Back in the old days, keepers would snaffle everything. They also couldn't bat, and so they'd be playing at 9 or 10 or 11 in the batting order, just like the bowlers. But the great tragedy of keeping is that it isn't a quantifiable skill, so slowly but surely keepers starting getting picked on batting ability, something which could be quantified. In T20s today, there is a strong argument for keepers that can bat: get more people who can bat so that you can squeeze out every last run from your side. But maybe, doing the complete opposite could work better. Perhaps teams should look into playing a specialist keeper in the XI, one who's usually not meant to bat, so they play as low as 9, 10, or 11.
In a T20, you don't need 11 people in the side who can bat. The game just isn't long enough for that. The vast majority of the time, several players won't bat. So there may not be that much harm in playing someone who isn't meant to bat. But what does a specialist keeper add to the side? They may be able to add value, by saving more runs with the gloves than they make with the bat. I don't mean to say that every T20 keeper is bad and lets a lot of runs through. Far from it. Most are fine, tidy keepers. They may drop a catch and concede a few byes every game, but it ultimately isn't worth that much. Where a specialist keeper can truly show their worth is not in the ordinary, but in the exceptional.
Over here, Ben Cox is standing up to a pacer, because if he was standing back, then there's an easy single on offer, even if Duckett misses the ball. But when standing up, there's no chance of that. Duckett does miss this ball, and he can't run a single because Cox has already removed the bails before Duckett fully realizes that he's missed the ball. Now imagine a keeper doing that the entire innings (not necessarily standing up to the stumps, but just standing far closer than most keepers do). That's a lot of runs that can be saved all innings. Most byes, and even a lot of leg byes, can’t be stolen anymore without a huge risk of being run out. A lot of potential wickets too. Not just taking being able to take more catches (instead of seeing the ball fall just short of them), but also stumpings. Batsmen would need to take the same level of care they do to spinners, and they’ll probably try stepping out to throw off a bowler’s line a lot less. It’ll change the way some batsmen play, possibly for the worse. If a keeper can actually consistently pull this stuff off to pace bowlers, they'll have a huge impact. Remember, a keeper is involved in almost every ball. If they can shave runs off of a quarter of the deliveries in an innings which a normal keeper wouldn't, they've completely changed the match.
Now of course, this isn't a proposition that'll work for all sides (no idea is). If a team is playing several bowlers who also can't bat, then it falls apart. You can afford to have some guys in the side who aren't ever supposed to bat, but once you start getting getting your working batting lineup down to only 6 or 7 people, that is cause for some nerves. But if you have a team with good batting depth and lots of bowling options, where you have 6 or 7 bowling options (like 3 guys meant to bowl 4 overs and 3 or 4 meant to share the remaining 8 between them), and still have semi bankable batsmen down at 10 (a team like, say, England), this could be something worth trying. It would be a completely radical change, and it would be very interesting if this gamble comes off.
[link] [comments]
from Cricket https://ift.tt/2PiW4eq
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment