. If we go down your route of judging bowlers by their strike rates instead of their averages on a primary basis - and I am ignoring ones with small sample sizes or who are close in strike rates one would get results like: 1. Gough > Ambrose 2. Waqar > Imran 3. Gillespie > Walsh 4. Lee > Akram etc. etc. You really think these rankings reflect reality? Look at what has stayed constant from cricket in the 70s and today - it's not strike rate and economy rate, it's the average. So if you are going to make a comparison across the two times it has to be done on the basis of the constant. You really believe Steyn would average 15 if he bowled 25 years back? :hysterical:

Regarding your example of Gough and Ambrose, their career has been pretty much intermingles with each other and then there is not much difference in their SRs. It just says that Ambrose had better economy which keeps his average to 20 even with high SR than Gough anmd it also says he was a much better alround bowler than Gough because he had a good SR as well good economy so it tells us that he rarely used to give any leeway to the opposition neither in terms of runs nor wickets.

[The Outsider]

Regarding your example of Gough and Ambrose' date=' their career has been pretty much intermingles with each other and then there is not much difference in their SRs. It just says that Ambrose had better economy which keeps his average to 20 even with high SR than Gough anmd it also says he was a much better alround bowler than Gough because he had a good SR as well good economy so it tells us that he rarely used to give any leeway to the opposition neither in terms of runs nor wickets.[/quote'] I gave a lost more examples. Yeah, I know Gough and Ambrose's careers overlapped quite a bit and that is the reason for the example - that strike rate means nothing if you don't have a top class average to go with it. Anyhow, I'll quit this discussion now. 70s-80s mein sub pie chuckers the, Steyn would have averaged 15 if he played then - that's enough learning for me in a day.

[rkt.india]

I gave a lost more examples. Yeah, I know Gough and Ambrose's careers overlapped quite a bit and that is the reason for the example - that strike rate means nothing if you don't have a top class average to go with it. Anyhow, I'll quit this discussion now. 70s-80s mein sub pie chuckers the, Steyn would have averaged 15 if he played then - that's enough learning for me in a day.

Why not Steyn can average in range between 15-20. I didn't say 15. It is 15-20. If you say Underwood would average 27 today then Steyn would have averaged less than 20 back then. Look at some other things as well which have changed with time tailender batting, wicket keeper batting. On those days, you have got first 6 and it was easy to get others, but it is no more now. These things also inflate averages and why do you think high scoring rate does not inflate averages of today's bowlers. Styen has such good average because he has excellent SR. Consider this thing, Steyn and Anderson both have similar economy rates, while Styen averages 23 and Anderson averages 30. Why? Because STyen has SR of 40, and Anderson 57. Imagine if Steyn too had an SR of 57, then he would have been averaging more than Anderson because he has marginally higher economy than Anderson. SR plays a huge role in maintaining your average in today's time because economies are bound to be higher than what they were 3 decades ago. And I didnt say all were pie chuckers. My argument is that why you see only average and not SR. Bowlers who were good in both areas are great bowlers whether they were in 70s or today. Michael Holding was a great bowler. He has higher economy than most on those days but still has average of 23 and SR of 50. I dont think Underwood was much better than Dan Vettori or Pragyan Ojha or Venkatpati Raju.

[Crookbond]

What makes you think Aln Knott' date=Wasim Bari,Rod Marsh,Dujon never dropped a catch.....Yes by all acounts they are very good keepers with a sound technique but so was Mongia.They were part of some very good squads and thats it period.Dhoni.....Infact I would put Dhoni maybe only a shade below Gilchrist and flower,and a shade above Boucher. If you ask me yes,Healy was the best Keeper ever from how Warne Credits him for his rise to stardom but in terms of utility guys like Dhoni and Gilly are once in a lifetime. If I wanted a game changer and Gilly was not available,then Dhoni would be the 2nd go to guy.

:WTF: I never said they didn't drop a catch. But, there's more to keepers then just dropping catches - their technique, nimbleness, stamina etc. I would agree with with where you put Dhoni. But, lets not be fooled in thinking that Dhoni is a better keeper than Healy (not counting the batting).

[Marut]

He definitely is above average as a wicketkeeper. He drops catches very rarely and does not let go of much extras behind the stumps.

Keeping is more than not dropping easy catches. Dhoni rarely takes those spectacular "first slip" catches. Comparing Dhoni with Healy is like say, comparing Saeed Anwar with Tendulkar, two "good" batsmen.

[Sidhoni]

Keeping is more than not dropping easy catches. Dhoni rarely takes those spectacular "first slip" catches. Comparing Dhoni with Healy is like say' date= comparing Saeed Anwar with Tendulkar, two "good" batsmen.

