Cricket Thread

[Darwin]

http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/Boucher-out-of-England-tour-20120710

I don't see this as such a big blow for SA, as Boucher had bad form in recent tests.

That being said, what a terrible accident, and evidence that not only fast bowlers are dangerous on the field. that had to come at some pace towards him to hurt his eye like that.

I thought Boucher was actually quite good against New Zealand - no big scores but a couple of handy contributions with the bat, while his wicket-keeping remains world-class. It will be interesting to see how de Villiers goes as keeper for South Africa in the tests. He has been in outstanding form with the bat over recent seasons, and it will be interesting to see whether taking over the wicket-keeping duties has an adverse effect on his batting.....

 

[Shovenose]

Don't see it as a blow as AB is a wicket keeper and one more specialist batsman can come in

 

[admartian]

On right now. West Indies got a very formidable 209/2, with Gayle and Pollard in particular smashing it everywhere. New Zealand are doing ok in their chase thus far: 37/0 after 4 overs.

I predict they'll be 77-6 or there abouts in a few hours.

Useless! :lol:

 

[Darwin]

Don't see it as a blow as AB is a wicket keeper and one more specialist batsman can come in

The big question is how will the wicket-keeping responsibilities effect de Villiers batting? Most players struggle to maintain the same batting average as wicket-keeper batsmen as they do as specialist batsmen. While South Africa may be able to add another specialist batsmen in place of Boucher (hence improving there batting), the chances are that de Villiers wont be as effective as previously, which will certainly even things out.....

 

[Shovenose]

The big question is how will the wicket-keeping responsibilities effect de Villiers batting? Most players struggle to maintain the same batting average as wicket-keeper batsmen as they do as specialist batsmen. While South Africa may be able to add another specialist batsmen in place of Boucher (hence improving there batting), the chances are that de Villiers wont be as effective as previously, which will certainly even things out.....

Why should it. Wickie is just like any other fielder. Just ask Adam Gilchrist

 

[Darwin]

Why should it. Wickie is just like any other fielder. Just ask Adam Gilchrist

Because it has been proven numerous times in international cricket. Just ask Brendan McCullum. Just ask Kumar Sangakkara. Just ask Alec Stewart. All of these players averaged substantially more as specialist batsmen than as wicket-keepers. Gilchrist is completely irrelevant, as he didn't play any matches as a specialist batsman!

As to why they average less - I can think of two reasons:
(a) They would spend a lot more time practicing keeping than they would fielding. I have no idea about the exact numbers, but I'd suggest that a wicket-keeper would have a 50:50 ratio of batting:wicketkeeping practice, while a specialist batsman may have more like a 90:10 ratio of batting:fielding practice.
(b) Wicket-keeping in tests is very draining! It takes far more out of you as a wicket-keeper than it does a regular fielder - there is a good reason wicket-keepers always bat quite a way down the order in tests. After spending 100+ overs wicket-keeping I can assure you a batsman will not be at his best!

 

[Shovenose]

Because it has been proven numerous times in international cricket. Just ask Brendan McCullum. Just ask Kumar Sangakkara. Just ask Alec Stewart. All of these players averaged substantially more as specialist batsmen than as wicket-keepers. Gilchrist is completely irrelevant, as he didn't play any matches as a specialist batsman!As to why they average less - I can think of two reasonsa) They would spend a lot more time practicing keeping than they would fielding. I have no idea about the exact numbers, but I'd suggest that a wicket-keeper would have a 50:50 ratio of batting:wicketkeeping practice, while a specialist batsman may have more like a 90:10 ratio of batting:fielding practice.(b) Wicket-keeping in tests is very draining! It takes far more out of you as a wicket-keeper than it does a regular fielder - there is a good reason wicket-keepers always bat quite a way down the order in tests. After spending 100 overs wicket-keeping I can assure you a batsman will not be at his best!

Well McCallum, Steward and Sangakara are specialist batsman then wicket keepers. I don't see where you going with it since none of them batting took a backseat due to being wicketkeepers. The fuss with Steward was cause he was the captain top order batsman and the Wickie. Wickie is just like any other fielding position. It does not take anything from batting since its not like something thats going to eat into batting practice like bowling does. 99 Percent of wk batting improve rather than the other way around.

