It’s all Adam Gilchrist’s fault.
Ever since Gilchrist entered the international fray and created a new mould for the archetypal wicketkeeper, the search has been on to find those who can offer the same level of world-class glovework and batting, especially the batting, in the same package.
A tough gig, given Gilchrist was one of a kind, but that hasn’t stopped all and sundry from trying their level best to find a replica.
Anyway, I like Jonny Bairstow. I don’t know him – I’ve met him once (I think) and played in the same team as his older brother 20 years ago – so I’m not going to claim any kind of in-depth friendship but, nevertheless, I like the Yorkshireman.
I admire the way he plays the game and I’ve plenty of time for the way he has transformed himself from the talented yet obviously flawed batsman of a couple of years ago into the one you see laying waste to all in front of him at this moment in time.
And there is plenty to be said for the way he carries himself with nothing in the way of ego or arrogance, just a bloke making the most of the opportunities that have been presented.
The way he’s been playing this summer it would be too easy to run out of superlatives for his batting so I’ll stop right there.
But, but, but…
His wicketkeeping, while hardly the scrambled mess some claim it to be, is, how to put it nicely, still a work in progress.
The adage of a good wicketkeeper hardly being noticed, unfortunately for the man in possession, can’t be used because Bairstow is making a habit of squandering chances and when that occurs, the man with the gloves on is everything but invisible.
The straightforward drop off Chris Woakes in the Test against Sri Lanka at Lord’s last week was the latest and, come to think of it, easiest of the few he has grassed in recent months. The talk has now turned to how his position behind the stumps will be reviewed ahead of the Pakistan series which kicks off next month.
That’s how it should be as every team, however good they may be, has to constantly strive for improvement. It is hardly going out on a limb to suggest the England team would be better off with somebody else behind the stumps.
If they do make a change and relieve Bairstow of the gauntlets it is likely that Jos Buttler will resume his Test career and take over the number seven slot with the former shifting easily to the middle order.
The main issue with this way of thinking is that Buttler is yet to convince as a Test cricketer and while he is undoubtedly talented – you can’t bat the way he can in limited-over games without an abundance of natural ability – as a wicketkeeper he, like Bairstow, is far from the finished article.
He is better with the gloves but in the five-day format he isn’t a patch on Bairstow with a bat in his hand. And therein lies the rub.
If you select your wicketkeeper on the grounds that he can bat then you have to risk the inevitable compromise which is, or at least should be, clear for all to see.
Is that being harsh or too cynical? I’m not sure it is.
The reality of longer form cricket in 2016, as has been the case for a few years now, is that wicketkeeping comes secondary to the number of runs accumulated or at least promised.
Without a great deal of effort, it would be fairly easy to name a handful of county wicketkeepers better at that particular part of their trade than both Bairstow and Buttler. But you won’t find any with more batting ability than the first of those named and few who could better the second.
England, when Ben Stokes returns from injury, could comfortably accommodate a specialist wicketkeeper given the fact Moeen Ali at number eight allows a five-man attack to be fielded without detracting from the top order. But I’d bet my bottom dollar this scenario isn’t given the time of day by the selection panel.
If it isn’t Bairstow behind the stumps when the first Test gets underway against Pakistan then it will be Buttler and vice versa. Runs are the currency and if it means the odd catch goes down then so be it.
After all, you reap what you sow.
armchair expert
Guest
Agreed Chris, I suspect Healy would of missed more chances on average compared to Gilchrist, especially in their respective first couple of years.
armchair expert
Guest
I recall a Mike Gatting article a couple of years after the 1986/87 ashes series where he and the selectors chose Jack Richards ahead of Bruce French despite French being a lot better keeper.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Definitely! Fielding stats need to include errors. So dropped catches needs to be a statistic as well as taken catches. I'm pretty sure in Baseball that have stats for number of times fielded the ball cleanly v fumbled the ball. No reason you couldn't have such a thing in cricket.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Except with Gilly I don't know that there was really that much weakness there. You could say that some other keepers might have been technically better keepers, but it's fine margins. These days we are players who are much worse keepers getting selected because they are slightly better batsmen, with Gilly it was more a case of being a fractionally worse keeper getting selected because he was a vastly better batsman.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Especially since in Nevill's limited T20 batting opportunities for Australia, he's shown he can come in with a couple of overs remaining and smash sixes!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Definitely. Ian Healy was one of the best pure glovemen around, and the truth is that Gilly was able to step in and really not let anything slip in that area. He was a great keeper, but people so often forget about that because of how destructive his batting was. There are a number of other players in recent times who've been keepers that are also phenomenal batsmen, but Gilly is probably the only one who didn't hand over the gloves for significant parts of his career (like Sangakarra did, still keeping in ODI's but didn't keep in tests for probably the last two-thirds of his career).
