Can this idea of using a specialist batsman as a wicketkeeper in test matches be proven to be a bad idea?
I know that when Alec Stewart was used as a wicketkeeper his batting deteriorated a lot. It think his batting average when he was a wicketkeeper in tests was not much better than the guy he was keeping out of tests -Jack Russell. Russell’s overall average was 27 with 2 test centuries. Stewart was not as good a wicketkeeper as Russell.
Sangakkara- taking the wicketkeeping from him has helped to make him the best batsman in the world.
At the moment South Africa are AB de Villiers as their wicketkeeper instead of choosing a specialist wicketkeeper.
There are other instances of test teams using specialist batsmen as wicketkeepers in test matches. But can it be proven to be a bad idea?
Awesome question, which I don’t know how to answer.
I guess you’d have to estimate how many chances your ersatz wicketkeeper would fail to take that a true wicketkeeper would, multiply that by the extra runs the batsman would make after being given a life, and compare the total with the extra runs the ersatz wicketkeeper made versus the true keeper.
However statsguru doesn’t track missed chances so it’s very hard to put any figures in that equation other than by sheer guess work.
Russell:
Test Matches: 54
Test Batting Average: 27.10
Test Total Dismissals (Catches and Stumpings) as Wicketkeeper:165
Dismissals per match: 3.06
Alec Stewart (as wicketkeeper)
Test matches: 82
Test Batting Average: 34.92
Test Total Dismissals (Catches and Stumpings) as Wicketkeeper:241
Dismissals per match: 2.94
If we assume the variance in dismissals per match represents the number of missed chances Stewart had that Russell would have taken (a massive assumption there) then England missed out on 0.13 chances per match using Stewart ahead of Russell.
On the other hand England on average scored an extra 15.64 runs per match thanks to Stewarts higher batting average (difference in batting averages *2).
So those missed chances must allow the other team to score an extra 120 runs for each missed chance (extra runs per match divided by missed chances per match) before using Stewart is worse than using Russell. On balance the selectors got it right!
I think that you’re playing with some pretty amorphous terms in “specialist batsman” and “specialist wicket keeper”
Just how good is “specialist”?
I remember some time ago there were occassions when Adam Paerore (I hope I have the spelling right) batted at number 3 in ODI, and normal batting was around number 4 or 5?
Ian Smith batted at number 6 if I recall,
While that doesn’t exactly make him a specialist batsman, he certainly wasn’t a numpty.
I don’t know exactly what you are talking about, but as having gone on record against the designated hitter in baseball I should be consistent and be against this, too.
Nah, that’s the wrong analogy dropzone - at least if my time spent watching cricket with my Indian friends in college stuck with me.
What they’re discussing is more along the lines of having an all-hit no-catch catcher (or maybe shortstop). Something like Yadi Molina before he learned how to hit vs. Mike Piazza. How many lost outs due to the bad defense is outweighed by the extra runs you score from the big bat.
I do not think the examples given are a truly of the specialist batsman as a keeper variety. Alec Stewart was a keeper who was an excellent bat, just like Gilchrist was or Parore for the Kiwis.Over there the issue was whether to play a better keeper who was a so so bat or a very good batsman who was a fair keeper.
A specialist batsman as a keeper has a better example with Rahul Dravid for India in the early parts of the 2000’s. He was a batsman who had kept occasionally in club and first class and the Indians basically used him to get an extra bat in. Well they reached the world cup final with him as a keeper, someone with better skills at StatsGuru than me can perhaps show how well he meander up and was it worth it for India.
Ah, but to be fair, their discussions of baseball leave me as bewildered as a duck in thunder. It’s such a simple game when we call it “rounders” but by the time they’re done, it might as well be Calvinball for all the sense I can make of it.
As indeed it is, but strangely, I don’t find myself so much bothered by it. There are already a number of different football codes and I’m used to three of them on a domestic level, and we see gridiron over here from time to time although I’ve never played it.
Alec Stewart was not a specialist wicketkeeper. That is my point. He was only ever a back-up keeper at 1st class level who was pressed into being the wicketkeeper over Jack Russell.
AB de Villiers in in the same boat-back-up keeper at 1st class level who was pressed into being the wicketkeeper.
Ian Smith was a specialist keeper and batted usually at 8 or 9 for NZ. Infact he scored 169 once batting at 9.
dravid averaged betteras a wicket keeper than otherwise. But he never kept wickets in Test matches.
I think if the batsman is very very important for the team in any format he would be asked to focus on batting only. So if Australia had only 1 or 2 batsmen, Gilchrist would not have kept wickets.
