Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Richard]

Boycott doesnt pick himself?

Haha, jeesh, I wrote Gooch when I meant Boycott.

The point I was trying to make is that Boycott, with the possible exception of his Yorkshire team-mate the seam-bowler, is pretty much the first name you'd pen-in as a certainty if you wanted a debuting-'45-and-onwards XI.

 

[Richard]

Just going off the English topic for a second.

I think Kallis vs Steve Waugh would be an interesting contest.

Both struggled early, bowled similar before SWaugh's back troubles and were accused at times for being selfish, batting for themselves.

Anyone else think that this would a close comparision?

Nah, Kallis only had the "normal" tough initiation (5-6 games or so IIRR), Stephen Waugh was simply poor (with the exception of 1989) for his first 8 years as a Test cricketer ('85/86-'92/93 - only on the New Zealand tour in '92/93 did he finally establish his credentials as Test batsman).

Believe it or not, in 43 of his first 49 Tests (ie, with 1989 deducted), Stephen Waugh averaged just 29.81 with the bat. But for his bowling he'd never have played anywhere near as many games as he did. At one point too he was dropped for 13 out of 15 games, indeed, playing the only 2 he played when eight batsmen were selected.

Also, as already mentioned, Kallis' bowling > Stephen Waugh's for pretty well all of their respective careers. That is, the Kallis of late (which <<<<<<< the Kallis of old) > Stephen Waugh at his best.

 

[JBH001]

Dont know about that, Richard. Kallis is the better bowler, and the better all-rounder, but in terms of batsmanship, I reckon I would take Steve Waugh every time.

(That is if you are talking about his batting in that sentence, and not his bowling).

Also:

You just can't do that, IMO. There is no way on Earth that covered and uncovered wickets can be treated as if they were the same thing - especially in this country where a six\seven-day period with no rain is fairly rare. The difference is vast.

In England, where covered wickets came late, you have to select one team for uncovered and one team for covered. It's more fun that way too.

Richard, that is cheating. You simply want to have your cake and eat it too.

And thats not fun because it makes it too easy.

I reckon even 13 players was stretching it, a full test match 12 would have been sufficient, and forced you to make some hard but interesting choices.

You are right, however, that there are few certainties for a post 45 debut and completed career English XII. Boycott and May are, I think, the only batting certainties while Trueman brings up one bowling spot, and ITB occupies the all-rounders gig. Interesting when compared to say Australia or West Indies.

 

[Richard]

Dont know about that, Richard. Kallis is the better bowler, and the better all-rounder, but in terms of batsmanship, I reckon I would take Steve Waugh every time.

(That is if you are talking about his batting in that sentence, and not his bowling).

I was talking about both, one after the other. Kallis as a batsman could only dream about being as good as Stephen Waugh was between Feb '93 and Aug '01 IMO, but as I say - Waugh took ages and ages to get into Tests, while Kallis didn't, Kallis just took normal slightly-prematurely-elevated-player length to get into it. Waugh is a funny case, because he was pretty useless for an age, then superlative for an age. To put that into averages: 29 for 45 Tests; 61 for 90. I can't off the top of my head think of anyone else who did such a thing.

Also:

Richard, that is cheating. You simply want to have your cake and eat it too.

I don't, honestly. I just don't see how you can suggest uncovered and covered wickets were the same thing. The difference was so vast it simply has to alter team composition. I just don't see any sense in blurring together the covered and uncovered wickets eras. It makes, IMO, far more sense to select an XI from 1900 to 1969 and another from 1970 onwards than it does to select an XI 1900-1939 and another 1945-onwards. If you want to make starting and stopping points, the covering of wickets simply must one of them, IMO.

And thats not fun because it makes it too easy.

I reckon even 13 players was stretching it, a full test match 12 would have been sufficient, and forced you to make some hard but interesting choices.

I find the more players I can pick, the more fun it is TBH. I hate having to leave-out those who don't deserve to be left.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Boycott doesnt pick himself?

Boycott certainly does pick himself. In fact in one of his books he did pick himself in a Test XI from his era. He was humble enough to say that if Barry Richards had played more he would have replaced either himself or Gavaskar in the XI - though he stopped short of saying which of them.
Knott also picks himself. In a batting line-up of that strength there's no logic in sacrificing a supreme wicketkeeper for an average one who might score a few more runs.