 

[Darwin]

Well McCallum, Steward and Sangakara are specialist batsman then wicket keepers. I don't see where you going with it since none of them batting took a backseat due to being wicketkeepers. The fuss with Steward was cause he was the captain top order batsman and the Wickie. Wickie is just like any other fieldin' position. It does not take anything from batting since its not like something thats going to eat into batting practice like bowling does. 99 Percent of wk batting improve rather than the other way around.

What I'm saying is very simple. All of these players averaged far more in test cricket more when played as specialist batsmen rather than as wicket-keepers. Do you think this is simply a coincidence? They didn't suddenly become poor batsmen when they were playing as wicket-keeper, but there is no doubt their batting suffered to some degree due to the responsibilities of wicket-keeping. They certainly aren't the only examples, but they are they only players that I could think off of the top of my head that have spent significant time both as specialist batsmen and as wicket-keepers. I can't think of a single test match keeper who has averaged more (or even as much...) as a wicket-keeper than as a specialist batsman - feel free to point one out if you like!

As I've already pointed out, wicket-keeping is not like any other fielding position. Specialist wk's spent a lot of time perfecting their skills (far more than normal fielders), and there is no doubt this takes away from their batting practice (as someone who has played as a wk for many years I can assure you this is the case!).

 

[Shovenose]

What I'm saying is very simple. All off these players averaged far more in test cricket more when played as specialist batsmen rather than as wicket-keepers. Do you think this is simply a coincidence? They didn't suddenly become poor batsmen when they were playing as wicket-keeper, but there is no doubt their batting suffered to some degree due to the responsibilities of wicket-keeping. They certainly aren't the only examples, but they are they only players that I could think off of the top of my head that have spent significant time both as specialist batsmen and as wicket-keepers. I can't think of a single test match keeper who has averaged more (or even as much...) as a wicket-keeper than as a specialist batsman - feel free to point one out if you like!As I've already pointed out, wicket-keeping is not like any other fielding position. Specialist wk's spent a lot of time perfecting their skills (far more than normal fielders), and there is no doubt this takes away from their batting practice (as someone who has played as a wk for many years I can assure you this is the case!).

Its because they struggled to keep their fitness level up. Steward was toyed around with cause Jack Russell was there. So he was a batsman first then the wk when Russell retired. Sangakara is what keeps Sri Lanka afloat in all forms of cricket and his ODI batting has improved with him being at wk. McCallum claim to fame is the T20. As he grew more experience so has his batting in tests become better. NZ found a better glove man yet he is still a specialist batsman. It does not say his batting has gone down due to it. You have provided me with 3 names but what about Dhoni? Boucher, Russell, Healy, Marsh, Dujon, Flower? Are those extreme cases as well?

 

[Darwin]

Its because they struggled to keep their fitness level up. Steward was toyed around with cause Jack Russell was there. So he was a batsman first then the wk when Russell retired.

Not quite true. Stewart played a lot both as a specialist batsman and as a wicket-keeper during the 90's - though it is true he played far more as a keeper after Russell retired he still had his fair share of games as a keeper during his early career. Between 1990 & 2000 he played 93 matches - 42 as wk, 51 as a specialist batsman (he played a further 42 tests from 2000 onwards, all as wk)*. He averaged 34.0 in matches he played as wk. He averaged 46.7 in matches he played as a specialist batsman. Pretty compelling evidence that being wk can effect your batting!

Sangakara is what keeps Sri Lanka afloat in all forms of cricket and his ODI batting has improved with him being at wk.

I'm not talking about ODI batting at all - it is pretty obvious I'm only referring to test cricket. Sangakkara averages 40.5 in 48 tests as wk. He averages and amazing 68.9 in 63 tests as a specialist batsman!

McCallum claim to fame is the T20. As he grew more experience so has his batting in tests become better. NZ found a better glove man yet he is still a specialist batsman. It does not say his batting has gone down due to it.

McCullum's test batting has not got any better as he has become more experienced. He started off strongly - he was averaging a touch under 40 at test level after 10 tests. That dropped to 36 after 20 test, and down to 30 after 30 tests. NZ didn't find a better wk - McCullum gave up wicket-keeping in tests as his body wasn't able to handle the rigors of test match wicket-keeping. He is still clearly the best pure wicket-keeper in the country. He averages 43 as a specialist batsman, but only 35 as a wk (admittedly not a massive difference compared to Stewart/Sangakkara).

