Australian Cricket Thread

[yuppie]

Considering the neck injury Tim had an operation for i wonder if now he will even make the test. He might have played his last game.

Even if not, with out being captain, i think one of his main reasons for being in the team has been removed.

Which then brings the big question, who will replace him?

Carey, been the understudy for a long time, but not in great shield form and for me cant justify a place in the team on present form. 30 years.

Maybe British born Josh Inglis though again not been in great form or should i say not played a lot of shield this season. Last shield season though was good and arguably has moved ahead of Carey. The youngest here at 26 years so potentially a long test career if he is capable.

Jimmy Peirson. Arguably the best keeper and 2 100;s this season so the form batsman. left field pick but playing for Queensland and the first test at the Gabba. You never know. 29 years. If form and keeping skills were the selection criteria he would be my pick.

[Durhamfootman]

would they not just give the gloves to Matty Wade?

[yuppie]

I hope we have seen the back of Wade in test cricket.

Sam Whiteman has just hit 150 for WA but im pretty sure he is not keeping at present. Just to throw another name into the mix

[sussexpob]

Wade is surely done, and Id be surprised if Paine is there for the first test.

The team seem to like Carey (look at how many T20Is he played despite poor numbers) so I guess they will give him a chance. Handscomb has scored runs in his last couple of games and averages nearly 40 in tests... Id be tempted with him

[bigfluffylemon]

Carey is a good keeper, if a modest bat. He does have a good record in domestic T20s as a batsman, but hasn't translated that to internationals. The muttering is that he is likely to be first cab off the rank.

Handscomb hasn't played a match for Australia in years, and isn't being discussed. And he hardly ever kept internationally when he did play. It may be unfair given he's got a couple of decent shield scores, but I'd be astonished if he makes it in. I reckon the selectors would go back to Wade before they looked at Handscomb. Wade should be nowhere near the test side, but he's one of those players (like Shaun Marsh) that despite a very ordinary record the selectors can't seem to let go of (see also half the England side...).

Josh Inglis seems to be being talked about as a potential future Australian keeper, although he hasn't played much in the last few months, and when he has he hasn't scored much. But he did very well last summer.

[GarlicJam]

I just read that in his first outing since the surgery, today for Tas 2nds, Paine took six catches.
There were a couple of decent diving catches amongst them. Can't have done his chances any harm.

[sussexpob]

Handscomb hasn't played a match for Australia in years, and isn't being discussed. And he hardly ever kept internationally when he did play. It may be unfair given he's got a couple of decent shield scores, but I'd be astonished if he makes it in. I reckon the selectors would go back to Wade before they looked at Handscomb. Wade should be nowhere near the test side, but he's one of those players (like Shaun Marsh) that despite a very ordinary record the selectors can't seem to let go of (see also half the England side...)

Australian cricket has shown a historical bias towards keepers making runs over anything else. If a keeper makes runs, usually the perception of their keeping ability rises with it. One only has to look at how Haddin's average wicket keeping was being portrayed in the years runs were flowing as if he was the reincarnation of Alan Knott (he once took an excellent one handed catch to his weak side in around 2010 by memory that I swear the Aussie coverage showed once every 5 overs for the rest of the series) - as soon as the runs started drying up, the same keeping standard became a problem.

Just looking at the history sort of proves it. Wade Seccombe had the reputation as a once in a lifetime level keeper in Australia in the 90s/early 2000s, but never got a game (in fact, I think Ian Healy even kept him out the domestic side when around). When opportunities came, they went to Haddin and Ryan Campbell, vastly inferior keepers who scored more runs.

After Gilchrist's span, Manou was considered the best keeper but unpickable with his batting - he then cracked a few runs for once and was straight in for his only cap, a batting disaster, never picked again. Luke Ronchi was a train wreck keeper, smacks the quickest 50 in Aussie history, straight in.

Same for Wade. He suddenly found batting form and his keeping issues disappeared quick. People like to blame Paine smashed finger for his 7 year gap in internationals, but the real reason is he was a keeper first player back when he debuted, his FC record has improved since. More recently, how hyped was Nevill's keeping ability (some ridiculous comparisons to greats) when he appeared to be pretty rubbish - FC average of 40 .... wonder why.

