Hampshire v Glamorgan, Division 2, Ageas Bowl, 1st day May 11, 2014

Bates gives keeping masterclass

15

Hampshire 119 for 1 (Carberry 62*) trail Glamorgan 224 (Wallace 67*, Ervine 3-36, Coles 3-39, Abbott 3-66) by 105 runs
Scorecard

There really is no substitute for an expert wicketkeeper. The solidity of a proper gloveman behind the stumps has been the making of many great sides in the history of the game. Ames, Evans, Knott, Russell have all defined the art which is in danger of being lost in the modern game where runs seem to trump all else.

Chris Read and James Foster are two current wicketkeepers with a claim for glove greatness but neither will remain in the game beyond the decade. Michael Bates therefore represents a one-man club of young cricketers with the ability to inspire behind the stumps.

His work on the opening day against Glamorgan was one tumbling fumble from faultless. He took four very smart catches, narrowly missed a spectacular fifth, and reminded Hampshire that they possess a very special talent who is surely too valuable not to be selected on a regular basis. His sharp work clinched Hampshire the 2012 Clydesdale Bank 40 with a last-ball stumping.

Hampshire do try. At the end of last season Bates was picked alongside Adam Wheater - a signing of some note from Essex and a far superior batsman - but the start of 2013 saw no place for Bates. A Little Bit O' Luck was needed for him to be recalled and Wheater broke his index finger against Gloucestershire in just the second game of the season.

Both his subsequent Championship appearances have been blighted by the weather but two handy scores, a not out, and a half-century against Cardiff MCCU suggest at some form with the bat. His form behind the stumps is never in doubt and his initial work against Glamorgan was a joyous springing to left and right, up and down with precisely two balls getting past him (one of them unreachable).

A Division Two wicketkeeper is unlikely to catch the wider imagination even in cricket circles but he represents supreme cricketing skill of blessed natural ability of which it is not an overestimation to suggest is a rare commodity in the wider sporting world - at least from British natives.

He feels he is at the peak of his game after a winter in Perth working on his batting with Noddy Holder - a revered Australian batting coach, incidentally, not the former Slade singer having a stint north of the border.

His four catches on day one helped Hampshire justify Jimmy Adams' decision to bowl first on a wicket with a good covering of grass. Hampshire have assembled a very handy bowling attack that would show up well in Division One. Given some assistance at home, they could well bowl their side to promotion; too many draws - nine from 16 matches in the past two years - have undermined Hampshire's bid to return to the first division.

The attack here boasted the pace of Kyle Abbott, the bustling seamers of Matt Coles and the nagging Sean Ervine. They each took three wickets with the very useful left-arm variation of James Tomlinson providing the other.

They were grateful to have Bates to catch. Liam Dawson, too, who claimed four chances at second slip - one short of equalling the Hampshire record - two flashing above his head and another on the rebound from James Vince from first slip just when Vince was about to blot a Hampshire catching masterclass.

With Abbott's third ball, a good length delivery that had Jacques Rudolph - a so-far disappointing signing - poking at it from the crease, a healthy edge whistled low to Bates' left. He was down in a flash to hold a fine catch one-handed just above the turf. He then took off down the leg side to hold Murray Goodwin's flick off Coles.

Abbott came around the wicket to present Bates with his third catch - an inside edge from Will Bragg that required a second leap down the leg side - and a fourth was added to end the Glamorgan innings after a face-saving stand of 65 in 89 balls for the 10th wicket between Mark Wallace and Tom Helm.

Wallace is also among the best wicketkeepers in the game, largely unheralded with Glamorgan remaining largely out of the limelight, and he was briefly mentioned in England terms several years ago.

Now in charge of his county he is a fine mature performer and here played an excellent hand to give his side a batting point and avoid complete calamity, which was the likely scenario at 159 for 9. But, with Helm for steady company, he played intelligently for a 54-ball half-century, with eight fours largely picked out cleverly on the leg side.

Wallace remained unbeaten and proved what was possible on a solid batting wicket - evident as Michael Carberry easily saw off the new ball to go past fifty in 86 balls; the pick of his strokes a pulled six off Helm with two men back for the stroke as Hampshire took control.