I am not comparing MSD with Healy. I am just saying he is definitely above average as a keeper. When it comes to stumping, he is the best in the world. He does not give any opportunity to the batsman when he steps out and misses the ball and flicks the bails off at lightning quick speed. For the bold part - EgxXGz7XjvQ

[Crookbond]

I am not comparing MSD with Healy. I am just saying he is definitely above average as a keeper. When it comes to stumping, he is the best in the world. He does not give any opportunity to the batsman when he steps out and misses the ball and flicks the bails off at lightning quick speed.

Marut said "rarely" and you come up with 1 video. Proves his point. Yes - above average an this is the World All time XI we are talking about. I don't want "just above average" keeper. The reason he's quick at stumpings is because he has no "follow through". But, there's an issue with it. If you have no follow through, it makes it difficult to take catches of spinners. Ever since he has taken that technique, he has dropped more nicks from spinners.

[Marut]

Dhoni has a tendency not to go for the edges between him and the first slip. The all time great wkt keepers who were part of the poll rarely did that.

[The Outsider]

Why not Steyn can average in range between 15-20. I didn't say 15. It is 15-20. If you say Underwood would average 27 today then Steyn would have averaged less than 20 back then. Look at some other things as well which have changed with time tailender batting, wicket keeper batting. On those days, you have got first 6 and it was easy to get others, but it is no more now. These things also inflate averages and why do you think high scoring rate does not inflate averages of today's bowlers. Styen has such good average because he has excellent SR. Consider this thing, Steyn and Anderson both have similar economy rates, while Styen averages 23 and Anderson averages 30. Why? Because STyen has SR of 40, and Anderson 57. Imagine if Steyn too had an SR of 57, then he would have been averaging more than Anderson because he has marginally higher economy than Anderson. SR plays a huge role in maintaining your average in today's time because economies are bound to be higher than what they were 3 decades ago. And I didnt say all were pie chuckers. My argument is that why you see only average and not SR. Bowlers who were good in both areas are great bowlers whether they were in 70s or today. Michael Holding was a great bowler. He has higher economy than most on those days but still has average of 23 and SR of 50. I dont think Underwood was much better than Dan Vettori or Pragyan Ojha or Venkatpati Raju.

Are you completely dense or are you trolling me? Yeah let's consider Holding and Steyn comparison. One has a strike rate of 40 in today's era and other had a strike rate of 50 three decades back. What's the strike rate of some of the best spinners in Steyn's era? Around 20-25 deliveries less ie. in the 60-65 range. Now what will be the corresponding strike rate of the best spinners in Holding's era? Around in the 70-75 range and that's where Underwood was. Ojha and Raju? Chalo, it's at least an improvement from Bevan.

[maniac]

:WTF: I never said they didn't drop a catch. But, there's more to keepers then just dropping catches - their technique, nimbleness, stamina etc. I would agree with with where you put Dhoni. But, lets not be fooled in thinking that Dhoni is a better keeper than Healy (not counting the batting).

Didn't mean it to come across that way...I am not implying you said that....All I am saying is on what basis guys like Knott,Bari,Dujon and Marsh are ahead of Dhoni in the final list.... I agree,They might have been good,consistent keepers but 1) are they in this list ahead of MS on basis of stats???bcoz if that is the case,He already has better if not already catching up to these guys. 2)Is it because of the impact and xfactor they brought into their teams,if that is the case,we have agreed that Dhoni would be rated ahead of say even Boucher and only after Healy,Flower and Gilly. 3)As I agreed they were decent keepers but they should not be ahead of Dhoni...If you have follwed any of my posts in the past,I am not a MSD fan but this obsession with anything retro and foegin is kinda sad and this shortlist might have to do with OP's personal taste and not on the basis of anything concrete.

[The Outsider]

^ Chalo yaar rona band karo - I've removed Engineer and put in Dhoni.

[maniac]

^ Chalo yaar rona band karo - I've removed Engineer and put in Dhoni.

:two_thumbs_up:

[Lurker]

:two_thumbs_up:

You better change your vote now. Itna mehnat karwa ke dont vote for Gilchrist :hehe:

[maniac]

You better change your vote now. Itna mehnat karwa ke dont vote for Gilchrist :hehe:

Nahi Yaar....As I said still rate him below Gilchrist,Flower and Healy in that order but would dfinetely be my 4th choice in the above list It is kind of like when you think that a particular actor should atleast deserve a nomination for oscar eventhough you know there is a clear-cut winner :icflove:

[Sidhoni]

^ Chalo yaar rona band karo - I've removed Engineer and put in Dhoni.

thanks :icflove: But I cant vote for him..as I have already voted for Gilly.. :((