Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[JBH001]

Since I opened this can of worms, let me be clear on this. I did mean a post-war English XII comprising players whose careers began after the second world war, and have now terminated. Therefore cricketers currently playing, for example, KP, are excluded.

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.

I am never this rude on CW, but this is one of the silliest statements I have ever seen (no offense intended). In early season English conditions, let alone normal English conditions, Bedser and Barnes could skittle out any side, even an all-time (or to be more precise post war) West Indian or Australian XII.

 

[JBH001]

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.

No, actually its not. If anything its being over-rated by you and Richard.

I have to ask, did you watch and follow much of English cricket in the 90s?

The simple fact of the matter is that if the English batting line-up had been strong enough, Stewart would never have pulled the gloves on. Instead, he would have concentrated on his batting - which was his premier skill.That tells me all I need to know about Stewart the wicket keeper.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Thats a fallacious statement and flawed analogy. The only reason it might even have an illusory semblance of credence is because Gilly was so damn good with the bat that even his extremely good wicket keeping skills tend to be over-shadowed and under-valued. Nothing against Stewart as a batsman or as a keeper, he was (as I have maintained throughout) competent in both categories (in one more than the other), but he is not upto the mark when measured next to Gilchrist, in either discipline.

 

[JBH001]

Wicketkeeping in itself is not a specialist position, at least, not any more.

You've lost me on this one, Rich. And in agreement with LT (if not the smiley) I do think there is little more to be said. I stick by my valuation earlier, that in any all-time side you pick players based first on competence in their key skill. Is Stewart a good enough wicket keeper for an all-time post war England XII? He is not.

 

[Jigga988]

Thats a fallacious statement and flawed analogy. The only reason it might even have an illusory semblance of credence is because Gilly was so damn good with the bat that even his extremely good wicket keeping skills tend to be over-shadowed and under-valued. Nothing against Stewart as a batsman or as a keeper, he was (as I have maintained throughout) competent in both categories (in one more than the other), but he is not upto the mark when measured next to Gilchrist, in either discipline.

intemptuous analagiciously and hiradicallingly..............

I can make up words too

 

[Lillian Thomson]

intemptuous analagiciously and hiradicallingly..............

I can make up words too

Shame you're not too good with ones that already exist.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

Think that's spot on. It's actually to Stewie's credit that he stepped up to the plate as he did (if I could forgiven a baseball analogy on a cricket website). He sacrificed his batting for the good of our team. Without checking I'd guess he averages nearly ten more runs per innings as a pure batsman.

I personally think he was serviceable enough as a keeper tho; I don't remember him ever plumbing Geraint or Prior levels of direness, even in his early stumping career. Not fit to lick Jack Russell's easel tho, obv & one does wonder if the 8 (? I think) extra runs he averaged with the bat as a keeper were really worth the arse.

 

[JBH001]

intemptuous analagiciously and hiradicallingly..............

I can make up words too

Yes, I do get carried away, sometimes. Words are beautiful things.

I suggest you use a dictionary if in real strife. Hear they are easy to find on the internet. Not that I usually need one...

 

[Goughy]

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.

Stewart was a pretty good keeper, and Russell was not perfect, but Russell was a different class as a keeper.

Stewart was an excellent keeper/batsman in theory. Unfortunately his batting suffered dreadfully when he kept. The experiment has its sucesses but it didnt work as well as was hoped.

Effectively England traded their best opening batsman for a decent-good keeper batsman.

Im not sure, with hindsight, that it was the correct move.

 

[archie mac]

Think that's spot on. It's actually to Stewie's credit that he stepped up to the plate as he did (if I could forgiven a baseball analogy on a cricket website). He sacrificed his batting for the good of our team. Without checking I'd guess he averages nearly ten more runs per innings as a pure batsman.

I personally think he was serviceable enough as a keeper tho; I don't remember him ever plumbing Geraint or Prior levels of direness, even in his early stumping career. Not fit to lick Jack Russell's easel tho, obv & one does wonder if the 8 (? I think) extra runs he averaged with the bat as a keeper were really worth the arse.