 

[Richard]

There's not much doubt about the fact that Stewart was a considerably better batsman than Knott. Picking Knott would be far from a decision with nothing going for it, but he certainly doesn't pick himself. There's always sense in having the longest batting line-up you can possibly pick.

 

[JBH001]

Not if you sacrificed wicket keeping ability. Stewart was a decent keeper but nothing exceptional, in fact, if not for the paucity of Englands batting in the 90s he would never have been picked in that role (although he may have made it in as a pure batsman).

Frankly, the thought of picking Stewart never occurred to me. My first pick was Knott, my second would probably have been Taylor, and now, that I think of it, Evans might be my third choice for the w/k spot (although these two are inter-changeable). IMO Stewart does not figure at all, either in batting or keeping.

 

[Richard]

Stewart is England's best wicketkeeper-batsman, ever, as far as I'm concerned. The only person I'd consider ahead of him would be Les Ames.

Stewart would easily have made England's time at most points in history as a batsman, and he was a perfectly decent wicketkeeper. And once he dedicated enough time to both roles and got a long run doing them, he did one without the other impacting on it. He should have played every Test as wicketkeeper-batsman from 1993 onwards, really.

The thought of picking Bob Taylor ahead of him simply because he was an outstanding wicketkeeper where Stewart was merely pretty good is one I can't fathom. If you go from good to poor wicketkeeper, yeah, the extra batting is never worth it. But Stewart was very far from a poor wicketkeeper.

 

[Uppercut]

Boycott certainly does pick himself. In fact in one of his books he did pick himself in a Test XI from his era. He was humble enough to say that if Barry Richards had played more he would have replaced either himself or Gavaskar in the XI - though he stopped short of saying which of them.
Knott also picks himself. In a batting line-up of that strength there's no logic in sacrificing a supreme wicketkeeper for an average one who might score a few more runs.

Bahahaha, Geoffrey Boycott. Yorkshire legend/General tosser.

 

[JBH001]

Stewart is England's best wicketkeeper-batsman, ever, as far as I'm concerned. The only person I'd consider ahead of him would be Les Ames.

Stewart would easily have made England's time at most points in history as a batsman, and he was a perfectly decent wicketkeeper. And once he dedicated enough time to both roles and got a long run doing them, he did one without the other impacting on it. He should have played every Test as wicketkeeper-batsman from 1993 onwards, really.

The thought of picking Bob Taylor ahead of him simply because he was an outstanding wicketkeeper where Stewart was merely pretty good is one I can't fathom. If you go from good to poor wicketkeeper, yeah, the extra batting is never worth it. But Stewart was very far from a poor wicketkeeper.

I would rank Stewart as a bat/wk myself and not as a wk/bat, although he did become a good wicket-keeper later on. I think the fact that he was not undisputably the best wk for most of his playing career (constantly swapping with Russell) means that it would be hard to consider him for that role for an all-time postwar England XI. I therefore think that Knott is clearly the better pick even if Stewart was the better bat (and considering that Knott kept to better bowlers in a greater variety of conditions).

You may be right though that Stewart has a case against either Taylor or Evans, although I am a rather a purist when it comes to keeping, so if the batting is strong enough (and it is) I would still be inclined to go with Taylor or Evans. But I do see your point with regard to Stewart vs Taylor/Evans even if I dont concur.

 

[archie mac]

I am surprised Stewart is even mentioned in the same breath as Knott, clearly the better WK, by a huge distance, and a handy batsman

 

[fredfertang]

Alan Knott was a fantastic keeper and England would be a hugely improved side were his like available today - his batting was also superb - inventive and unorthodox he was much more valuable than his figures suggest - time after time he used to (often with the unjustly maligned Tony Greig) pull England round after the top order had collapsed

 

[Richard]

Oh, Knott's a better wicketkeeper-batsman than pretty well anyone else to play for England, sure. I'd only have Stewart and Ames ahead of him, and purely on wicketkeeping he was obviously a decent bit better than either.