Follow Alex Winter on Twitter @winter_cricket

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • HandM on May 12, 2014, 15:33 GMT

    No doubt Bates had improved his batting and given his performance back in the keeper seat , it's going to be a tough choice when Wheater is back fit. Possibly Bates plays Championship, with Wheater vying for a batting spot. In one day matches Wheater still gets the nod tbf.

  • on May 12, 2014, 14:22 GMT

    Am another who was surprised by the signing of Wheater but in fairness he has strenghened the squad but am sure Bates is by far the better wicketkeeper and with his improved batting will play more matches! More interesting will be at end of 2014 season when both their contracts end and their are two other talented keepers ( McManus and Alsop) whose batting may surpass the other two will be emerging.

  • CodandChips on May 12, 2014, 12:54 GMT

    Wheatear hasn't even impressed me much with the bat. And Bates scored bucket loads in the 2s but didn't get a look

    Also poor Adam Rouse got released

  • ragebe on May 12, 2014, 12:27 GMT

    I echo the sentiments of Hammond7249; most frustrating that Wheater was brought in, when it wasn't an issue with the wicket-keeping that was keeping Hampshire in Div II but an inability to take 20 wickets. A batting line up that includes, Adams, Carberry, Dawson, Vince and Ervine, doesn't require the wicketkeeper to score 50s. Chuck in Smith and Gatting and we have plenty of batting firepower.

    For me, keeping Bates as wickie is a must if HCCC are to win more games this season, 20 wickets remember.

  • DesPlatt on May 12, 2014, 11:20 GMT

    @ siltbreeze and @ Tony Bennett. So right. If you a drop a catch from a good batsman at Test level, good batsmen make it costly.

    @ Dave1965 ; you say all keepers are good standing back but I saw Lancs first two away games this season and Buttler and Davies dropped more catches standing back than the discarded Cross did in a season. Doesn't take long for that to cost more than a difference in batting average of ten or so

  • siltbreeze on May 12, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    Could someone come up with a formula (Duckworth and Lewis perhaps?!) to quantify the value of a top class gloveman - runs cost by dropping a batsman, byes conceded etc.? Impossible to do of course, but I suspect the benefit would outweigh the difference in batting average between, say, a Read and a Prior. I used idly to add up the byes conceded by Read against other England contenders, and he was consistently saving Notts runs each innings.

  • John-Price on May 12, 2014, 9:58 GMT

    Favouring keepers who can bat is not new. Jim Parks owed his England place to his batting, not his keeping.

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    And of the group 1, Ames and Knott were both very fine batsmen. This invalidates the point, which would have been better made using Taylor and McIntyre...

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    Selectors often forget a great wicketkeeper standing upto seamers, taking amazing catches and stumpings is worth a world class bowler, I can think of so many dollies that 'allrounder' keepers dropped where the batsman went on to score heavily. Seeing Ben Scott at Middlesex for all these years standing upto anyone and everyone was just immense a good keeper is worth his weight in gold to a side

  • Hammond7249 on May 12, 2014, 8:29 GMT

    I was frustrated when Hampshire brought in Adam Wheater to replace Bates because he wasn't getting enough runs. Some of the catches I've seen him make would not have been made by a lot of other keepers and certainly not Wheater. When he was brought into the team there was a murmur of discontent from the Hampshire faithful, since we all know how important to the team Michael Bates is. We were made to feel that we were making something out of nothing. Now I feel that we are being vindicated. And Bates has been getting runs, too!

  • HandM on May 12, 2014, 15:33 GMT

    No doubt Bates had improved his batting and given his performance back in the keeper seat , it's going to be a tough choice when Wheater is back fit. Possibly Bates plays Championship, with Wheater vying for a batting spot. In one day matches Wheater still gets the nod tbf.

  • on May 12, 2014, 14:22 GMT

    Am another who was surprised by the signing of Wheater but in fairness he has strenghened the squad but am sure Bates is by far the better wicketkeeper and with his improved batting will play more matches! More interesting will be at end of 2014 season when both their contracts end and their are two other talented keepers ( McManus and Alsop) whose batting may surpass the other two will be emerging.

