Adam Gilchrist is Australia’s most successful Test wicketkeeper, but his suggestion the national selectors must pick the form keeper for the Ashes is a mind-blower.
Had selectors Trevor Hohns, Andrew Hilditch and Allan Border trod the same suggested path in 1999, Ian Healy would have extended his career behind the stumps.
Back then, Gilchrist was a crack batsman who could keep, not as well as Healy, but sufficiently well for the selectors to take a punt. It was a stroke of genius, as Gilchrist became the greatest batsman-keeper the grand old game has ever seen.
The emphasis is on batsman-keeper, not keeper-batsman.
Among the top five keeper career dismissals, four are genuine keepers who could bat, with Gilchrist the only batsman-keeper.
South African Mark Boucher holds the world record, with 555 dismissals from 147 Tests, made up of 532 catches and 23 stumpings.
Gilchrist is next, with 416 dismissals from 96 Tests – 379 catches, and 37 stumpings.
Healy had 395 from 119 Tests, including 366 catches and 39 stumpings.
Fourth is Rodney Marsh, also from 96 Tests, with 355 from 343 catches and 12 stumpings.
MS Dhoni rounds out the list, with 294 dismissals from 90 Tests – 256 catches and 38 stumpings.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
In the process Gilchrist rewrote the textbook on batsmen-keepers to a height nobody has been able to match, and every country since has been searching for their own ‘Gilly’.
Predictably, Gilchrist tops the batting stats among these five keepers, with 5570 runs at 47.60, including 17 Test tons, and 26 half-centuries.
On his day, he was most of the most devastating batsman the game has ever seen, never better shown than his highest Test score of 204* against South Africa in Johannesburg in 2002, which included 19 fours and eight maximums – a healthy 124 runs without leaving his crease.
The best way to do Ashes battle is to dump Matthew Wade, and reinstate Peter Nevill for the Ashes series. Gilchrist himself said New South Welshman Nevill was hard done by when he was dropped last year.
“I think Nevill was a bit harshly treated when they made the wholesale changes last summer,” was how Gilchrist summed up the scene.
“I didn’t think he was missing anything with the gloves really.
“And he got a 60-odd the game before. He was probably the victim of a failing top order.”
But you can see why the selectors plumped for Wade at the time who was recognised as the superior batsman of the two, despite being the inferior gloveman.
They were obviously looking for another Adam Gilchrist, but the punt has fallen way short.
Wade has made one Test half-century in his last 19 visits to the crease, his tenure must be terminated.
The same can be said for England’s Chris Woakes, who has drawn a red cross on his forehead by suggesting Australia has a fragile attack.
As for Woakes, whatever possessed him to bait the likes of Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, and Josh Hazlewood, by essentially calling them fragile?
“Apart from [Josh] Hazlewood, they haven’t got a guy who can sit in and hold positions,” Woakes said.
“[Pat] Cummins has played five Test matches in his whole career. He’s never played a Test match in Australia. They’re putting pressure on one of their own before he’s even started his home career.”
Woakes will see how fragile the attack is when the red pill is either whistling past or hitting his helmet at 150 clicks.
The Englishman is in for a painful summer. But the pain will be worse and deeper when he boards the plane home, minus the Ashes.
HB
Guest
While Woakes' remarks were inadvisable given that he's going to have to face those guys soon, I don't think they're totally off the mark. Cummins has done well so far when he's played but he still hasn't played much first-class cricket, let alone test cricket, so he's still being picked largely on potential (though he has that in spades). And Starc, in spite of his brilliant strike rate, can be expensive; his economy rate is worse than those of any of the other quicks who will feature in this series--and worse than Mitchell Johnson who for most of his career had a similar tendency to spray it around in between moments of brilliance.
JimmyB
Guest
He had literally just returned from injury and was thrown in to a Test match when clearly not ready, at the same time Roland Jones was in great form. The selectors got it wrong and realised straight away, however, when everybody is fully fit, Woakes is in the team.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I am aware of Woakes record, but thanks for the snide comment. He has cemented nothing. He had one good test series with the ball against Pakistan more than 12 months ago and that's it. You may as well say Maxwell has cemented his spot at 6 because he scored that ton against India. Woakes' return against a lowly Windies outfit was mediocre, even accounting for the fact he was coming back from injury. If he has a poor first two tests in the Ashes and England are behind in the series, he'll be dropped.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Not surprising Woakes was dropped for TRJ given that he has averaged 54 from his past six Tests, including 2-122 in his last Test against a weak Windies batting lineup.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Chris, you have nailed it. I always thought Gilly was great behind the stumps (with my limited under-12s keeping experience to guide me!!) but because he was so good with bat in hand, he therefore by some sort of default, had to be a lesser keeper than others. Weird.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Woakes was recently dropped from the Test side for Toby Roland Jones against the Windies and Woakes averages 64 with the ball away from home - he's taken just 8 wickets from 7 Tests outside of England
JimmyB
Guest
Is that what constitutes having a dip? :)
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
In a Test match scenario selectors should go for a genuine wicket-keeper as he has to keep the wicket for 200 / 250 overs in a match. Any flaw, drop-catch, mis-stumping of any good batsman could cost the team dearly.
maverick
Roar Rookie
Right chris.Gilly actually had 21 more dismissals than Healy in 23 less test matches.I am not saying he was better than Healy but he was an incredible wicketkeeper.His keeping to the likes of Warne and Macgill was damn good.He used to hardly miss an opportunity.
qwetzen
Guest
George
Guest
Exactly. He cemented that spot last summer. But a lot of fans tend to ignore anything achieved outside of fixtures involving Australia.