BB how could you

Although I agree Gilly was a fine keeper, he missed quite a few towards the end of his career, but apart from Berry was the best keeper in Aust. during his time

Stewart was not even the best keeper at Surrey

 

[Richard]

Think that's spot on. It's actually to Stewie's credit that he stepped up to the plate as he did (if I could forgiven a baseball analogy on a cricket website). He sacrificed his batting for the good of our team. Without checking I'd guess he averages nearly ten more runs per innings as a pure batsman.

I personally think he was serviceable enough as a keeper tho; I don't remember him ever plumbing Geraint or Prior levels of direness, even in his early stumping career. Not fit to lick Jack Russell's easel tho, obv & one does wonder if the 8 (? I think) extra runs he averaged with the bat as a keeper were really worth the arse.

Plenty of observers thought that as their careers progressed, Stewart became a better wicketkeeper standing back than Russell. He rarely missed a thing. His lack of "natural" wicketkeeping talent is seemingly held against him to an over-inflated degree by some.

Once Stewart got the gloves regularly, incidentally, there were sufficiently few Tests where he didn't keep as to make any comparison between averages as specialist bat and wicketkeeper-bat meaningless. It was obvious to anyone that his batting wasn't being affected.

 

[Richard]

Stewart was not even the best keeper at Surrey

Well sadly Graham Kersey had his life taken, so after 1996 he was a better wicketkeeper than no-one. It was a terrible tragedy, but it happened.

And if you think Jonathan Batty was better than Stewart, well, I wonder where you get your information from TSTL.

 

[Richard]

Stewart was a pretty good keeper, and Russell was not perfect, but Russell was a different class as a keeper.

Stewart was an excellent keeper/batsman in theory. Unfortunately his batting suffered dreadfully when he kept. The experiment has its sucesses but it didnt work as well as was hoped.

Effectively England traded their best opening batsman for a decent-good keeper batsman.

Im not sure, with hindsight, that it was the correct move.

In hindsight, I've always said that the likelihood is that had the move been made much earlier, we'd not have even considered the possibility that we'd traded our best opener for a wicketkeeper-batsman.

Stewart's batting did not suffer at all when he kept wicket for the last 6 years of his career. Once he gave sufficient attention to both areas, and the selectors backed him properly to perform them both, he did. What caused Stewart problems was being constantly tossed from one role to the other, which happened non-stop between 1990/91 and 1996.

 

[Richard]

You've lost me on this one, Rich. And in agreement with LT (if not the smiley) I do think there is little more to be said. I stick by my valuation earlier, that in any all-time side you pick players based first on competence in their key skill. Is Stewart a good enough wicket keeper for an all-time post war England XII? He is not.

No, of course not. But he is good enough as a wicketkeeper-batsman. Wicketkeeping is vital, but not vital enough that an outstanding rather than good wicketkeeper would be preferred if he was a vastly inferior batsman.

And Stewart was a better batsman than Knott, hugely so.

 

[archie mac]

No, of course not. But he is good enough as a wicketkeeper-batsman. Wicketkeeping is vital, but not vital enough that an outstanding rather than good wicketkeeper would be preferred if he was a vastly inferior batsman.

And Stewart was a better batsman than Knott, hugely so.

Not when wearing the gloves. Also Knott batted against Lillee and Thommo at their best, and Holding and Roberts at their best, with no helmet, I wonder how Stewart would have performed?

Not suggesting he would have backed away, he was always behind the ball, from what I recall

 

[Richard]

The simple fact of the matter is that if the English batting line-up had been strong enough, Stewart would never have pulled the gloves on. Instead, he would have concentrated on his batting - which was his premier skill.That tells me all I need to know about Stewart the wicket keeper.

If this was true - and that it is isn't beyond question - isn't all there is to the matter for me.

Stewart early in his career was a poor wicketkeeper. However, he developed into a pretty damn decent one. Whatever the reasons for this, it happened.

England were always far stronger - and this would've been the case if Atherton, Hussain, Thorpe etc. were good enough to average 6-7 runs more than they did - with Stewart in the side as wicketkeeper and middle-order batsman than they were with Russell there and Stewart playing as a batsman. Why? Because Stewart was a much better wicketkeeper-batsman than Russell. Even though Russell was initially (and possibly not later) the better wicketkeeper by a fair bit.

Wicketkeeping is not important enough that batting ability can be completely ignored. In this day and age when wicketkeeping skills are seldom tested to the maximum degree, your wicketkeeper's batting ability is all that counts once his wicketkeeping is of a certain standard. Stewart's, unlike Deep Dasgupta or Matthew Prior, reached that standard.

