for shame Ian Healy......

[Bakes]

for keeping Gilchrist out of the game for so long. He was ready two years or more before he got the nod.
Do you think that the selectors don't want to keep young possible champions out of the game for as long as they did with Gilly, and that is why Waugh/Waugh were shown the back door?

 

[acuguy]

I would of thought the selectors needed to be sure that his keeping was passable at test level before selecting him, gilchrist has changed the role of a wicket keeper for ever, but he is no where near the quality of keeper Healy was and if you think his poor catching and glovework has not affected our fielding standard this year than you are kidding yourself.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by acuguy
I would of thought the selectors needed to be sure that his keeping was passable at test level before selecting him, gilchrist has changed the role of a wicket keeper for ever, but he is no where near the quality of keeper Healy was and if you think his poor catching and glovework has not affected our fielding standard this year than you are kidding yourself.

Poor catching? I know he has dropped 1 sitter and 1 or 2 tough ones over the summer, but he usually holds on to everything, even the tough ones. It's not like Healy never dropped a catch.

 

[Bakes]

Originally posted by acuguy
I would of thought the selectors needed to be sure that his keeping was passable at test level before selecting him, gilchrist has changed the role of a wicket keeper for ever, but he is no where near the quality of keeper Healy was and if you think his poor catching and glovework has not affected our fielding standard this year than you are kidding yourself.

I remember his standard as being good, but not like Healy's. But complete game was leaps and bounds ahead. Still kept out too long for me.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
Poor catching? I know he has dropped 1 sitter and 1 or 2 tough ones over the summer, but he usually holds on to everything, even the tough ones. It's not like Healy never dropped a catch.

Exactly, people seem to see Gilchrist as a batsmen who decided to become a keeper. That is simply not the case, Gilchrist is not as good as Healy who is the best I have seen but he isn't as far off as some people suggest.

Gilchrist is probably the second best wicket keeper in world cricket currently, not bad for a guy with a test average of close to 60. This myth that he is a poor keeper is ridiculous, he is a very good keeper, probably not elite but not that far from it either. There are also certain facets to Gilly's keeping that are better than Healy's.

 

[lamby29]

The same problem may happen when Gilchrist is 36-37 and a young keeper called Adam Crosthwaite (who is 18 now) will be ready to play for Australia.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Zombie
Gilchrist is probably the second best wicket keeper in world cricket currently

As opposed to the second best in the world eh

he is a very good keeper

No, he's an ok keeper. His footwork isn't good enough to be anything more than that.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Dave
As opposed to the second best in the world eh



No, he's an ok keeper. His footwork isn't good enough to be anything more than that.

Second best in the world could refer to second best of all time.

No, he is a very good keeper, like I said 2nd best in the world currently, you don't get to be 2nd best by being 'OK'. I have never seen anything wrong with Gilly's footwork. The one thing i would say that seperated him from being elite was his concentration, occasionally he drops the easiest of catches simply by being to complacent and thinking that he has already made the catch.

 

[Bakes]

Originally posted by Lamby29
The same problem may happen when Gilchrist is 36-37 and a young keeper called Adam Crosthwaite (who is 18 now) will be ready to play for Australia.

Do you think Australian cricket has reached a point where they wont let it happen again? Like I said, the Waughs being axed.

 

[lamby29]

Well if Gilchrist is still playing good cricket at 36 and Crosthwaite also good enough to play for Australia, I doubt they would drop Gilchrist.

 

[acuguy]

Gilchrist is a great great player one of the best of all time in my opinion, but his keeping is not brilliant, i want to know what facets of his keeping are better than healys, i can hardly ever in healys career remember him dropping a catch, if so it was phenomenally hard, i also don't recall dropping balls in general.
Oh and healy did score runs when australia most needed them, gilchrist is a freak, i wonder though if he will finish his days as a keeper in the australian team if this crosthwaite is a good as they say he is.

 

[Bakes]

Originally posted by lamby29
Well if Gilchrist is still playing good cricket at 36 and Crosthwaite also good enough to play for Australia, I doubt they would drop Gilchrist.