Paul
Roar Guru
There was an article on the ABC online where comments were attributed to Vince, basically questioning whether Cummins is up to it. Not a lot different from Woakes remarks but they're apparently from a guy who has an average less than 20, hence my earlier comment http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/ashes-england-raises-doubts-about-australian-pat-cummins/9105200?section=sport
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I haven't seen any comments from Vince either. Though, I suspect there's merit in trying to put a bit of pressure on Cummins. Of late he's been bowling well but without necessarily picking up the wickets, has struggled with injuries for years (despite looking really fit and strong now), and has never played a test in Australia. But in truth, they would look at Cummins as someone who, if on song, could destroy a batting lineup, so if a bit of chatter can put him off a bit, that would help them. The only problem is, you don't know whether such chatter is going to put him off or make him bowl better. So that makes it dangerous. There's talk about it putting a target on him, like Curious George said, "on his arm, leg, chest, groin, head". But a tough, gritty competitor will take a few blows on the body if it means they are still at the crease. There's been a lot of talk about a bouncer barrage, but more often than not it's the pitched up balls that actually take the wickets. Maybe the English are hoping to encourage the bouncer barrage, as while it may be uncomfortable, it may mean bowlers wasting the new ball bowling lots of bouncers when they should be pitching the ball up more.
Julian King
Roar Guru
Gilchrist's observation about Nevill is commonly held and commonly stated. Not what I would call mind-blowing. As for Woakes, I don't mind a few verbal barbs. It adds to the build-up. Having said that, as a bloke who took 1/96 in his only test against Australia (at 4 an over), perhaps he should focus on being better. I mean he's not exactly Glenn McGrath now is he?!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The way people talk about keepers I get the feeling that a lot of people judge keepers based on a reverse of their batting ability. Automatically assuming that those who are better batsmen are therefore lesser glovemen. I watched Gilly throughout his career, both keeping up to Warne and back to the pacemen, on good pitches and tricky ones, and he really didn't miss much. He always saw himself as a keeper first and worked incredibly hard on his keeping to the point that transitioning from Healy to Gilly we really didn't lose anything on the keeping front while gaining massively on the batting front. I think this translate to state cricket also. I'm sure that most people who put comments forward as to someone being a better keeper haven't actually spent many hours watching all the different keepers in sheffield shield cricket to really see the differences and be able to determine who actually does better with the gloves. And so they look at someone who's a successful first class keeper with an inferior batting record and determine he must therefore be a better keeper. But it doesn't necessarily follow like that.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Wow David, this article really is just a grab bag of facts with no structure For starters, Gilly was a better keeper than Healy in 1999. Perhaps not to spin, but he was far more athletic behind the stumps and took several sharp chances in the next few years that the older, shorter, slower Healy would not have grasped. Additionally Heals had shelled a few chances in recent test tours and knew his papers were stamped. Picking Gilchrist who was already a mainstay in the ODI team was neither a punt nor a stroke of genius, it was an eminently sensible and logical step to reward a player already identified as an elite talent and a far better batsman Usual grab bag of facts follows. You then go on to basically agree that Wade is a rubbish bat and should be dropped – so how you can say the quote is ‘mind-blowing’ when you’re basically writing it’s a sensible suggestion you agree with is a little weird Then a swipe at Woakes which is not really that different to anything else anyone has said in previous ashes series anyway As others have said, must be a slow news day
JimmyB
Guest
When did Vince have a dip at Cummins? Have a look on the BBC website, there's an interview with Vince, comes across very well.
JimmyB
Guest
Err, yes he would. The irony of his comment is that he himself is only just back from injury. If everybody is fit, he's in England's best XI.
Donald Bradman
Guest
Adam Gilchrist was an outstanding wicketkeeper the godfather of the most overrated wicketkeeper in history Alan Knott. There is no comparison. It is extremely hypocritical when people mention Alan as outstanding wicketkeeper who could also bat average while they mention Adam as someone who was a great batsman but only a good wicketkeeper but not in Alan's league as a wicketkeeper. It's shocking that despite much inferior record both in First Class & Tests he is considered miles better than his godfather. Alan Knott is considered a wicketkeeper batsman while Adam is considered batsman keeper. Outstanding wicketkeepers like Brad Haddin, Mark Boucher, Quinton De Kock, Johnny Bairstow, Kamran Akmal, Geriant Jones, Dave Richardson, Wally Grout, Courtney Brown, AB de are extremely underrated like Adam.
Paul
Roar Guru
David Lord is trying to re-write history. When Rod Marsh was first selected, he was playing in the WA Shield side as a batsman who could keep. The incumbent Test keeper was Brian Taber who was so far ahead of Marsh as a keeper, there was daylight between the two. Taber was injured and Marsh selected and the rest is history though, he dropped a lot of easy chances early in his career and had the nickname "Iron Gloves". Marsh cold bat anywhere from number 3 down in the order, had a high batting average but, this fell away from constantly trying to bat against the West Indies quicks. In other words, he was a batsman/keeper. Woakes comment is accurate. ALL of the quicks likely to take filed in the First Test have had significant periods out of the game with injury.....BUT, all are either fit or close to it and there should be no reason why they won't do well in Brisbane. If any miss out through injury, there are some pretty useful replacements in Shield just waiting for their chance. The guy who should most keep his mouth shut about the Australian bowlers is James Vince, who also had a dip at Cummins but the Australian bowlers in general. Pretty hard to have any credibility when your Test average is less than 20. Hope he gets some runs, other wise he's going to look like a proper goose.