I tend to have such thoughts when RSA and Australia play.
Further to the above, it was clear, you have Kamran “A blind quadriplegic is a better keeper then me” Akmal and playing a strike bowler down and delivering full tosses on leg stump. Yeah, stupidity at the extreme. Taylor should have got 150, not 114.
Thanks. Why is denoting the WK important? Plus, can’t a team change wicketkeepers mid-game if necessary? (Not with a new player, but with a different player already on the field)
Yes, they can do so and I can think of a number of times it’s happened.
As for why denoting it is important–I think historically the wicketkeeper was seen as a secondary captain in the field. I know in my experience the keeper has helped to set the field, consulted with bowlers, etc. I also figure that there’s a bit of inertia with it all…someone in 1864 put a cross next to the wicketkeeper’s name and that’s how it remains.
Captain and WK are the two players who need to be identified as they have powers and responsibilities other players don’t.
It’s fairly rare to change 'keepers mid-match. It’s also technically forbidden for any player not part of the starting XI to take over as 'keeper although anyone in the ground may deputise as a non-specialist fielder. There was a famous occasionyears ago when the England ‘keeper was injured during a Test match and the retired Bob Taylor happened to be present on business of his own. With the (kind and extremely sportsmanlike) permission of the opponents, Taylor obliged with a few hours’ masterclass.
I suspect another reason for identifying the wicketkeeper in a batting line-up is that they have by far the hardest job out of anyone on the fielding team, in that they are guaranteed to be involved in the play on (almost) every ball of the opposition innings, which is unique. Keeping also requires very specialist skills which need a lot of practice, which cuts down on their batting practice time. As such, when a batsman performs well, it is even more notable if they are also a wicketkeeper, because of the extra responsibilities that the role entails.
Having said that, in the modern game it is becoming more and more expected that the team’s best wicketkeeper will also be one of its better batsman. This certainly wasn’t always the case; in the past it was common for the wicketkeeper to be given more of a bowler’s status in the batting line-up, as it was felt more important to have a really good wicketkeeper even if he could barely bat. Others will surely correct me, but I would say that with the advent of players such as Alec Stewart (who kept the very talented keeper (and not half bad batsman) “Jack” Russell out of the England side for many years) for England and Adam Gilchrist for Australia showing what was possible for a batting wicketkeeper, this custom quickly reversed itself. I’m sure the advent of professionalism in the mid-nineties also had a lot to do with it.
Like the Steward/Russel situation Moin Khan,a wicketkeeper batsman kept out Rashid Latif, a classical wicketkeeper for many years, though Moin Khan was a v good keeper, and Latif a fair batsmen.
I would say that from the mid 60’s onwards, keepers were expected to be people who could contribute, Alan Knott had a test century as did Rod Marsh and Jeff Dujon. An analogy could be drawn with bowling all rounders, while they were people who by all means could not be expected to be a main stay batter, they could and did score when required.
However in the last 10-15 years, a wicket keeper is one of the teams batsmen who also keeps wicket, this was taken to ridiculous extremes with Dravid and Trescothick keeping wicket for India and England in ODI’s.
This explains Mr Akmal, but he has no excuse he started as a keeper and at one time he was a good one.
Any luck finding that provision in the Pakistan Penal Code AK84?
Peter Roebuck is a lot more charitable about the Pakistan effort in his story about match-fixing. Still no word on how serious Vettori’s knee injury is - losing him would be a disaster for NZ.
In the meantime India had a somewhat pedestrian win over the mighty Netherlands.
AK48, I’m not sure I understand the point here. Could you clarify?
**
Jacknifed Juggernaut**, just to go a little further on the wicketkeeper question, most aspects have been explained. There is one further and it is crucial on sub continent wickets in particular- the question of spin bowlers.
A lot of non-specialist keepers can keep to seamers and do a reasonable job. However, keeping to a quality spinner is really an art and the reactions needed to effect a stumping or take a difficult catch are extraordinary. You don’t want your spinner creating chances to see your keeper missing those wickets.
AK84’s possibly referring back to Hansie Cronje and the Australian team in the 1980s who lost an Ashes test after some of the players bet on England to win at 500-1 after being forced to follow on. (3rd test at Headingley in 1981).
I remember that Test all too well, unfortunately. However, betting on the result was not illegal and is not the same as match fixing.
Anyway, this thread is about the 2011 World Cup, not about the possibility of corruption 30 years ago.
Back to the games- India were not impressive against the Netherlands but did what they had to.
There is something in this - I suspect that the marker next to the wicketkeeper on the scorecard originally developed as an aide memoire to the scorer that, yes, this is the wicketkeeper but therefore he is the only person on this team who can register a stumping. It is probably to help avoid errors on the scorecard and has been retained since then.
Just my wild guess though - nothing to support that.
Also have nothing definite:
The wicket keeper usually takes more catches than any other fielder, and so you could infer the nature of dismissals. Three catches in an innings by the keeper tells a different story to three catches by any other fielder, especially if not the captain who tends to field at slip.
Also byes are nominally marked “against the keeper” so you could ID who was the culprit.
Warne and Mark Waugh actually.
Tillekeratne Dilshan of Sri Lanka had a great match against Zimbabwe (well, yeah): 144 with the bat, then 4-4 with the ball. Sri Lanka through to the quarterfinals.
Dilshan is only the second player to score a century and take four wickets in one World Cup match. The other one was that well-known Dutchman Feiko Kloppenberg, who did it against mighty Namibia in 1996. It was Kloppenberg’s only century in international cricket…and his only four-wicket haul, too.
Dilshan looked very ordinary batting against Australia.
Bit of a logjam at the top of both groups. In Group A the final standings will come down to NZ v Sri Lanka and Australia v Pakistan (barring exceptional performances by Canada against NZ and Australia). Final standings in Group B look even more uncertain to me.
Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have performed worse than I expected.
Oh and my mistake AK84.
So where does RSA come in? You seem to be very thin skinned regarding your team- you can’t disagree with what I have posted so you post some aged incident and try to deflect from what has happened.
Ireland and Windies shaping up to a good contest. Go Ireland.
I do actually disagree with you, as the Judgment (as admitted in the text) was based upon mostly hearsay evidence. Just thought I would not bother.
As for Ireland; it more like “Go home Ireland”. Irish eyes are crying and no doubt ruing the quite disgraceful performance against the BD.
Speaking of BD, a chance to defeat England. 225 all out. A good pitch. No Broad. England bowlers will be tested. A good match.