But then you get to the stage when everyone is too old and retires together. If they are of equal tallents then bring the younger in. He can only get better, the older will only slow.

Presuming the elder is of near retirement age (35/36)

 

[Angus1]

Don't blame Healy.
Any reason why selectors couldn't pick Gilchrist just as a batsmen?
Healy was a champion keeper. No one keeps to spinners as well as Healy did.

 

[Bakes]

Valid

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by acuguy
Gilchrist is a great great player one of the best of all time in my opinion, but his keeping is not brilliant, i want to know what facets of his keeping are better than healys, i can hardly ever in healys career remember him dropping a catch, if so it was phenomenally hard, i also don't recall dropping balls in general.
Oh and healy did score runs when australia most needed them, gilchrist is a freak, i wonder though if he will finish his days as a keeper in the australian team if this crosthwaite is a good as they say he is.

As a keeper Gilchrist is a much better at catching the wide nicks that go to the first slip position or wide down the leg side. Gilchrist is much more athletic than Healy was, mainly due to the fact that he is taller and slimmer, Healy couldn't take some of the wide balls that Gilchrist is able to take.

To suggest Gilchrists keeping is not brilliant almost sounds like you are suggesting that he is not a good keeper. Any sportsman who can claim that they are the worlds second best at anything can't be doing too much wrong.

 

[Perty4]

i cant verify this with stats but read before that gilchrist was ahead of healy catches/stumpings wise than healy was at the same stage in their test career.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Ian Healy was a legend - and had a significant presence in the Australian team.

Like many players who missed out Gilchrist looked like being the wrong player in the wrong place at the wrong time - until Heals got the shove! However, even Healy fans like myself knew it was time for a change and that Gilchrist [I agree he is a freak, and a very unique talent!] had to be given a chance soon.

I can recall them both playing in ODI's in SA and Gilly's fielding was far from top shelf!

btw - can Crosthwaite bat? dzm

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Bakes
for keeping Gilchrist out of the game for so long. He was ready two years or more before he got the nod.

Interesting suggestion put forward there. Healy's batting fell away badly from early on in the Ashes series till the end of his career - only once in his last 20 completed Test innings did he score above 20 - that would be poor for a No. 10, let alone a No. 7.

However, he was such a good keeper and had been an excellent batsman for several seasons, it was no surprise that the Australian selectors kept him on for a few Tests longer then they did - I'm sure no one knew how good Gilchrist would be with the bat when he began his Test career.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Zombie
No, he is a very good keeper, like I said 2nd best in the world currently, you don't get to be 2nd best by being 'OK'.

He's not even the second best keeper in Australia let alone second best in the world.

I have never seen anything wrong with Gilly's footwork.

You don't watch too closely then.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Zombie
As a keeper Gilchrist is a much better at catching the wide nicks that go to the first slip position or wide down the leg side.

As evidenced in the recent series....not.

Gilchrist is much more athletic than Healy was, mainly due to the fact that he is taller and slimmer, Healy couldn't take some of the wide balls that Gilchrist is able to take.

Yes he could, it's just didn't look as spectacular because Healy moved his feet rather than having to dive.

 

[Dogwatcher]

Originally posted by Dave
Yes he could, it's just didn't look as spectacular because Healy moved his feet rather than having to dive.

