Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Lillian Thomson]

It really is a very simple concept. With batting of such magnitude as would be available there's no necessity to significantly weaken other departments of the team by attempting to bolster it further, and that's exactly what having Stewart instead of Knott would do.

 

[BoyBrumby]

To be fair, for all Knott's ability with the gauntlets, a lot of cricket observers of a certain age (especially those who speak with Derbyshire accents) would tell you that it was his batting that kept a superior gloveman in Bob Taylor out of the team.

If memory serves Bob got his chance only when Knott went on the first SA rebel tour?

 

[fredfertang]

I don't think many folk actually admit to coming from Derbyshire - it's just a big cold craggy lump of land that the Houses of York and Lancaster have no use for and from which Tolkien got the inspiration for Mordor - as for cricket they do play but have a quaint custom which forbids spin bowling so their wicketkeepers can never be the finished article

 

[Lillian Thomson]

To be fair, for all Knott's ability with the gauntlets, a lot of cricket observers of a certain age (especially those who speak with Derbyshire accents) would tell you that it was his batting that kept a superior gloveman in Bob Taylor out of the team.

If memory serves Bob got his chance only when Knott went on the first SA rebel tour?

If you have two wicketkeepers of the calibre of Knott and Taylor where there's little to choose between them then it's fair enough to take batting into account. To pick a vastly inferior wicketkeeper in an already strong batting line-up is sheer folly. Taylor got in when Knott joined the Packer Circus.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If you have two wicketkeepers of the calibre of Knott and Taylor where there's little to choose between them then it's fair enough to take batting into account. To pick a vastly inferior wicketkeeper in an already strong batting line-up is sheer folly. Taylor got in when Knott joined the Packer Circus.

Oh, absolutely. Would never claim otherwise. I haven't seen enough of either in action to determine how superior (if at all) Taylor's keeping was. I just mentioned it in a "nothing new under the sun" kind of way. Keepers' batting always seems to have been a factor in their selection; way back in 59/60 Jim Parks's batting edged out Rodney Swetman I believe.

 

[JBH001]

LT, seeing as it is my side we are talking about (Richard refusing to name his) what if Cowdrey (or Thorpe) dropped out, and Barrington and Botham moved up one spot? In this case the extra spot would be filled by either Statham or Underwood (depending on foreseeable conditions). Would you then select Stewart ahead of say Evans/Taylor?

Frankly, Knott is my first choice pick everytime, dont even need to think about it.

If he was unavailable, I would likely go for either Evans or Taylor despite their lesser capacities with the bat. Simply, I think for an all-time side I think you have to be all-time in your key skill. I dont think Stewart was upto this level (although he was no doubt competent) and I dont think he was ever selected in the 90s purely on the basis of his keeping skills - his selection was strongly influenced by his batting ability in an extremely poor batting line-up. Moreover, its not just about taking the chances that come your way, its also about talking 50/50 or even those chances that seem cannot be taken. Super skilled wicket-keepers are likely to do this far more often (especially against all-time bowlers) than merely competent ones. Then there are the other factors that arise from the great keepers, the control of byes, organisation of slip cordons, keeping up the tenor of the fielding unit and the like. Knott, Taylor, Evans have the edge on Stewart on all these areas - even if I was to weaken the batting line-up a little.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh, absolutely. Would never claim otherwise. I haven't seen enough of either in action to determine how superior (if at all) Taylor's keeping was. I just mentioned it in a "nothing new under the sun" kind of way. Keepers' batting always seems to have been a factor in their selection; way back in 59/60 Jim Parks's batting edged out Rodney Swetman I believe.

It's been a factor in the past mainly because there were several high class wicketkeepers to choose from. As well as Knott and Taylor there was also Derek Taylor, Murray and Tolchard in the same area - all vastly superior to Prior and Ambrose. Since the advent of Adam Gilchrist batting has become more and more important. The only two International class keepers in England at present are Read and Foster but they're nowhere near selection (unlikely that Read would have disqualified himself if he thought he was a genuine contender.)