Australia, if playing to along string of selection form, will pick the best batter on paper who can wear the gloves. And they did pick Handscomb in 2019 out of nowhere to play keeper in hope he could tie down the spot for the World Cup. He kept well, but his batting form dissolved, so you now how that went.

[sussexpob]

I just read that in his first outing since the surgery, today for Tas 2nds, Paine took six catches.
There were a couple of decent diving catches amongst them. Can't have done his chances any harm.

Indeed. I guess Paine has the advantage of history with him, and is the incumbent. But he's 36-37 now, so I just feel with not much career left on the horizon, they might take this opportunity to cut him rather than prolong the need to do so further into the future.

Paine kept pretty poorly by memory in recent series. His batting is still useful, and he seems to be hard to dislodge at times, with a tendency to do so at useful times for the team. So there is merit for each side of the discussion.

I think as an Englishman, I'd rather be bowling to a rookie

[Durhamfootman]

Australian cricket has shown a historical bias towards keepers making runs over anything else.

not just Australia

it feels to me as though once Gilchrist appeared on the scene, the wk specialist in international sides around the world ended shortly after

[alfie]

Paine is the only keeper in the 15 man squad named for the first two Tests so I imagine he will still play , at least for the start of the series - provided he proves his fitness.

Carey is the most likely replacement , I think. Inglis not in great recent form (perhaps a better chance later in the series if he gets some runs while Paine struggles in the Tests ?) Both of them are in the "A" squad so it would be strange if anyone else were to be parachuted in ahead of one of them.

Handscomb is not really an option , and you wouldn't think Wade is likely to be inserted either unless they were really desperate for an "interim" pick.

[bigfluffylemon]

Gilchrist may have accelerated the trend, but teams were already prioritising wks who could score runs over those with better keeping technique. Healy (mentioned above) and Stewart are prime examples. Stewart could have been picked as a bat alone (albeit in a weak batting era, although we'd all be falling over ourselves for someone who could average 38 these days given the bowling he faced). Gilchrist was the rare genuine allrounder wk/batsman - someone who could have got into the side for either discipline (he averaged over 47 with the bat ffs, plus second most dismissals of all time, and top 5 for dismissals per innings for wks who made over 100).

The era of 'pick six specialist batters, one keeper and four specialist bowlers' is long dead. Perhaps it's the trendy thing to blame, but limited overs cricket does seem to have contributed - with over limits, you need at least five bowlers, but you can't play five specialists, so you need three or four multidisciplinary players in a team, and everyone has to be good in the field. Test sides might be able to carry the odd fielding numpty parked at fine leg, but in a T20 game where every ball and run counts, teams have really upped their fielding game too. So players are increasingly trying to diversify their skillset rather than specialise.

'Bits and pieces' players abound, and the wicketkeeper role is becoming less of a specialisation and more something that a decent batter/fielder can add as another string to their bow.

[sussexpob]

Gilchrist may have accelerated the trend, but teams were already prioritising wks who could score runs over those with better keeping technique

The only pre-Gilchrist pick that makes a compelling argument to prove this would be Stewart, and I personally think is wrong. People forget that when Stewart didnt keep, his average for his era was flat out world class with the bat (he averaged not that far off 50 by memory as a specialist bat over many tests - mid to low 30s while keeping). When England gave him the gloves, they also had to accept a massive drop in his batting production, and the stats are over long periods as proof of that. I know that certainly in English cricket think, the gloveman not getting picked is always the best gloveman in the world - but if Jack Russell averaged only 3-4 runs less than Stewart with the bat and really was the best keeper in the world (which he really wasnt, I think once Stewart became experienced he was just as reliable, and less prone to huge peaks in quality) then if runs were sole issue, then England were better off with picking Russell even where runs were concerned.