  • CodandChips on May 12, 2014, 12:54 GMT

    Wheatear hasn't even impressed me much with the bat. And Bates scored bucket loads in the 2s but didn't get a look

    Also poor Adam Rouse got released

  • ragebe on May 12, 2014, 12:27 GMT

    I echo the sentiments of Hammond7249; most frustrating that Wheater was brought in, when it wasn't an issue with the wicket-keeping that was keeping Hampshire in Div II but an inability to take 20 wickets. A batting line up that includes, Adams, Carberry, Dawson, Vince and Ervine, doesn't require the wicketkeeper to score 50s. Chuck in Smith and Gatting and we have plenty of batting firepower.

    For me, keeping Bates as wickie is a must if HCCC are to win more games this season, 20 wickets remember.

  • DesPlatt on May 12, 2014, 11:20 GMT

    @ siltbreeze and @ Tony Bennett. So right. If you a drop a catch from a good batsman at Test level, good batsmen make it costly.

    @ Dave1965 ; you say all keepers are good standing back but I saw Lancs first two away games this season and Buttler and Davies dropped more catches standing back than the discarded Cross did in a season. Doesn't take long for that to cost more than a difference in batting average of ten or so

  • siltbreeze on May 12, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    Could someone come up with a formula (Duckworth and Lewis perhaps?!) to quantify the value of a top class gloveman - runs cost by dropping a batsman, byes conceded etc.? Impossible to do of course, but I suspect the benefit would outweigh the difference in batting average between, say, a Read and a Prior. I used idly to add up the byes conceded by Read against other England contenders, and he was consistently saving Notts runs each innings.

  • John-Price on May 12, 2014, 9:58 GMT

    Favouring keepers who can bat is not new. Jim Parks owed his England place to his batting, not his keeping.

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    And of the group 1, Ames and Knott were both very fine batsmen. This invalidates the point, which would have been better made using Taylor and McIntyre...

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    Selectors often forget a great wicketkeeper standing upto seamers, taking amazing catches and stumpings is worth a world class bowler, I can think of so many dollies that 'allrounder' keepers dropped where the batsman went on to score heavily. Seeing Ben Scott at Middlesex for all these years standing upto anyone and everyone was just immense a good keeper is worth his weight in gold to a side

  • Hammond7249 on May 12, 2014, 8:29 GMT

    I was frustrated when Hampshire brought in Adam Wheater to replace Bates because he wasn't getting enough runs. Some of the catches I've seen him make would not have been made by a lot of other keepers and certainly not Wheater. When he was brought into the team there was a murmur of discontent from the Hampshire faithful, since we all know how important to the team Michael Bates is. We were made to feel that we were making something out of nothing. Now I feel that we are being vindicated. And Bates has been getting runs, too!

  • bobmartin on May 12, 2014, 8:19 GMT

    I've always admired the way that good keepers semm to let the ball melt into their gloves... To watch Foster, Read and Bates at work is to watch natural talent making an extremely difficult job look deceptively easy, in contrast to Prior, Buttler, Keiswetter and many other modern keepers.

  • jackiethepen on May 12, 2014, 7:23 GMT

    The call should be made to bring back Chris Read. A wrong should be righted. He's become an outstanding all round cricketer and he's still the best gloveman in the country. Australia were shrewd enough to bring Haddin into their team and he's played a crucial role. We have Read who is already fully formed and could take up international duty tomorrow. Mick Newell must know Read's worth. He may not want to lose the captain of the County side who has been an absolute stalwart, but all Counties have to put England first when it comes to selection.

  • Dave1965 on May 11, 2014, 21:23 GMT

    Good to see Bates getting some recognition, he is one of the most gifted wicket keepers I have seen, all wicket keepers are good standing back but a keepers true class shows when he is up to the stumps and Bates is fantastic standing up whether it is to seam or spin. You will have to go along way to find a better exhibition of wicket keeping than his against Warwickshire in the Lords final back in 2012.

