TomandJerry
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2013
- 11,437
Worcestershire’s recent tactic of playing without a wicketkeeper
"It seems that Steve Rhodes, a former wicketkeeper himself and now Worcestershire’s director of cricket, came up with the idea after watching MS Dhoni stand back to India’s spinners. “In a game when you’re trying to stop the opposition scoring, it’s a legitimate tactic,” he said afterwards."
"The idea of playing without a wicketkeeper isn’t a new one and in a way goes all the way back to the early 1800s when a longstop was routinely employed directly behind the keeper to prevent boundaries (the keeper at that stage being more concerned with stumpings and run-outs than actually stopping the ball – a longstop would generally wear more protective clothing as mobility on the boundary wasn’t deemed as important as it was behind the stumps)."
"Worcestershire’s strategy last week was something different again. Did it work? Well enough – only one bye was conceded in the remainder of the innings and Worcestershire ended up winning by 14 runs. And it’s an idea that has a sound logic behind it: in a situation where runs are more important than wickets the switch essentially trades a catcher for a run-saver. Though whether the idea will catch on remains to be seen – don’t expect to see Jos Buttler fielding at fly slip at any point at Edgbaston on Tuesday."
Good idea? bad idea? I think its good and perhaps it might catch on!
"It seems that Steve Rhodes, a former wicketkeeper himself and now Worcestershire’s director of cricket, came up with the idea after watching MS Dhoni stand back to India’s spinners. “In a game when you’re trying to stop the opposition scoring, it’s a legitimate tactic,” he said afterwards."
"The idea of playing without a wicketkeeper isn’t a new one and in a way goes all the way back to the early 1800s when a longstop was routinely employed directly behind the keeper to prevent boundaries (the keeper at that stage being more concerned with stumpings and run-outs than actually stopping the ball – a longstop would generally wear more protective clothing as mobility on the boundary wasn’t deemed as important as it was behind the stumps)."
"Worcestershire’s strategy last week was something different again. Did it work? Well enough – only one bye was conceded in the remainder of the innings and Worcestershire ended up winning by 14 runs. And it’s an idea that has a sound logic behind it: in a situation where runs are more important than wickets the switch essentially trades a catcher for a run-saver. Though whether the idea will catch on remains to be seen – don’t expect to see Jos Buttler fielding at fly slip at any point at Edgbaston on Tuesday."
Good idea? bad idea? I think its good and perhaps it might catch on!