Johnno
Guest
Chris Read seemed to be treated harshly by the selectors too. As was Jack Russell, as they leaned towards Alec Stewart. Alec Stewart in my view would have been better batter than he was, had he been able to focus just on batting. Junior Murray better bat than David Williams same thing.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Yes, I think the general consensus is that Gillly was a excellent international standard keeper.
josh
Roar Rookie
For a sport with plenty of statisitcs, why there aren't more in respect to fielding is beyond me.
josh
Roar Rookie
Nah, bye aren't always a keepers fault. Brett Lee bouncing tail enders down the leg side and it goes for 4? Not the keepers fault.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Or dropping Compton and sticking Bairstow in at 4 with Root at 3.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Surely no one really thinks that? I thought it was generally accepted that Gilly was an excellent 'keeper, as well as a special batsman.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
With the bat, certainly. But surely he should be there as a batsmen purely; there must be a better 'keeper? Baz is right, he will drop a catch in a crucial match at some point. He has a lot of parallels to Mat Wade for Australia (though an even better batsman). Eventually the drops got too much, and we possibly lost a series because of it. Lyon probably hasn't even forgiven him yet.
steve
Guest
Definitely, Im not saying Gilly was better than Heals as a keeper, Healy was better for sure but im sick of this idea that a lot of people have that Gilchrist was a weak keeper when he was very good.
english twizz
Guest
If we play woakes he is also a all rounder so could bring foakes in at 9 also if boatwick comes in at 3 he's a spinner aswell
spruce moose
Guest
Byes conceded as well.
JamesH
Roar Guru
"Seems to me like dropping Vince, pushing Bairstow to 5 and picking Foakes at 7 or 8 is the perfect solution." Absolutely. I can't understand why they don't just treat Bairstow as a pure batsman and play their best keeper-who-can-bat a-bit. How far down the order do you need to bat?!?
BurgyGreen
Guest
Giving Buttler the gloves makes no sense, it's a meaningless swap. Either of them will struggle hugely standing up to the stumps in the subcontinent. An absolute liability. It's no coincidence that Nathan Lyon has gained greatly in confidence and skill since Wade was dropped. I'd suggest Moeen would benefit hugely by the addition of a proper keeper. As you say, Alec, the current balance of the England side, with two allrounders, gives them a rare opportunity to play a specialist keeper. They say Ben Foakes is the genuine article with the gloves and his batting is more than adequate. Seems to me like dropping Vince, pushing Bairstow to 5 and picking Foakes at 7 or 8 is the perfect solution.
Robbie
Guest
It's a balancing act. Gilchrist wasn't the best pure wicketkeeper in Australia (Darren Berry makes sure everyone knows that) and he wasn't as good a keeper as his predecessor, Ian Healy, however he was a quality keeper. His batting was good enough that he could have been selected as a pure batsman, he was essentially an all rounder. His ability with the bat made up for his weaknesses with the gloves, that's why they selected him. That being said, you can't select a wicketkeeper based purely on their batting (unless you're playing T20) they have to be a good enough keeper, first and foremost
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Steve, thank you! Some of the time media reports make me think that he was Bradman with the bat which made it totally understandable that he kept as though he were the Sulo bin, when the truth was he was a very good wicket-keeper who happened to be an excellent batsman. I agree with Alec that Gilchrist was who lead to that trait, but for some reason I'm getting increasingly reminded of Basil's cry to Cyril at the end of each Blinky Bill episode I watched when I was a kid. "This is all your fault Cyril!" Oh, how I would love to see Adam Gilchrist to follow the footsteps of Cyril in the final episode of that season and say, "No, this is all your fault Basil."