  • ageas on May 11, 2014, 21:04 GMT

    Whilst Hampshire management seem to focus on the runs Wheater scores and Bates doesn't, they appear to overlook the catches that Bates makes that Wheater wouldn't't ( and the runs he saves). At least two of Bates's catches today wouldn't have looked like missed chances had Wheater been keeping - he wouldn't have even gone for them as they sped to the boundary: 8 Glamorgan runs rather than 2 wickets for Hampshire.

  • on May 11, 2014, 18:54 GMT

    It's one of the potential tragedies of the modern game that wicketkeepers have to be all-rounders. This trend needs to be reversed. If they can bat a bit, fine, but a specialist behind the stumps is irreplaceable in my opinion. England selectors take note. NB Bob Taylor deserves inclusion among the group in paragraph one.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on May 11, 2014, 18:54 GMT

    It's one of the potential tragedies of the modern game that wicketkeepers have to be all-rounders. This trend needs to be reversed. If they can bat a bit, fine, but a specialist behind the stumps is irreplaceable in my opinion. England selectors take note. NB Bob Taylor deserves inclusion among the group in paragraph one.

  • ageas on May 11, 2014, 21:04 GMT

    Whilst Hampshire management seem to focus on the runs Wheater scores and Bates doesn't, they appear to overlook the catches that Bates makes that Wheater wouldn't't ( and the runs he saves). At least two of Bates's catches today wouldn't have looked like missed chances had Wheater been keeping - he wouldn't have even gone for them as they sped to the boundary: 8 Glamorgan runs rather than 2 wickets for Hampshire.

  • Dave1965 on May 11, 2014, 21:23 GMT

    Good to see Bates getting some recognition, he is one of the most gifted wicket keepers I have seen, all wicket keepers are good standing back but a keepers true class shows when he is up to the stumps and Bates is fantastic standing up whether it is to seam or spin. You will have to go along way to find a better exhibition of wicket keeping than his against Warwickshire in the Lords final back in 2012.

  • jackiethepen on May 12, 2014, 7:23 GMT

    The call should be made to bring back Chris Read. A wrong should be righted. He's become an outstanding all round cricketer and he's still the best gloveman in the country. Australia were shrewd enough to bring Haddin into their team and he's played a crucial role. We have Read who is already fully formed and could take up international duty tomorrow. Mick Newell must know Read's worth. He may not want to lose the captain of the County side who has been an absolute stalwart, but all Counties have to put England first when it comes to selection.

  • bobmartin on May 12, 2014, 8:19 GMT

    I've always admired the way that good keepers semm to let the ball melt into their gloves... To watch Foster, Read and Bates at work is to watch natural talent making an extremely difficult job look deceptively easy, in contrast to Prior, Buttler, Keiswetter and many other modern keepers.

  • Hammond7249 on May 12, 2014, 8:29 GMT

    I was frustrated when Hampshire brought in Adam Wheater to replace Bates because he wasn't getting enough runs. Some of the catches I've seen him make would not have been made by a lot of other keepers and certainly not Wheater. When he was brought into the team there was a murmur of discontent from the Hampshire faithful, since we all know how important to the team Michael Bates is. We were made to feel that we were making something out of nothing. Now I feel that we are being vindicated. And Bates has been getting runs, too!

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    Selectors often forget a great wicketkeeper standing upto seamers, taking amazing catches and stumpings is worth a world class bowler, I can think of so many dollies that 'allrounder' keepers dropped where the batsman went on to score heavily. Seeing Ben Scott at Middlesex for all these years standing upto anyone and everyone was just immense a good keeper is worth his weight in gold to a side

  • on May 12, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    And of the group 1, Ames and Knott were both very fine batsmen. This invalidates the point, which would have been better made using Taylor and McIntyre...

  • John-Price on May 12, 2014, 9:58 GMT

    Favouring keepers who can bat is not new. Jim Parks owed his England place to his batting, not his keeping.

  • siltbreeze on May 12, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    Could someone come up with a formula (Duckworth and Lewis perhaps?!) to quantify the value of a top class gloveman - runs cost by dropping a batsman, byes conceded etc.? Impossible to do of course, but I suspect the benefit would outweigh the difference in batting average between, say, a Read and a Prior. I used idly to add up the byes conceded by Read against other England contenders, and he was consistently saving Notts runs each innings.