Matt Prior as a Gloveman

[Richard]

Prior looked 2nd rate as did Jones in the Ashes Tests I watched him play. Keepers drop catches, but good keepers only drop those that average keepers would not even get too

Stewart was okay, but not in the top bracket for my money

I do find it funny how over rated Stewart keeping is by many Englishmen. He was ok but a fair way below the top bracket of keepers.

Also as Archie Mac says the thing with Prior is that he may not drop many catches per say, but there will be many catches (or half chances) that he will get no where near due to poor foot work.

Nah, sorry, IMO Stewart's vastly underrated by almost all non-Englishmen and plenty of Englishmen to boot. He virtually never missed a thing towards the end of his career, as I say, I can't recall off the top of my head so much as one thing he missed from 1998 onwards. He had little finesse, as he wasn't a natural, and that seemed to fool a great many people. But he did the job, from 1998 onwards, better than Jack Russell (or Richard Blakey, or Stephen Rhodes, or Warren Hegg) had ever done standing back. He wasn't completely perfect standing up, but he didn't need to be.

Prior doesn't need to get to things that are too wide IMO, that's what slips are for. We saw this Oval game how he went for something he shouldn't.

 

[Richard]

I think the lack of success from his succesors has romanticised the idea of Stewart as a very good keeper

You've known me long enough to remember that I was saying in 2002 and 2003, before he even retired, that his glovework was fantastic.

to be completely honest I dont think his glovework was any better than most of the current bunch (what Ive seen of them anyway), slightly superior keeping to Jones and Prior and slightly inferior to Foster and Read. Spose the big thing was Stewart was worth his place on batting alone and none of the current bunch have shown that or are at all likely to.

Stewart's wicketkeeping in 2002 showed-up how bad Foster's had been in 2001\02.

There's not a lot between Stewart and Read, but everyone else tried instead of or after him, apart from Russell earlier on, has been sub-par compared to Stewart. And that's purely as wicketkeepers, before we even begin to think that none of them were on his plane as batsmen.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Stewart's wicketkeeping in 2002 showed-up how bad Foster's had been in 2001\02.

When Foster had only played one season of first class cricket. Foster shouldn't have been playing test cricket at that stage really, but Foster's keeping now is superior to Stewart's at any point in his career.

 

[aussie]

When Foster had only played one season of first class cricket. Foster shouldn't have been playing test cricket at that stage really, but Foster's keeping now is superior to Stewart's at any point in his career.

Hmm i'm not so sure about that yo. AFAIC Stewarts keeping from the point it became permanent when Russell retired & the rotation between the two ended was very good.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hmm i'm not so sure about that yo. AFAIC Stewarts keeping from the point it became permanent when Russell retired & the rotation between the two ended was very good.

Not saying that it wasn't, but in my opinion (and unfortunately this is fairly subjective) I think Foster (and Read) are excellent keepers. Stewart always looked a bit like an automaton, even at his best.

 

[open365]

I think the lack of success from his succesors has romanticised the idea of Stewart as a very good keeper, to be completely honest I dont think his glovework was any better than most of the current bunch (what Ive seen of them anyway), slightly superior keeping to Jones and Prior and slightly inferior to Foster and Read. Spose the big thing was Stewart was worth his place on batting alone and none of the current bunch have shown that or are at all likely to.

Stweart was a far better keeper than both of those two.

I agree with Richard(for a change) that Stewart is under-rated, i find it a bit sad that whenever the commentators talk about the current keeping situation they always refer to Adam Gilchrist and forget we had a top knotch keeper batsman ourselves 5 years ago.

 

[archie mac]

I must say I thought Russell far better than Stewart with the gloves. The latters foot work was not great and very average when standing up to the stumps.

 

[armchairumpire]

I must say I thought Russell far better than Stewart with the gloves. The latters foot work was not great and very average when standing up to the stumps.

IMO Alan Knott was better than both of them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I must say I thought Russell far better than Stewart with the gloves. The latters foot work was not great and very average when standing up to the stumps.

Jack is possibly the best keeper I've seen since I've been watching cricket (bit too young for Bob Taylor) tho, so Stewie is always going to come off second best in any comparison there.