You have provided me with 3 names but what about Dhoni? Boucher, Russell, Healy, Marsh, Dujon, Flower? Are those extreme cases as well?

Why didn't I mention Dhoni, Boucher, Russell, Healy, Marsh, or Dujon? Why would I mention them? Barring Dujon (in 2 tests) none of them have played tests as specialist batsmen, so you can't analyse how wicket-keeping effected their test batting! Flower is one I had overlooked, but he has only played a small percentage (8/63) of his games as a specialist batsman. I'm not sure you are following what I am saying - I'm not saying you can't be a good test batsman if you are a wk, just that many players struggle to average as much as wk as they do as specialist batsmen at test level.

*All stats courtesy of the statsguru search engine on cricinfo.

 

[TRF_heineken]

If Alviro Pietersen is also declared unfit to play, then maybe this will open a spot for someone like Heino Kuhn who is both a opening batsmen and a wicket keeper...

EDIT: I see they just flew in Thami Tsolekile to join the squad in england...

 

[Shovenose]

Not quite true. Stewart played a lot both as a specialist batsman and as a wicket-keeper during the 90's - though it is true he played far more as a keeper after Russell retired he still had his fair share of games as a keeper during his early career. Between 1990 & 2000 he played 93 matches - 42 as wk, 51 as a specialist batsman (he played a further 42 tests from 2000 onwards, all as wk)*. He averaged 34.0 in matches he played as wk. He averaged 46.7 in matches he played as a specialist batsman. Pretty compelling evidence that being wk can effect your batting!I'm not talking about ODI batting at all - it is pretty obvious I'm only referring to test cricket. Sangakkara averages 40.5 in 48 tests as wk. He averages and amazing 68.9 in 63 tests as a specialist batsman!McCullum's test batting has not got any better as he has become more experienced. He started off strongly - he was averaging a touch under 40 at test level after 10 tests. That dropped to 36 after 20 test, and down to 30 after 30 tests. NZ didn't find a better wk - McCullum gave up wicket-keeping in tests as his body wasn't able to handle the rigors of test match wicket-keeping. He is still clearly the best pure wicket-keeper in the country. He averages 43 as a specialist batsman, but only 35 as a wk (admittedly not a massive difference compared to Stewart/Sangakkara).Why didn't I mention Dhoni, Boucher, Russell, Healy, Marsh, or Dujon? Why would I mention them? Barring Dujon (in 2 tests) none of them have played tests as specialist batsmen, so you can't analyse how wicket-keeping effected their test batting! Flower is one I had overlooked, but he has only played a small percentage (8/63) of his games as a specialist batsman. I'm not sure you are following what I am saying - I'm not saying you can't be a good test batsman if you are a wk, just that many players struggle to average as much as wk as they do as specialist batsmen at test level.*All stats courtesy of the statsguru search engine on cricinfo.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/562825.htmlThere you go. There is a difference between a batsman hitting form than a sudden change of a fielding position. WK is not like a bowler. Its like a fielder. If anything it will improve most batting as you need a good eye. How is Sri Lanka's new wk doing btw? As you would notice Sangakara is 34 and he's fitness will not be there. So he has to give it up

 

[Darwin]

If Alviro Pietersen is also declared unfit to play, then maybe this will open a spot for someone like Heino Kuhn who is both a opening batsmen and a wicket keeper...

EDIT: I see they just flew in Thami Tsolekile to join the squad in england...

It is very difficult to wk and open the batting in tests though - not impossible, but it would be very rare. It will be interesting to see whether the do decide on using de Villiers as their full time test keeper, or they look to bring in another specialist - are there any promising young keepers coming up through the South African ranks (I know Khun and Tsolekile are late 20's/early 30's)?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/562825.htmlThere you go. There is a difference between a batsman hitting form than a sudden change of a fielding position. WK is not like a bowler. Its like a fielder. If anything it will improve most batting as you need a good eye.

