Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[JBH001]

I had a brief look at the statistics - a little busy today to do more - and Stewart played purely as a keeper-batsman from 2000 - 2003 (from 1996 - 2000 he still played 15 test matches as a pure batsman) where he averaged 36 with the bat (38 at home and 31 away). Hardly outstanding figures when a settled keeper-batsman.

Finally, Knott's abilities as a bat are being under-rated. 32.75 with the bat over 95 tests and 13 years is no joke, easily comparable to Stewarts overall record as a keeper-batsman, neither is Knott's averaging 42 away from home in 39 of those tests.

Edit/ I keep saying this, but is Stewart a good enough keeper for all-time bowlers in an all-time side? I dont see how he is. His over-hyped batting is irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

On covered pitches against seam bowlers standing back, I think he was. Natural or not.

Against spinners on uncovered wickets, quite possibly not. I've already said that I'd certainly give Knott serious consideration at worst were the team being picked for uncovered wickets. Knott's work to Underwood is of legend.

However, if his batting were of tail-end standard I'd certainly go for Evans over him, even though there seems little doubt Knott was a slightly better wicketkeeper than Evans.

 

[archie mac]

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.

I know who he faced, the question was how would he have gone against the best without a helmet? Hypothetically that is? I hope that is not too big a word for this forum And more importantly that I spelt it correctly

 

[Richard]

You did.

My guess is that no-one can guess. The impact of helmets is inestimable. The shame is that the things didn't come into existance a decade earlier than they did.

The reason for helmets was Thommo, Roberts, etc. Never before had such a constant barrage of high-class, and high-speed, bowling been seen accross a wide range of teams. Often it'd been perceived as unneccessary, of course.

Sadly, the fact is that it had to be reactive rather than predictive. Had it been predicted, no-one would have had to go through the horror of facing such attacks sans-helmet.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Sorry, the reason he was hard to replace was not really of his own virtue, but of others being poor or the batting line-up needing him.

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.

Er, not quite. The best way to judge: An all-time English XI with Knott and the same exact side with Stewart instead of Knott. Knott every time IMO. Gives you much more with the gloves than Stewart does with the bat - whilst wicket-keeping of course, no doubt Stewart would give more if he were to bat only.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Mate, that's Richardesque there.

 

[aussie]

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.

There is no definite they would skittle out any side (especially post-war batsmen) because they bowling arts where a dying breed. Even in early season English conditions which is the ONLY circumstances i can see them being effective againts All-time batting line-ups why pick them ahead of Statham or Snow who could exploit the conditions just as well and bowl it at high pace?

 

[aussie]

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.

Lol, no way am i suggesting that Stewart was no beacon to the art wicket-keeping. But he was definately test match standard & having seen him keep in every test match from Old Trafford 97 to Sydney 03 he just as solid behind the stumps as Gilchrist.

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.

Started watching cricket in the 97 Ashes (Old trafford test 3rd day to be exact) so i have 3 good home summers live. But of course as a student of the game i know all about what England did in the 90s.

So i disagree with the notion if England batting line-up was stronger, Stewart would never had kept. Its very much the other way around.

Take this top 7 for the 1st test vs SA 95:

Atherton
Stewart
Ramprakash
Thorpe
Hick
Smith
Russel

Surely if if you where a selector lets say Gooch had lasted until then or Butcher had come into open before 97. You would with no hesitation open with one of them & send Stewart down to 7...

Stewart was just a victim of versatility cause seeing him from 97-2003 i'd say if post NZ 97 he wasn't sent to open, bat @ 3, middle order, while keeping on & off he could easily have averaged 40+ with the bat while keeping.

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.

For balance sake yes, mainly because Botham isn't good enough to bat @ 6 in an All-time England XI.

 

[NUFAN]

ALAN KNOTT'S WIKI..
In the October 2004 edition of The Wisden Cricketer magazine he was voted as the wicket-keeper in "England's Greatest post-war XI" receiving votes from 20 of the 25 panelists.



i really enjoyed watching Stewart, more for his batting than his keeping.

 

[aussie]

Mate, that's Richardesque there.

. Hey Richard i be dissin you the time son, now they comparing us dawg. We a team homie...

 

[archie mac]

Anyway my XI (off the top of my head )

Boycott
Atherton
May
Cowdrey
Barrington/Gower
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Tyson
Statham
Underwood

 

[Prince EWS]

. Hey Richard i be dissin you the time son, now they comparing us dawg. We a team homie...

I actually understood this post. I feel dirty.

 

[JBH001]

There is no definite they would skittle out any side (especially post-war batsmen) because they bowling arts where a dying breed. Even in early season English conditions which is the ONLY circumstances i can see them being effective againts All-time batting line-ups why pick them ahead of Statham or Snow who could exploit the conditions just as well and bowl it at high pace?

The fact that their bowling arts, as you put it, were a dying breed would make them more of a threat, no? Certainly Bedser would have figured in my post war XI (he carried the English attack for a good few years) but for the fact that I see Botham as a somewhat similiar bowler, that is medium fast and swing, means that I want my two opening bowlers, Trueman and Snow, as out and out quicks. You seriously underestimate Bedser, and you most certainly underestimate S F Barnes.