Bingo.
As far as batting goes Gilly is in another galaxy compared to Healy. However, a wk is picked first and foremost for his glovework - Healy was still supreme.
It will be a long time B4 we see a keeper as good as Healy again.
His footwork was amazing, his glovework was the tidiest just about ever seen. The one blot on his career was that missed leg side dismissal in Pakistan.
At one stage he went something like 30 tests without dropping a catch - an amazing performance.
As for the fact that Gilchrist has a greater number of dismissals than Healy at the same stage in his career - look at the situation.
Healy was part of the formation of a super team, he did not come into a super team with a four pronged attack that is superior to all others in the world.
Early on he did not have McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne to keep to.
There were people like Tim May, Trevor Hohns, Geoff Lawson, Julian Angel, Brendan Julian and even Greg Campbell to keep to. Good players that they were, these guys currently don't rank with the previously mentioned quartet.
Gilchrist's keeping over the summer was not up to high standards he has set. His footwork wasn't always great (tired from another couple of great innings?), some of the slips fields were too deep or widely spaced - a keeper must control that - often resulting in catches falling short or going wide, resulting in him having to make great dives which look spectacular, but aren't always technically great.
A keeper is his side's beacon in the field, he sets the standard and it might be worth mentioning that Australia dropped almost as many catches as the Poms in the last series. Some were exceptionally hard, but others were fairly easy.
I'm a huge fan of Gilchrist, but a bigger fan of Healy's glovework and I think the selectors got their timing right when they made the swap.

 

[Perty4]

Originally posted by dezzmo
btw - can Crosthwaite bat? dzm

Just made a top score 46 in the first innings of the Australian youth test against england. Bats at 7 for Richmond.

BTW, he made a duck in the second innings!

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Dave
He's not even the second best keeper in Australia let alone second best in the world.



You don't watch too closely then.

You clearly don't understand what makes a good keeper. Being a keeper I can guarantee you he is by far the best keeper in Australia, no one else comes close. On the international scene there is only one keeper who could be classified as better than he is.

Gilchrist takes alot more catches and makes far more stumpings than Healy ever did, this proves the argument that whilst Healy made far fewer mistakes than Gilchrist, he also made fewer catches due to the fact that he simply couldn't get to the type of catches that Gilchrist can.

You have obviously caught the popular bug that makes you think that because he is a great batsmen then that must mean that he is not a specialist keeper and when he drops 1 catch in 100 you bring out the 'only in the side for his batting' argument. Gilchrist was a keeper before he was a good batsmen, not the other way around.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Zombie
You clearly don't understand what makes a good keeper.

As no doubt does anyone else who disagrees with you.

Being a keeper I can guarantee you he is by far the best keeper in Australia, no one else comes close.

You can keep your guarantees, I'm more than happy with my own observations. Gilchrist is not by any stretch of the imagination the best keeper in Australia, let alone so far the best that no one else comes close.

On the international scene there is only one keeper who could be classified as better than he is.

Each to their own.

Gilchrist takes alot more catches and makes far more stumpings than Healy ever did, this proves the argument that whilst Healy made far fewer mistakes than Gilchrist, he also made fewer catches due to the fact that he simply couldn't get to the type of catches that Gilchrist can.

As already stated, all it proves that the bowlers Healy kept to did not create as many chances as those that Gilchrist keeps to have. Byes conceded is a better indicator of a keepers ability than dismissals per match.

You have obviously caught the popular bug that makes you think that because he is a great batsmen then that must mean that he is not a specialist keeper and when he drops 1 catch in 100 you bring out the 'only in the side for his batting' argument.

No, I've watched him keep and observed that his footwork is sloppy, which is a major deficiency in a keeper. If you were a keeper you'd know this. That's why I do not think he's as good as you say. I have no problem with a good batsman being a specialist keeper.

Gilchrist was a keeper before he was a good batsmen, not the other way around.

He may well have been. That is not however proof of any sort that he is as good as you claim.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Dave

As already stated, all it proves that the bowlers Healy kept to did not create as many chances as those that Gilchrist keeps to have. Byes conceded is a better indicator of a keepers ability than dismissals per match.

What a load of crap, healy kept to some of the best bowlers of all time. Alderman on his record breaking Ashes series, Warne for the majority of Warne's career, McDermott, Reid, Hughes, McGrath, etc. You can't use that argument, Healy had the majority of the same bowlers Gilchrist has had but whilst they were in their prime.

Even if that doesn't convince you we will take out their Test performances and judge them purely on not international first class matches. Healy averaged 2.9 catches a match. Gilchrist averaged 4.1 catches a match.

But if you have to have it your way, we'll take byes into account. From each players first 10 test matches Healy average 7.8 byes per innings whilst Gilchrist kept his byes down to 5.2 an innings.