However, given the choice between him and Stewart as wicketkeeper-batsmen I'd have the latter every time.

 

[Richard]

I am surprised Stewart is even mentioned in the same breath as Knott, clearly the better WK, by a huge distance, and a handy batsman

They're not mentioned in the same breath, they were very different players. However, Stewart offered more as an all-round cricketer.

Maybe he might not have done on uncovered wickets - on those, where you ideally need a brilliant wicketkeeper to keep against the spin, Knott's batting is probably good enough for his wicketkeeping excellence to get him in. On covered ones where seam would play the primary or exclusive role, though, Stewart's wicketkeeping was easily good enough to make his considerably superior batting put him ahead.

 

[Richard]

I would rank Stewart as a bat/wk myself and not as a wk/bat, although he did become a good wicket-keeper later on. I think the fact that he was not undisputably the best wk for most of his playing career (constantly swapping with Russell) means that it would be hard to consider him for that role for an all-time postwar England XI. I therefore think that Knott is clearly the better pick even if Stewart was the better bat (and considering that Knott kept to better bowlers in a greater variety of conditions).

Oh yeah, Stewart's certainly batsman-wicketkeeper rather than wicketkeeper-batsman, but I tend to use the same term for either. The point is that both are neccessary.

However, as regards Stewart swapping with Russell - Stewart kept wicket solidly from 1996/97 to 2003 - more than half of his Test career, and in this time hardly missed a chance. Russell played just 1 series from then onwards (West Indies in 1998), and somewhat inexplicably Warren Hegg and Chris Read - both of whom were woefully sub-par with the bat, nowhere near Russell's level - played 5 consecutive games in the first half of 1999.

Also, but for Stewart's injuries and terrible selection, Russell may easily never have played after 1995 or even 1993.

You may be right though that Stewart has a case against either Taylor or Evans, although I am a rather a purist when it comes to keeping, so if the batting is strong enough (and it is) I would still be inclined to go with Taylor or Evans. But I do see your point with regard to Stewart vs Taylor/Evans even if I dont concur.

Evans could play a bit but Taylor was a rank eight (or even nine) for most of his career, wasn't he?

 

[archie mac]

They're not mentioned in the same breath, they were very different players. However, Stewart offered more as an all-round cricketer.

Maybe he might not have done on uncovered wickets - on those, where you ideally need a brilliant wicketkeeper to keep against the spin, Knott's batting is probably good enough for his wicketkeeping excellence to get him in. On covered ones where seam would play the primary or exclusive role, though, Stewart's wicketkeeping was easily good enough to make his considerably superior batting put him ahead.

I think WK is the hardest to compare without having watched the player concerned. Knott was so far in front of Stewart standing up or back, that I would choose him every time in a Test team

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In the sides selected you have five or six all-time top batsman plus Botham. In a line-up of that strengh to sacrifice Knott for an average keeper like Stewart is complete lunacy. Taylor would certainly be selected ahead of Stewart. Some people would just toss the gloves to the nearest batsman with the coldest hands and pat themselves on the back if no catches were dropped.

 

[Richard]

If no chances were missed, then not a lot would be lost.

Stewart was far from just some random batsman who was a competant catcher of the ball. He was an above-average wicketkeeper, even if he was clearly short of the highest class.

To have batting to seven when you could have it to eight simply for the sake of having an excellent wicketkeeper whose wicketkeeping in all likelihood will make the team virtually no better than a good one's wicketkeeping would do really does make zero sense.

 

[Richard]

I think WK is the hardest to compare without having watched the player concerned. Knott was so far in front of Stewart standing up or back, that I would choose him every time in a Test team

As I say - if the neccessity to have a truly excellent wicketkeeper was there, I probably would as well. However, the reality is that covered wickets have to a large extent removed this neccessity.

I don't need to have watched Knott live to know he was a superb wicketkeeper, and was quite a bit better than Stewart, I've seen and read plenty of him.

However, to suggset Knott's batting was even a patch on Stewart's is also equally simply wrong.

 

[fredfertang]

As Knott averaged 33 and Stewart 35 when keeping wicket the difference in their batting contributions when keeping seems to me to be insignificant