But thinking just of established keepers who bridge the 90s to 00s for each team, Boucher is seen as one of the best keepers ever for SA. Zimbabwe moved Flower away from the gloves in favour of Taibu, who was seen as a classic keeper of immense ability. England's first pick away from Stewart was Chris Read, seen as the best keeper in the county game (and who's flourishing batting only became a factor much latter in his career at Notts). NZ had Parore. Pakistan Latif/Moeen Khan. India had Nayan Mongia. BD had Khaled Masud. SL had Kalu and Prasanna. West Indies Ridley Jacobs.

All off these keepers had long careers, and without looking I would guess that none of them bar maybe Boucher averaged over 30. He happens to be the best gloveman (and he may have even averaged in the high 20s - it was around 30). You could add Sangakarra, who initally had a reputation for being an iron gloves, but he played nearly a 100 tests without the gloves - and like Stewart, giving him the gloves meant huge drops in quality of batting, making the runs efficiency argument a bit null. I think Sangakarra averaged something stupid like 30 runs more not keeping (in fact his record as a batsman alone is staggeringing... he averaged over 65 as a batsman).

[yuppie]

Dujon probably would have played as a batter in most other teams in world cricket when he was playing. But that Windies team had a lot of talent.

Haddin who certainly had some great moments with the bat has a similar average to Paine. Though Haddin could get you a 100 whilst Paine will stick around. Healy averaged about 27 but that could be comparable to over 30 now.

If Paine did not get injured when younger he was being groomed for the test keeping slot. Back then i think the Aussie selectors were aware that Gilly was a once in a generation cricketer. But they also expected their keepers to provide more than just good keeping. Where the balance falls between runs and keeping ability though is anyones guess and probably very relevant to the players above the keeper in the batting order.

[sussexpob]

The era of 'pick six specialist batters, one keeper and four specialist bowlers' is long dead. Perhaps it's the trendy thing to blame, but limited overs cricket does seem to have contributed - with over limits, you need at least five bowlers, but you can't play five specialists, so you need three or four multidisciplinary players in a team, and everyone has to be good in the field. Test sides might be able to carry the odd fielding numpty parked at fine leg, but in a T20 game where every ball and run counts, teams have really upped their fielding game too. So players are increasingly trying to diversify their skillset rather than specialise.

You certainly get the feeling that out-fielding quality has pushed batsman who are not natural keepers into the role, because the perceived gap between being a keeper and fielder has reduced. People like ABDV, Bairstow and Buttler all didnt keep in junior levels of the game, or didnt keep in the FC domestic game before elevation. OD form also provides a pathway to certain players, Dhoni for instance was not a popular choice at first for the test team because I think he came out of nowhere as a slogger for the ODI team, and had little FC experience.

But I also wonder how much Gilchrist's legacy has formed the exact type of keeper people look for. As a good example, Duncan Fletcher when picking Geraint Jones was very keen to point out more than anything, he was looking for counter-punching aggression down the order than a batter who could dig in and average higher, perceiving the approach to be more important than the net quality. And then when you look at the keepers that followed, there is a trend for the keeper batsman to be above average in aggressive approach.

ABDV, Prior, McCullum, Dhoni, Kamran Akmal, Dickwella, Bairstow, Buttler, Haddin, Pant are just a few keeper batsman who show that post Gilchrist trend in approach.

[sussexpob]

Where the balance falls between runs and keeping ability though is anyones guess and probably very relevant to the players above the keeper in the batting order.

Indeed. I could have seen Healy playing in Gilchrist's place for instance when Australia were smashing teams in the early 2000s because Gilchrist was the cherry on the cake more than necessarily being required to prop up a terrible line up, whereas someone like England now are unlikely to pick anyone who cant average 30 as a keeper because they have no batting in the top 6.

I think irrespective of quality, keepers who average 30-35 can get regular games now. Under 30, and I think teams will start to look for a batter who compromising on keeping quality. The difference Gilchrist made was to move that mark maybe 5-10 runs further up - before him, teams would happily pick players averaging low to high 20s if they were solid keepers. Not so much now.

I think there is a solid argument to say Gilchrist is one of the most influential players of the modern era. And I am loathe to call him a player that was picked as a compromise for his batting, because he developed into a great keeper. Certainly has my gloves in the all-time XI