Kumar Sangakkara: "According to Steve Waugh, the thing that made Ian Healy such a great wicketkeeper was that he went unnoticed through matches and series" © Getty Images

Ian Chappell: Hello and welcome to the Cricinfo Round Table.

Wicketkeepers have been in the news for all the wrong reasons in the just concluded England-India Test series. Both Matt Prior and Mahendra Singh Dhoni had a pretty rough time of it behind the stumps. Prior in particular has copped a lot of flak for his poor performance. This brings us to a crucial question: have wicketkeeping standards dropped in the modern game? The focus is now on keepers who have the ability to make big runs; match-winners in their own right. But is the quality of wicketkeeping being compromised? Do selectors have their priorities right when it comes to modern-day keepers?

To answer these questions and more, I have with me Kumar Sangakkara, one of the leading wicketkeeper-batsmen in the world today, and Michael Holding, one of the all-time greats of the game.

Great teams always seem to have better than average keepers. We have had Jeffrey Dujon for the West Indies, Rodney Marsh and Ian Healy for Australia. How crucial is the wicketkeeper to his side? Let us hear first from you Kumar.

Kumar Sangakkara: I think he is very important to the team, to make up the balance. What you have said is right, though - the role of the wicketkeeper has changed in modern times, in that he has to be able to contribute with the bat as well. Contributing with the bat doesn't mean that you have to compromise on the wicketkeeping standards. The selectors and the captain will always look out for a multi-faceted cricketer and it is up to the individual to make sure that his wicketkeeping standards are up to the mark and that he also contributes with the bat. So there is a huge responsibility [in terms of] your work ethic, your technique - basically your ability to polish every aspect of your game.

I think the wicketkeeper's primary task is to maintain and also raise the fielding standards of the entire side, as he's the fielder that everyone looks at. According to Steve Waugh, the thing that made Healy such a great wicketkeeper was that he went unnoticed through matches and series. I think Healy has the been the greatest wicketkeeper I have seen, and I think it's a great compliment to a wicketkeeper and his work to say that he made so few mistakes that he went almost unnoticed throughout his career.

IC: Michael, from the bowlers' point of view, how important is the keeper?

Michael Holding: Very important, Chappelli. As a former fast bowler, I always wanted to make sure that the man behind the stumps was confident and good at his job. My success depended a lot on him as well as the men in the slip cordon. The keeper a bit more so, as every ball that you bowl is aimed towards him. If the ball doesn't hit the stumps or the bat or the pad, it needs to go through to the keeper. And as a bowler you need that bit of confidence, that the man behind the stumps is capable of taking the ball and will do a very good job of it.

Fine, we have modern-day cricket where certain aspects of the game are changing and people are looking for multi-faceted cricketers. You don't want somebody who can only bat or ball or field; you need cricketers who can do more than just one job competently today. But I don't see why some jobs on the field should be compromised because you are looking for someone who can do more than one thing. I don't think the wicketkeeping job should ever be compromised because you think, "Oh this person can give me another 50 to 60 runs with the bat." That person who can give you those extra runs with the bat might be dropping someone who goes on to score a lot more runs than what he can contribute with the bat. This in turn affects the team in so many ways. It affects the spirit of the team, the make-up of the team, and the confidence of the bowler. It's like looking for an allrounder who can bat and bowl, and you play someone who can bat a bit and bowl a bit but who can't get into the team on batting or bowling strength alone.

IC: Do you think Adam Gilchrist's success has sent the selectors off in the wrong direction? It seems to me that the point they are forgetting about Gilchrist was that he was a wicketkeeper first, who just happened to be a damn good batsman.

MH: I think it has certainly contributed a great deal because people look at Australia particularly now and say, "OK, Australia do this and Australia do that," just like it was with the West Indies in the 70s and 80s. When we had four fast bowlers, a lot of people thought that wasn't the way to go about things but a lot of teams also tried to copy us. [But] if you don't have four good fast bowlers, it will never work; if you don't have someone who can keep and bat as well as a Sangakkara or a Gilchrist, it doesn't work.

You can't make something out of nothing; you can't just wish something upon someone.

If the ball doesn't hit the stumps or the bat or the pad, it needs to go through to the keeper. And as a bowler you need that bit of confidence, that the man behind the stumps is capable of taking the ball and will do a very good job of it Michael Holding

Gilchrist is a fantastic cricketer. He can make it into most teams around the world purely as a batsman or as a keeper. When Dujon was the keeper for West Indies he was a very good batsman and he became a very good keeper. Since we had four fast bowlers, he was a great catcher. He was never great up to the stumps but he was never required to come up to the stumps that often. If you have it, use it; you cannot try and make it.

IC: Kumar, does it make you a bit angry that selectors tend to get someone in who can bat and then think that he can do the job as a keeper as well?

KS: I think the job description says it all, doesn't it Chappelli? It says wicketkeeper-batsman. That means you are a keeper first. I think the selectors have to separate the two roles in such a way that when he keeps wickets, he should be looked at as a keeper and then when he does bat his role changes to that of batsman. It would be fantastic if we can find specialist keepers as such, as Michael said, because that does give a lot of confidence to the team.