 

[Goughy]

Anyway my XI (off the top of my head )

Atherton over Gooch? Really?

Many of the places are up for debate with no right or wrong answers. But IMO the 2nd openers spot isnt one of them.

Gooch walks into that team IMO.

 

[JBH001]

Lol, no way am i suggesting that Stewart was no beacon to the art wicket-keeping. But he was definately test match standard & having seen him keep in every test match from Old Trafford 97 to Sydney 03 he just as solid behind the stumps as Gilchrist.

Stewart may have been test match standard, but he was not all-time (post war XI) standard.

So i disagree with the notion if England batting line-up was stronger, Stewart would never had kept. Its very much the other way around.

Take this top 7 for the 1st test vs SA 95:

Atherton
Stewart
Ramprakash
Thorpe
Hick
Smith
Russel

Surely if if you where a selector lets say Gooch had lasted until then or Butcher had come into open before 97. You would with no hesitation open with one of them & send Stewart down to 7...

Not sure what you mean by all this. Since neither you or I were selectors, lets stick to what we know happened in the 90s and leave out the ifs, buts, and maybes.

Which leads me to:

Stewart was just a victim of versatility cause seeing him from 97-2003 i'd say if post NZ 97 he wasn't sent to open, bat @ 3, middle order, while keeping on & off he could easily have averaged 40+ with the bat while keeping.

Again, we dont know that. What we do know, is that Stewarts overall record as a keeper batsman is only marginally better than Knotts. When Stewart was a set keeper bat and not having to shuffle back and forth (as you and Richard keep saying) from 2000 - 2003 (not 1997 - 2003) he averaged 36, again hardly outstanding, and 31 away from home. This compares well with Knott at an average of close to 33, and 42 away from home, and then you factor in Knott's far superior skills with the glove.

I really dont see what is so hard about this, but I suspect an impasse has been reached.

For balance sake yes, mainly because Botham isn't good enough to bat @ 6 in an All-time England XI.

I have already said that I select my all-time sides with the condition that the players are at their best/in their prime. Botham at his best certainly was good enough to bat at 6, although I have selected him at 7 because I wanted 6 top batsmen, and Botham is good enough to be selected as a bowler too (see my comments re Bedser above). Again simply no need to harp on and on about Stewarts batting ability and supposed virtues with the gloves. He simply was not as good as you and Richard make him out to be, but as I said, I think an impasse has been reached, so I shall leave it at that.

 

[archie mac]

Atherton over Gooch? Really?

Many of the places are up for debate with no right or wrong answers. But IMO the 2nd openers spot isnt one of them.

Gooch walks into that team IMO.

Should have put a bit more thought in to it, but yes Gooch was the better batsman, in fact I think he should have finished with a better average for a player of his skill. Although Atherton always gave 100% and I will never forgive him (Gooch) for dropping himself in 89 because he was not happy with his form

 

[Richard]

The fact that their bowling arts, as you put it, were a dying breed would make them more of a threat, no? Certainly Bedser would have figured in my post war XI (he carried the English attack for a good few years) but for the fact that I see Botham as a somewhat similiar bowler, that is medium fast and swing, means that I want my two opening bowlers, Trueman and Snow, as out and out quicks. You seriously underestimate Bedser, and you most certainly underestimate S F Barnes.

I honestly think that some people see black-and-white film of Godfrey Evans standing up to Bedser and think he wasn't fit to lace Andy Caddick's boots.

Bedser is one of England's best seam-bowlers ever, simple as.

 

[Richard]

Should have put a bit more thought in to it, but yes Gooch was the better batsman, in fact I think he should have finished with a better average for a player of his skill. Although Atherton always gave 100% and I will never forgive him (Gooch) for dropping himself in 89 because he was not happy with his form

Why on Earth not?

Gooch obviously couldn't have dropped himself as he wasn't a selector UIMM, but I've always admired him greatly for dropping-out in an attempt to get better.

A trick that would pay collossal dividends eventually, of course.

Had it not done so, I'd have to say Atherton would probably have been better than Gooch. Had Gooch's career ended in '89, he'd have gone down as an unfulfilled talent.

 

[archie mac]

Why on Earth not?

Gooch obviously couldn't have dropped himself as he wasn't a selector UIMM, but I've always admired him greatly for dropping-out in an attempt to get better.

A trick that would pay collossal dividends eventually, of course.

Had it not done so, I'd have to say Atherton would probably have been better than Gooch. Had Gooch's career ended in '89, he'd have gone down as an unfulfilled talent.

Because you are picked for your country does not mean you have to play. Gooch asked to be dropped.

He was the senior player, and he left the youngsters to fend for themselves. I thought it weak at the time and nothing has changed my mind since

 

[fredfertang]

There was something worryingly Boycottesque about Goochie doing what he did - I think he should have toughed it out if the selectors thought he was the man for the job