Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[chaminda_00]

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

I always thought/read Taylor was a better keeper then Knott. It was just his batting and all round game that him in the side ahead of him. Not saying Knott was a bad keeper, but I''m pretty sure Taylor was seen as a better keeper overall.

 

[Richard]

So Stewart over Knott...every time.

Another whopper for the vault.

Nah. You just don't know what a whopper is.

 

[Richard]

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

Generally, you'd have to wait about 15-20 Tests for Stewart to miss 2 chances. I imagine with Knott you'd need to wait about 30 or so, maybe even more. Stewart's wicketkeeping is nowhere near as moderate as it's often portrayed as. It was short of the highest class, but certainly above average.

 

[Richard]

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.

No it isn't. You'd significantly weaken the batting by having Knott ahead of Stewart, regardless of whether it'd still be exceptionally strong, and strengthen the wicketkeeping by a sufficiently insignificant amount to make it not be a worthwhile change.

 

[Richard]

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

Stewart's average when being tossed between wicketkeeper and non-wicketkeeper was between 20 and 30. When he actually had a long spell as wicketkeeper-batsman and non-opener (ie, from 1996/97), he averaged almost 40.

As I say, having Stewart over Knott would significantly strengthen the batting. The only reason I'd not consider it is if Stewart's wicketkeeping was poor, which it wasn't.

 

[archie mac]

I always thought/read Taylor was a better keeper then Knott. It was just his batting and all round game that him in the side ahead of him. Not saying Knott was a bad keeper, but I''m pretty sure Taylor was seen as a better keeper overall.

Yes, I have read that he was slightly the better, but I did have the pleasure of watching them both, and I thought Knott the better, but again only slightly and again maybe Taylor was just past his best having to wait so long for his chance

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Really long tail, so Stewart being the wicketkeeper-batsman is absolutely essential.

It isn't essential, it's far more essential to have a proper wicketkeeper. If you're picking a team and the best batting you can muster is the likes of Atherton, Hussain and Hick then you could argue a case for mixing and matching other departments, but when you're picking from the cream of a 60+ year period there's no need to do anything other than pick the best players for each specialist position.

 

[fredfertang]

I always thought/read Taylor was a better keeper then Knott. It was just his batting and all round game that him in the side ahead of him. Not saying Knott was a bad keeper, but I''m pretty sure Taylor was seen as a better keeper overall.

It's certainly true that it was frequently said that Taylor was marginally the better keeper but I never heard anyone articulate why other than to suggest Knott was a bit flashier than he needed to be - but that's not really the point

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's certainly true that it was frequently said that Taylor was marginally the better keeper but I never heard anyone articulate why other than to suggest Knott was a bit flashier than he needed to be - but that's not really the point

Knott wasn't flashy at all. His technique was simplicity itself as most of the best techniques are. He had a few strange mannerisms between deliveries and was always bending and stretching his limbs or neck between deliveries which meant he stood out more to onlookers.

 

[Matt79]

So, for some perspective, purely as keepers, what do people reckon in terms of Stewart vs Gilchrist?

I normally write down Ames name for all-time English, and for post-war would say Knott generally, btw.

 

[fredfertang]

Knott wasn't flashy at all. His technique was simplicity itself as most of the best techniques are. He had a few strange mannerisms between deliveries and was always bending and stretching his limbs or neck between deliveries which meant he stood out more to onlookers.

For the avoidance of doubt I wasn't suggesting he was - just citing the only answer I ever got (other than the "run along now young man" type) when I used to ask that question, which I often did, as I couldn't understand how wicketkeeping could be better than Knotty taking Underwood

 

[Richard]

So, for some perspective, purely as keepers, what do people reckon in terms of Stewart vs Gilchrist?

Never really considered it TBF. Given that both were stronger as batsmen than wicketkeepers it's almost like asking whether Sourav Ganguly or Paul Collingwood is the better seam-bowler, really.

 

[pskov]

Never really considered it TBF. Given that both were stronger as batsmen than wicketkeepers it's almost like asking whether Sourav Ganguly or Paul Collingwood is the better seam-bowler, really.

Gilchrist and Ganguly for me.

 

[Richard]

It isn't essential, it's far more essential to have a proper wicketkeeper. If you're picking a team and the best batting you can muster is the likes of Atherton, Hussain and Hick then you could argue a case for mixing and matching other departments, but when you're picking from the cream of a 60+ year period there's no need to do anything other than pick the best players for each specialist position.

Indeed, so you pick the best player for the specialist position of wicketkeeper-batsman (or batsman-wicketkeeper, whichever the situation may be). Wicketkeeping in itself is not a specialist position, at least, not any more.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Wicketkeeping in itself is not a specialist position

I've avoided the laughter smilie in this thread at the comical posts but there really is nothing more to be said.

 

[Richard]

Don't say anything more then.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So, for some perspective, purely as keepers, what do people reckon in terms of Stewart vs Gilchrist?

No contest. Gilchrist is a keeper of genuine Test Match quality - though not the same calibre as Ian Healey. Stewart's just a part time keeper of limited ability who kept wicket because England didn't have a batting/bowling all-rounder of sufficient quality at their disposal.

 

[aussie]

No contest. Gilchrist is a keeper of genuine Test Match quality - though not the same calibre as Ian Healey. Stewart's just a part time keeper of limited ability who kept wicket because England didn't have a batting/bowling all-rounder of sufficient quality at their disposal.

This is so off the mark. Stewart was by no means just a "part-time" keeper he was of genuien test match quality just like Gilchrist.

In the 90s Stewart would have kept ahead of Russell all the time if Atherton had a regular opening partner that is obvious.

Stewart's keeping ability is being shockingly under-rated & bashed here ATM.

 

[steds]

In the 90s Stewart would have kept ahead of Russell all the time if Atherton had a regular opening partner that is obvious.

Definitely think it was more Stewart wouldn't keep at all if England had any semblance of batting depth.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is so off the mark. Stewart was by no means just a "part-time" keeper he was of genuien test match quality just like Gilchrist.

In the 90s Stewart would have kept ahead of Russell all the time if Atherton had a regular opening partner that is obvious.

Stewart's keeping ability is being shockingly under-rated & bashed here ATM.

I'll guess that's an attempt an irony. If it's not then you're entitled to your opinion but there must be doubts about how closely you've studied the art of wicketkeeping.