 

[BoyBrumby]

LT, seeing as it is my side we are talking about (Richard refusing to name his) what if Cowdrey (or Thorpe) dropped out, and Barrington and Botham moved up one spot? In this case the extra spot would be filled by either Statham or Underwood (depending on foreseeable conditions). Would you then select Stewart ahead of say Evans/Taylor?

Frankly, Knott is my first choice pick everytime, dont even need to think about it.

If he was unavailable, I would likely go for either Evans or Taylor despite their lesser capacities with the bat. Simply, I think for an all-time side I think you have to be all-time in your key skill. I dont think Stewart was upto this level (although he was no doubt competent) and I dont think he was ever selected in the 90s purely on the basis of his keeping skills - his selection was strongly influenced by his batting ability in an extremely poor batting line-up. Moreover, its not just about taking the chances that come your way, its also about talking 50/50 or even those chances that seem cannot be taken. Super skilled wicket-keepers are likely to do this far more often (especially against all-time bowlers) than merely competent ones. Then there are the other factors that arise from the great keepers, the control of byes, organisation of slip cordons, keeping up the tenor of the fielding unit and the like. Knott, Taylor, Evans have the edge on Stewart on all these areas - even if I was to weaken the batting line-up a little.

I'm broadly in argeement with you, but, to play devil's advocate slightly, for all-time selections then could this argument not be extended to exclude the all-rounder & just play the best six available batsmen with the best four bowlers and rely on them for runs/wickets?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's been a factor in the past mainly because there were several high class wicketkeepers to choose from. As well as Knott and Taylor there was also Derek Taylor, Murray and Tolchard in the same area - all vastly superior to Prior and Ambrose. Since the advent of Adam Gilchrist batting has become more and more important. The only two International class keepers in England at present are Read and Foster but they're nowhere near selection (unlikely that Read would have disqualified himself if he thought he was a genuine contender.)

To be fair to Read, as with Shane Bond, I don't think he actually knew he was disqualifying himself when he signed the ICL contract and put pen to paper in good faith.

 

[JBH001]

>_<

ITB was a boyhood idol, BB, even if I never saw him in his prime. He always makes my all-time England sides!

Besides, I usually, if not always, select my all-time sides with the understanding that the players are in their prime/at their best (I dont think the exercise makes sense otherwise). ITB in the late 70s and early 80s was as close you could get to a specialist middle order bat, specialist opening swing bowler, and specialist slip all rolled up into one as you could possibly get. However, not to elide the issue, I would then play Botham as a specialist bowler (better than Statham and Willis). The fact that he could bat 7 would be a convenient plus! Trueman and Snow to open, Botham at first change, with Laker as spinner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

LT, seeing as it is my side we are talking about (Richard refusing to name his) what if Cowdrey (or Thorpe) dropped out, and Barrington and Botham moved up one spot? In this case the extra spot would be filled by either Statham or Underwood (depending on foreseeable conditions). Would you then select Stewart ahead of say Evans/Taylor?

Frankly, Knott is my first choice pick everytime, dont even need to think about it.

If he was unavailable, I would likely go for either Evans or Taylor despite their lesser capacities with the bat. Simply, I think for an all-time side I think you have to be all-time in your key skill. I dont think Stewart was upto this level (although he was no doubt competent) and I dont think he was ever selected in the 90s purely on the basis of his keeping skills - his selection was strongly influenced by his batting ability in an extremely poor batting line-up. Moreover, its not just about taking the chances that come your way, its also about talking 50/50 or even those chances that seem cannot be taken. Super skilled wicket-keepers are likely to do this far more often (especially against all-time bowlers) than merely competent ones. Then there are the other factors that arise from the great keepers, the control of byes, organisation of slip cordons, keeping up the tenor of the fielding unit and the like. Knott, Taylor, Evans have the edge on Stewart on all these areas - even if I was to weaken the batting line-up a little.

There is just no argument for putting Alec Stewart in a post war England XI in any capacity, it's just completely ridiculous.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There is just no argument for putting Alec Stewart in a post war England XI in any capacity, it's just completely ridiculous.