Incidentally, this is keeping at its finest for me: Russell standing up stumps Dean Jones off Gladstone "The Giraffe" Small, who was no medium pace slouch. From YouTube. Couldn't see Prior pulling that one off, tbh.

Jack was really a victim of our need to balance the side, although it is perhaps worth noting that his test average is higher than Geriant Jones's & obviously Geraint was picked for his batting in the first place.

 

[archie mac]

IMO Alan Knott was better than both of them.

Yes no contest

 

[Richard]

I must say I thought Russell far better than Stewart with the gloves. The latters foot work was not great and very average when standing up to the stumps.

Maybe at the start of their international careers, but I firmly believe that Stewart became a better wicketkeeper standing back than Russell later on. Russell was always the better standing-up though.

 

[Richard]

Not saying that it wasn't, but in my opinion (and unfortunately this is fairly subjective) I think Foster (and Read) are excellent keepers. Stewart always looked a bit like an automaton, even at his best.

That's the key - he looked like one. But he took cleanly near enough everything that came his way, and ITE that, not finesse, is the thing of importance.

As to Foster in the last few years, I honestly don't know as I've not really seen him since about 2003 (and even then just in a couple of 45-over games) but as I say - if he's better now than Stewart it can't be by that much, because Read isn't much better than he was and Read's near enough as good as a wicketkeeper will get.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He wasn't completely perfect standing up, but he didn't need to be.

That's like saying that an Olympic diver could nail the easy dives, but never the high scoring ones. Up to the stumps is the true test of a keeper.

 

[Richard]

Very debateable. Especially for an England wicketkeeper, only a tiny amount of time is spent standing-up. Standing back is far, far more important.

 

[aussie]

Not saying that it wasn't, but in my opinion (and unfortunately this is fairly subjective) I think Foster (and Read) are excellent keepers.

Read, hmm the jury is out the bloke for him since his belaguered return to International cricket last year. Didn't think the quality of keeping that he showed between 2003-2004 after Stewart retired that many of us (myself a great deal) was craving for during Jones's time at the helm wasn't as good as before, added to the fact his batting didn't look as if it could handle any sort of solid bowling much less a top-quality attack.

Foster, well i've seen him a enough on TV & live @ OT trafford over the past 5 years & yea his keeping does look solid, but then again yo so did Jones & Prior. To me thats the thing with English keepers these days i don't know if its the quality of bowling that they have to face or what but the difference in keeping in @ FC level over here than on the international stage is quickly exposed

Stewart always looked a bit like an automaton, even at his best.

Nah man not to me at all, as i said the difference between keeping @ FC level to test level quickly exposes them. Since Stewart retired only the Read of 2003 to mid 2004 as looked capable of replacing the standards he kept up & thats says something..

 

[Craig]

In keeping with the title:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/307017.html

Very interesting.

 

[Richard]

Oooh, good spot actually, somehow I missed that in the RSS forum...

 

[BoyBrumby]

In keeping with the title:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/307017.html

Very interesting.

Scathing is the only word.

 

[Richard]

Only to be expected with Ian Chappell TBH. I can't give too much more of a refutal than this though.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Foster, well i've seen him a enough on TV & live @ OT trafford over the past 5 years & yea his keeping does look solid, but then again yo so did Jones & Prior. To me thats the thing with English keepers these days i don't know if its the quality of bowling that they have to face or what but the difference in keeping in @ FC level over here than on the international stage is quickly exposed

Whoh. Hold on there. When I used to live in Hampshire, I quite often saw the local counties - Hants, Sussex (and occassionally Essex as I have friends there). Prior was rank... absolutely rank at keeping everytime I saw him. Comparing him to Foster, Read, Stewart, Mike Garnham or even the 'none shall pass' Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail film after he'd had his arms removed is incredibly unfair. **** it, I'm a better keeper than Prior, and the last time I kept (indoor cricket) I fell on the stumps attempting a stumping. The fact that I caught the ball standing up automatically puts me ahead of Prior. Categorically, he is the worst supposed 'keeper' I have ever seen 'live'