All time Ashes XI: The Keeper.

[Aidan11]

I remember once England had an injured keeper during a home test match and they had to send for Bob Taylor, who was long retired and entertaining in one of the hospitality areas, to keep for the rest of the day.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I remember him getting 97 in a match changing partnership with Geoff Miller in Adelaide in 78-9. Very tough innings.

[Aidan11]

I notice Paul Downton isn't up there.

[Gingerfinch]

I remember Downton playing a few gutsy knocks against the west Indies in 1984. We had a few keepers during the 80's.

[Arthur Crabtree]

That was his only Ashes 50 in 17 Tests though.

Played Tests 2-4 in Botham's Ashes. Downton played in the first, and Knott came back for the last two, and averaged 60 to Bob's 3.8. There you have it.

[Gingerfinch]

Is it better to have a Taylor or a Buttler? I think I'd prefer the former.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Downton averaged under 20 in Tests, and 15.8 against the Aussies.

In the golden summer of 1985, when English batters had to borrow extras boots to put all their runs in, Downton scored 54, 21, 0,0, 23, 0*, 16. That's all the Ashes cricket he got, apart from the first Test of 81 (8&3).

[Aidan11]

Is it better to have a Taylor or a Buttler? I think I'd prefer the former.

The modern trend tends to be for batter/keepers these days.

It's all Gilchrist's fault.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Is it better to have a Taylor or a Buttler? I think I'd prefer the former.

Give me the batter every time.

Although England have enough all rounders to accommodate a specialist, I'm not sure there are any anymore.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As the stats show above, the specialists didn't take any more dismissals. A specialist keeper can make a difference standing up, but England only have a pretty orthodox spinner. If Stewart and Prior could develop into good keepers, why not Buttler? All those specialist keepers used to miss chances, though the folk lore is that they soaked their hands in vinegar, were gnarly eccentrics, and caught everything.

[Gingerfinch]

No votes for Haddin, even though his ashes record is better than Gilchrist's........I think?

Gilly did play two of the best innings from the 00's, which helps him. His 204 and 58 ball ton.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gilchrist has a better average, and more dismissals.

They've both played 20 games now. I suppose Haddin would have batted in both innings more often (he has more runs than Gilly), but fewer chances would have come his way. Possibly.

[Gingerfinch]

Haddin has probably come to the wicket. with his team needing him to score more often than not. Gilly did have the luxury of Hayden, Langer, Punter, the Waugh's etc ahead of him, building a nice platform. I'd still have Gilly though, hence my pick.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gilchrist has done his fair share of saving the innings over the years. Maybe not so much in Ashes matches, but his 54 at Trent Bridge in 2001, when Australia were 122-8 remains in my memory. His ton in Sydney, from 150-5 (Waugh's last Test), kept Australia afloat, though in a dead rubber. Maybe there is a factor of Gilchrist being a Test great rather than an Ashes great, but his Ashes record is still great, and better than anyone else's (give or take the vagaries of the eras).

[from_the_stands]

Gilly for me, a modern great of the game.