I don't think anyone (with the exception of confirmed contrary arse Dicko) would attempt to argue otherwise.

 

[Ikki]

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.

So Stewart over Knott...every time.

Another whopper for the vault.

 

[aussie]

Would pick Stewart over Knott for an imaginary England All-time XI:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Stewart
Botham
Rhodes
Trueman
Snow
Statham

For balance sake Stewart to bat @ 6 because againts other All-time great attacks batting botham higher than 7 wouldn't be wise & picking 6 pure great-batsman would give the side the right balance.

 

[Ikki]

Essentially, what you gotta ask yourself is: is the pay-off worth it? Certainly not IMO. Stewart was just passable as a keeper whilst Knott was one of the very best. And the difference between their batting is not that large at all. Distinctive, but not large. When you factor in that the batting line-up is already formidable, then the extra batting ability is superfluous.

 

[Days of Grace]

Post-war England XI according to my ratings (note: only players whose careers commenced after the war:

1. Boycott
2. Gooch
3. Barrington
4. Pietersen
5. Cowdrey
6. Stewart (wk)
7. Botham
8. Laker
9. Trueman
10. Wardle/Bedser
11. Willis

Really long tail, so Stewart being the wicketkeeper-batsman is absolutely essential. Gower can come in as an extra batsmen if you want to drop one of the bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

Would pick Stewart over Knott for an imaginary England All-time XI:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Stewart
Botham
Rhodes
Trueman
Snow
Statham

For balance sake Stewart to bat @ 6 because againts other All-time great attacks batting botham higher than 7 wouldn't be wise & picking 6 pure great-batsman would give the side the right balance.

bring in ames (wk), barnes and bedser in placer of stewart, snow and statham that'll be my team.

 

[aussie]

Essentially, what you gotta ask yourself is: is the pay-off worth it? Certainly not IMO. Stewart was just passable as a keeper whilst Knott was one of the very best.

Knott was no doubt one of the very best, but No wa was Stewart just "passable" come on he was very solid keeper, the fact that England have struggled to replace him since he retired should tell you that pretty comprehensively.

Its just that in the 90s especially for team balance sake, he wasn't given the gloves that often.

And the difference between their batting is not that large at all. Distinctive, but not large. When you factor in that the batting line-up is already formidable, then the extra batting ability is superfluous.

This reasoning would be on the money if one is just going to pick an England All-time XI to put on the wall of your house somewhere. But fact is we are picking an All-time side & matching them up againts another All-time XI, so theirfore imaginary team balances & match situations come into play. Thus Stewart to bat @ 6 & gets the gloves.

 

[aussie]

bring in ames (wk), barnes and bedser in placer of stewart, snow and statham that'll be my team.

As just told Ikki, these selection would be ok if its a hall of fame side who you are just going to write down, frame it & put on your wall. But not if you are going to match them up againts other All-time XI's. It make England look VERY weak indeed.

Ames - No doubt a great batsman, but was that great againts Australia (the only quality team of his time) in tests. A big negative.

Barnes & Bedser - No doubt great medium pace bowlers. But you imagine them playing for England bowling againts powerful All-time batting XI's of the West Indies or Australia especially?? damnnnn no disrespect to them but they would be smashed even in early season English conditions. Snow & Statham to partner Trueman gives much more solidity & venom to the bowling attack.

 

[archie mac]

Knott was no doubt one of the very best, but No wa was Stewart just "passable" come on he was very solid keeper, the fact that England have struggled to replace him since he retired should tell you that pretty comprehensively.

Its just that in the 90s especially for team balance sake, he wasn't given the gloves that often.




.

He was no where near the class of Knott, they never played another batsman/WK in Knott's time, and I have no doubt if Stewart was a contemporary (or vice versa) Knott would be given the gloves everytime

People on here seem to under rate keepers, Stewart misses two chances and both batsman score tons, compared to Knott who misses nothing, and that puts Knott 200 up without picking up the blade