I'm sure both of you will agree with me when I say that when Adam Gilchrist came along, he changed the way people perceived the role of the keeper, but it hasn't really changed. People have to still look for the person who can keep competently first and then score some runs with the bat. You don't have to score a century every time, but do your keeping job well and then when you get a chance to bat, try and contribute. I think it's also a matter of personal responsibility. When you are picked, the confidence that the team has in you, and you have in yourself, is of paramount importance in putting in good performances for your side. That means that the team has to see that you have done everything possible to be prepared and to be competent on the day you take the field.

IC: Michael, you touched upon the relationship between bowlers and keepers. How important is a good keeper to the confidence of a bowler?

MH: He's very important, Chappelli. When, as a bowler, you have done the hard work and achieved the objective of getting the batsman to make a mistake and he edges the ball and it goes through to the keeper, you don't want to be thinking whether the keeper is going to take it or not - you want to be fully confident that he is going to take the catch. When you have reached the Test match level, you should never have that second thought in your mind about whether the people who are supposed to be assisting you in your job are good enough or not. You should be concentrating on your task as a bowler, ensuring that you are getting your part of the job done, knowing that the rest of it will be completed.

IC: Kumar, tell us a little bit about your relationship with [Muttiah] Muralitharan and how important it is to Sri Lanka.

KS: I think Murali is very concerned about the keepers we have because the partnership between the keeper and Murali is very important. When I keep to him, we keep communicating. We talk about how the pitch is behaving, what the batsman is looking to do, how we can tweak the next few overs so as to put pressure on the batsman. But it won't work if I don't ensure that whenever that ball comes through to me - whether it's a an edge, whether it's something that beats the bat, or whether it's a stumping chance - I am prepared to take that chance, and Murali knows and believes that I am going to hold on to that chance. Every time the ball beats the edge and I collect it cleanly, I believe it puts more pressure on the batsman.

When you have a confident keeper it makes a huge difference to the bowler and I have seen it first-hand with Murali. If he has full confidence in his keeper, then every time that he bowls, he tends to be less agitated and frustrated and I've seen the difference in his bowling when I have made a few mistakes behind the stumps. He tries that bit harder to do something different; he starts to think, "Well he's missed two, perhaps I should try to get the batsman out bat-pad in case he misses the next nick."

IC: Probably the bulk of Prior's problems comes from what I think is poor footwork. When I've seen him preparing for the day's game, I've felt that he has been going about in the wrong way - focusing on his diving rather than his footwork. Kumar, how important is footwork to a keeper?

KS: It's the basis of your wicketkeeping. Keeping is not about having quick hands and soft hands. It's about having good, powerful footwork that takes your body into a position that is the best possible position for your hands to take the ball, and this is what you should be working on every day.

I subscribe to the theory of moving and taking the ball on the inside hip as much as possible. It sounds old hat, but this was the theory followed by most of the former great keepers and modern-day greats like Ian Healy, from whom I've learned a lot about my keeping.

Michael Holding: "Adam Gilchrist is a fantastic cricketer. He can make it into most teams around the world purely as a batsman or as a keeper" © Getty Images

But I've spoken to a lot of English wicketkeepers who tend to gear their keeping to English conditions. They say that the ball wobbles and swings late in England, so the best way to keep is to stay absolutely still, watch what the ball is doing and then catch it. But even in England the ball doesn't wobble every time, it doesn't swing late every time. I believe that the more you move towards the ball and get yourself in the best position to catch it, the less you will be thinking about the ball wobbling, because you will be reacting to exactly what the ball is doing until it is nestled in your gloves.

I think if you're gearing yourself to be a keeper in England only, then you're going to be found wanting when you go to other countries, where perhaps the ball doesn't wobble that much. I don't think that keeping is a skill that can be applied in one wicket or one country or one continent only. You have to be able to perform under all conditions and to that your footwork has to be at its best.

IC: Actually Kumar has raised an interesting point, Michael, about English wicketkeepers. I have heard the same talk about the ball wobbling. You have bowled alongside three very good fast bowlers to Dujon a lot, and you have also bowled in England a lot. Did he have to face these problems?

MH: No, Dujon did not have any problems standing back at all, Chappelli, whether it was in England, Asia, Australia, wherever. Dujon always had good footwork, he always moved well. He dived a lot, yes, but then he moved first and then dived, he didn't just stand up and dive. I certainly agree on this footwork aspect. Like Sangakkara said, every wicketkeeper should be thinking, "I have to get my body into a position where it's most comfortable for my hand to do the job."

IC: Often the best way to judge the spirit of the team and the general mood of how the team is going is its fielding, and the keeper heads this department. As a commentator it seems to me that this [wicket keeping] is tending to become a more verbal role rather than a physical role.

MH: Yes, it does appear that way. We hear the wicketkeeper on the stump microphones everywhere we go. I have seen that the wicketkeepers take it upon themselves to make the most noise.