 

[Richard]

Not when wearing the gloves. Also Knott batted against Lillee and Thommo at their best, and Holding and Roberts at their best, with no helmet, I wonder how Stewart would have performed?

Not suggesting he would have backed away, he was always behind the ball, from what I recall

You know what? Stewart also batted against McDermott, Reid, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, de Villiers, Pollock, and plenty of others, at their best. He did this with and without wicketkeeping gloves, and he performed with excellence with and without. When with, he only did it at a time when he'd gotten a good hold on the gloves and was confident of the role he was being asked of - earlier, when he was being constantly tossed between the roles, his batting suffered when he had the gloves.

Knott was a pretty damn decent little lower-order batsman, there's no question of that. But he was no more than that. Stewart was a genuine Test-class batsman.

 

[Richard]

Thats a fallacious statement and flawed analogy. The only reason it might even have an illusory semblance of credence is because Gilly was so damn good with the bat that even his extremely good wicket keeping skills tend to be over-shadowed and under-valued. Nothing against Stewart as a batsman or as a keeper, he was (as I have maintained throughout) competent in both categories (in one more than the other), but he is not upto the mark when measured next to Gilchrist, in either discipline.

I'd not argue at all with the idea that Gilchrist's wicketkeeping was better than Stewart's, though I've probably seen Gilchrist miss more than I did Stewart.

However, I used the analogy not with the intention of suggesting that wicketkeeping for a wicketkeeper-batsman is of equal importance as bowling for a batsman-who-bowls-a-bit. Not in the slighest. Wicketkeeping is quite vital, as is all catch-taking fielding.

I used the analogy purely to point-out that Stewart vs Gilchrist as wicketkeepers is a question I'd never really given serious thought to.

 

[Goughy]

Once Stewart got the gloves regularly, incidentally, there were sufficiently few Tests where he didn't keep as to make any comparison between averages as specialist bat and wicketkeeper-bat meaningless. It was obvious to anyone that his batting wasn't being affected.

Stewart's batting did not suffer at all when he kept wicket for the last 6 years of his career. Once he gave sufficient attention to both areas, and the selectors backed him properly to perform them both, he did. What caused Stewart problems was being constantly tossed from one role to the other, which happened non-stop between 1990/91 and 1996.

Saying it twice does not make it true.

Lets ignore the fact that I watched pretty much very game of Stewarts career, during the last 6 years of his career (that you mention) he averaged 36 with the bat when keeping. That doesnt show a progession as a keeper batsman.

The keeping affected his batting in 2 ways. Firstly the obvious that it tired him, but more importantly it took him away from batting in his natural position in the top 3. Stewart wanted the ball coming on and thrived on it. Keeping and batting 6 was not the way to get he best out of him.

Not keeping and batting top 3 he averaged 46.48 in 46 Tests with 9 hundreds.

Keeping and batting at 5 or 6 he averaged 34.23 in 41 Tests with 3 hundreds.

He was a natural counter attacking top order player against the new ball. Middle order batting just didnt suit his style.

Not early in his career nor at he end of his career.

Thinking keeping didnt impact his batting is just wrong headed.

 

[Richard]

Keeping wicket obviously tires anyone. However, between 1996/97 and 2002/03, Stewart averaged 38 as wicketkeeper and non-opener. He virtually never played the role of opener and non-wicketkeeper.

Stewart batting at six (and even seven), with gloves or without, was always an idea of plain lunacy, he was far too good to be batting that low. There were times in his career where he was England's best batsman.

At three, four and five did him just fine, often, and he should've batted there and kept wicket for every game of his career from 1993 onwards, IMO. Had he done that, England would've gained maximum value out of him. As it was, they tossed him between one role and another for an age and by the time he finally got the role that made maximum use of him he performed it well, even into the second half of his 30s. And then they demoted him behind inferior batsmen to boot.

I also watched every game of Stewart's career from 1998 onwards, FTR.

Nonetheless, perhaps "didn't affect his batting" is the wrong term. Perhaps what I mean is more "didn't stop him being a Test-class batsman in his own right". Because it didn't. However, had he not kept wicket and batted three, four or five, he might well have done even better.