I'm not sure what the point of your link was. It didn't provide anything to the debate - it simply showed that wicket-keepers have improved there batting averages as time has gone on, which no-one is denying! The Alec Stewart case was a clear example that test batting can be effected by wicket-keeping and had nothing to do with 'hitting form'. Unless you believe that throughout the 90's he miraculously hit form whenever he was played as specialist batsman, but lost it whenever he was played as a wk (totally unrelated to whether he was wk off-course ). I don't believe in coincidences like that. Likewise I don't believe that Sangakkara and McCullum miraculously 'hit form' the moment they no longer had the wk responsibilities - they were in there late 20s/early 30s at the time with 50+ caps so it is not as though they finally found out how to bat in test cricket.....

I've provided a number of stats to show that being a test wk does not improve your test batting - indeed the exact opposite occurs. de Villiers could well be the exception to the rule, but I'd be surprised if he continues to maintain his batting form (which sees him currently ranked as the number 3 test batsman in world cricket) if he becomes the full time test wicket-keeper....

How is Sri Lanka's new wk doing btw? As you would notice Sangakara is 34 and he's fitness will not be there. So he has to give it up

Sangakkara gave up being a the full time test keeper in test 6 years ago! It as not due to a lack of fitness, but rather that he was far more valuable to the team as a specialist batsman (currently the no.1 ranked batsman in test cricket!). Prasanna Jayawerdene has been Sri Lanka's test wk for the last 4-5 years, though I understand they do have a couple of young keepers pushing for inclusion.

 

[Darwin]

England vs South Africa test series starts in a few hours - should be a great series between probably the two best test teams in world cricket (I see South Africa is actually only ranked 3rd - behind Australia - which was a slight surprise to me...). I'm going to pick England to win the series (due to their home advantage), but in reality there is very little between the too sides.

Meanwhile the 7th and 8th ranked teams (NZ and West Indies) in the world start a 2 test series next week... I know what series I expect to produce a higher quality of cricket!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yeah SA slipped to 3rd on the Rankings as their last test was vs NZ in the beginning of the year. And other teams have played tests in the meanwhile...

If SA win the series they'll jump to No.1 if they lose the series, they slump to 4th...

Can't wait for the test to begin today! Gonna be an awesome series!

 

[Darwin]

Yeah SA slipped to 3rd on the Rankings as their last test was vs NZ in the beginning of the year. And other teams have played tests in the meanwhile...

If SA win the series they'll jump to No.1 if they lose the series, they slump to 4th...

Can't wait for the test to begin today! Gonna be an awesome series!

What do you think South Africa's chances are of winning this series?

I actually think they have better individual batsmen than England. Amla, de Villiers, and Kallis are all better than any of England's batsmen in my opinion - and I'd rate Smith in line with the top English batsmen (Cook). The problem is outside them they don't really have any other batsmen established at test level - Peterson, Rudolph and Duming have all had there moments, but are hardly established test batsmen. In contrast I think England have more established test batsmen (Strauss, Bell, Pieterson, Trott, Prior in addition to the previously mentioned Cook), and have far more depth in their batting lineup (Bresnan, Swann, and Broad at 8,9, and 10 is a pretty strong lower order!).

Both teams have very good bowling lineups - South Africa have an edge in the pace bowlers with Steyn, Morkel, and Philander a slightly better trio than Anderson, Broad, and Bresnan in my opinion, but England do have a big edge in terms of spin bowling. Swann is very consistent, as knows how to exploit English conditions, and while Tahir has shown some good signs at times, he is hardly a proven test bowler.

Game starts in just under an hour - I will probably watch the first session before I go to bed....

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I am trying to get into cricket and hope the Tests vs. England will be a good starter. To get myself familiarized with cricket I watched some matches earlier this week and it turns out it's actually an easy sport to follow...

 

[SelimNiai]

I am trying to get into cricket and hope the Tests vs. England will be a good starter. To get myself familiarized with cricket I watched some matches earlier this week and it turns out it's actually an easy sport to follow...

It is easy, you do need a lot of patience to watch the proper forms of cricket, Tests and 50 over Cricket, there will be periods where not a lot happens but within that you can see the tactics being played out by either side. I love it.

 

[psychic duck]

South Africa will be targeting Ravi Bopara as England's suspect link in the batting lineup, given his mixed history in Tests. This is a big series for Bopara, chances for a batsman for England don't come around too often, and if he fails this series he could be cast aside as simply a one day player in the future, and future chances will be given to Taylor, or Bairstow and Morgan again.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, I will be watching with a short pause on Saturday to switch to the Reds-Sharks match of course