You definitely want to encourage your team-mates, but I think the wicketkeeper should be leading by example - example of action, not voice. I have no problems with players who want to express themselves on the field, encourage their mates and even pass snide remarks. But I think the keepers these days think that that [sledging] is the ultimate. The ultimate is doing your job and leading the team by doing your job properly.

IC: Kumar, could you talk about the verbal part of the keeper's role and the physical part?

KS: I agree with what Michael said. The keeper, yes, he is the noisiest guy on the field. His fielders will have to hear him cheering them up, talking them up and trying to get them going. But finally, they see what you do. And when you create that much noise, you become the centre of attention - not just for the spectators and commentators, but also for the team. When you have got that attention, they are going to look at what you do, and if you don't back it up with solid and consistent wicketkeeping, that rubs off on the fielders as well.

I think, the role of the modern wicketkeeper is based on what you did that day and not what you said. And I have learned the hard way a few times in my career that it is OK to say things, but if that is affecting what you are doing, then you'd better shut up and do your job.

IC: It seems to me that wicketkeepers are very individual characters. Mikey, we'll start with you. What do you think are the common qualities in the great wicketkeepers?

MH: The common quality, Chappelli, is that they go unnoticed. Kumar said it earlier about Ian Healy. You don't notice him behind the stumps, and he just got the job done, very neat and clinical, and because he is doing his job so well, you don't notice him. It's just like good umpires. You don't really notice them because they don't really bring attention to themselves; they just do their job cleanly and clinically.

IC: And for you, Kumar?

KS: I think there was an air of expectancy around these keepers. The people watching the game, his team-mates, all would know that if there was a nick or a stumping chance, it would be taken without any drama or fuss; if there's a wide bowled down the leg side, it will be cleaned up by the keeper. You have that unshakeable confidence that this is the person who is best for the job. You bowl and field and the captain handles the team without paying much attention to the keeper, because it is accepted that whatever comes his way is taken.

The other thing about great wicketkeepers is that they maintain a level of excellence. They will have days of absolute brilliance and a few off days, but more often than not they maintain [a certain] level of consistency.

IC: Let's finish with a list of your top three wicketkeepers of your time and the defining characteristics that made them so special. I'll go first.

I have got Marsh, Allan Knott and Healy. Marsh was great standing back, a very athletic keeper for a solid man. He complemented the Australian fast bowlers of the 1970s brilliantly, and he always seemed to make runs when Australia needed them. Knott was very good standing back, but what makes him stand out for me is when he stood up to the stumps to Derek Underwood, particularly on a damp pitch. He was a genius and he used to amaze us with some of his work, standing up to Underwood. And like Marsh he would always make runs for England when they needed them.

It was a joy to watch Healy work with Shane Warne and I thought he got better standing up to the stumps. The other thing that appealed to me about Healy was that he always played his natural game with the bat, no matter what the situation was. And I always admired him for that.

Mikey, your three?

Keeping is not about having quick hands and soft hands. It's about having good, powerful footwork that takes your body into a position that is the best possible position for your hands to take the ball Kumar Sangakkara

MH: I picked them because of their all-round abilities. I'm not thinking about someone who would just stand back to the fast bowlers, but also keep to the spinners, which is tougher. Knott is right up there, and as you stated, he was such a brilliant keeper up to the stumps to Underwood on wet pitches with the ball spitting all over the place; and standing back with John Snow and the other fast bowlers thundering at him.

My second is, of course, Healy, who was in a very similar situation to Knott, keeping to both the likes of Warne and Glenn McGrath.

My third keeper, Chappelli, will have to be Wasim Bari. I remember him keeping for Pakistan and he was a fantastic keeper. Abdul Qadir was the top spinner for Pakistan in those days and they had Imran Khan as well, and I think Bari went unnoticed. He was an excellent keeper standing up and back.

KS: For me Healy is at the top for the fact that he didn't start off as a great keeper but ended up as one. From what I have seen, he just worked so hard - he just focused on the fact that he had to work hard and maintain those standards to ensure that he was considered the best in his speciality.

I have seen Knott keep and have high regard for him. So I would rate Healy and Knott as one and two, followed by Marsh.

But from the current crop, I believe that Adam Gilchrist is a fine gloveman. I've also seen and admired Rashid Latif. I also think that Kamran Akmal - not recently, but when he started off for Pakistan - was a natural, able wicketkeeper.

IC: That actually provokes an interesting question: what do you think happened to Akmal? Like you, when I first saw him, I thought he was brilliant, but he seems to have dropped off alarmingly.

KS: Your team can have confidence in you, but you need to have unshakeable faith in yourself, and [in his case] I think that has dropped off a bit - whether it's due to the team environment or his work ethic, I don't know. He seems to have become a lot more anxious in his keeping. I think there's a lot of pressure put on him to become a better batsman, to open the innings and contribute at the top and the middle. His role has now changed from being a wicketkeeper-batsman to a batsman-wicketkeeper - the same mistake that a lot of us make now - and I think that has taken his focus away from his keeping. His footwork is still very good but I think it's the confidence to focus on his primary skill that is keeping, that has gone away.

IC: Kumar, Michael, thank you for your inputs, and for joining us on the Round Table on Cricinfo Talk.