Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Richard]

Jesus, Richard's not a bloke you'd want in the trenches with you, is he? If Churchill offered him blood, sweat, toil & tears he'd have doubtless reached for the German phrasebook.

No bigger sin than not being arsed as a sportsman IMHO. Especially when playing for one's country.

Comparing sport with war is rarely a good idea and this is no exception.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The opting out of tours of India and Pakistan in the early days had nothing to do with fatigue. They were just dreadful places to go in terms of facilities and food.

 

[fredfertang]

They weren't lost causes, at all. They were merely extreme unlikelies.

England had already lost midway through in 1989, they'd already lost half their team, they'd already lost pretty well all dignity. There was nothing left to salvage. The best thing was to just get it out of the way and look to the future.

You could say the same of 93 and 97 but I for one am pleased England didn't lay down and die in the last tests of those series

 

[Richard]

At least in '93 and '97 there was the knowledge that things were nowhere near as bad as they had been in '89.

England could easily have won the Third Test in '93 (only denied by one of the worst players to play for Australia in their whole 18 years' dominance) and did, of course, win the First in '97.

'89, even though I was not even 4 at the time, it's pretty obvious to me that no matter what anyone did, things were not going to get better until that summer was out. Some sort of clean break was needed at the culmination of those 4 years, and a long break from cricket (4 months or so?), the removal of a load of players (though Gower was a bridge too far) and the complete reinvention of Gooch (which wouldn't have been possible without his contemplation of '89) provided this.

 

[Richard]

The opting out of tours of India and Pakistan in the early days had nothing to do with fatigue. They were just dreadful places to go in terms of facilities and food.

I'm aware of that, but people still went there. And no-one criticised those who didn't go very much. Whether they should've been criticised for opting-out isn't something I'm commenting on.

The point is merely that now there is even more reason to pull-out of the odd tour here and there, players get huge criticism for doing so.

 

[aussie]

My elders, why quote this specific point when i basically explained my position at the end of the post??.

Shall try again..

If you're select all-time XI's based on spurious illogical presumptions you might as well select Ghandi to open the batting for India on the presumption that he could turn his hand to anything and would have been a great cricketer if he'd chosen that path instead.

Don't see how my reasoning is spurious or illogical and ANY All-time XI given that we are picking players across eras & bundling into a side & basically IMAGINING how they may fare againts each other, since the matches are never going to happen are all presumptions.

I think it is fair to assume he wouldnt based on 2 factors a) He didnt do it during the long periods he kept b) He would average lower as batting as a keeper would put him down the order away from the seamers and hard ball that he thrived upon and with him coming into bat often against spinners and the soft ball.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Stewart would average 40+ whilst keeping and batting in the middle order and a massive weight of evidence to suggest he wouldnt.

To think Stewart to score the same keeping and batting middle order as he could when he was not keeping and batting in the top order shows little understanding of him as a player.

The longest period he was keeper/batsman for England was coicidentally the same period i saw of Stewart's entire career live 97-2003 & he averaged what 38 (aint able check the exact stats but i did i before). One can aslo argue that regardless of Stewart longevity he was at the back end of his career.

My point simply is England where more balanced in the 90s with Atherton having a steady opening pair & Flintoff being the all-rounder back in the 90s. If Stewart could have had a settled role batting @ 6 as he did from 97-03 when his batting was certainy at its peak (scoring big runs againts some top attacks as an opener) instead of being rotated i don't see why he couldn't have averaged 40+ with the bat coming in @ 6.

Thus making him the best candidate to bat @ 6 in England's All-time as i posted before, because Botham can't bat higher than 7.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

My elders, why quote this specific point when i basically explained my position at the end of the post??.

Mainly because the explanation was bollox and remains so. But as you say, it's all imaginary so if in your imagination Botham can't bat at 6 and Stewart is the best keeping option then so be it.

 

[Goughy]

If Stewart could have had a settled role batting @ 6 as he did from 97-03 when his batting was certainy at its peak (scoring big runs againts some top attacks as an opener) instead of being rotated i don't see why he couldn't have averaged 40+ with the bat coming in @ 6.

Ive already explained why. Firstly he didnt (he averaged 35 when keeping from beg 97 season to end 2003 season) and secondly his game doesnt translate well to number 6. It isnt the position what you can get full value from him at.

Now theoretically (as the game will never be played) you could have Stewart as an opener keeper as that suits his batting best. Unfortunately Stewart wasnt suited to middle order batting and was an excellent opener but ordinary number 6.

 

[vic_orthdox]

My elders, why quote this specific point when i basically explained my position at the end of the post??.

Shall try again..



Don't see how my reasoning is spurious or illogical and ANY All-time XI given that we are picking players across eras & bundling into a side & basically IMAGINING how they may fare againts each other, since the matches are never going to happen are all presumptions.




The longest period he was keeper/batsman for England was coicidentally the same period i saw of Stewart's entire career live 97-2003 & he averaged what 38 (aint able check the exact stats but i did i before). One can aslo argue that regardless of Stewart longevity he was at the back end of his career.

My point simply is England where more balanced in the 90s with Atherton having a steady opening pair & Flintoff being the all-rounder back in the 90s. If Stewart could have had a settled role batting @ 6 as he did from 97-03 when his batting was certainy at its peak (scoring big runs againts some top attacks as an opener) instead of being rotated i don't see why he couldn't have averaged 40+ with the bat coming in @ 6.

Thus making him the best candidate to bat @ 6 in England's All-time as i posted before, because Botham can't bat higher than 7.

The point is that you're making a presumption about how Stewart would go in an all-time Test XI, on a presumption about how he could have gone in his completed career.

 

[Richard]

Anyone else spot the irony of Michael Slater \ Mark Taylor \ whoever-it-was comparing Kallis to Kenny Barrington earlier today?

 

[Bobisback]

Anyone else spot the irony of Michael Slater \ Mark Taylor \ whoever-it-was comparing Kallis to Kenny Barrington earlier today?

DWTA

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyone else spot the irony of Michael Slater \ Mark Taylor \ whoever-it-was comparing Kallis to Kenny Barrington earlier today?

I didn't see it but I'm willing to bet that they spent more time on it than has been spent in this thread.

 

[vic_orthdox]

DWTA

Please stop following around Richard and baiting. Enough already.

Richard, please don't respond. Just leave it be.

 

[aussie]

The point is that you're making a presumption about how Stewart would go in an all-time Test XI, on a presumption about how he could have gone in his completed career.

Yes i am. But there are other examples in other All-time XI's i.e:

Shane Bond - Regardless of the fact that he will be an automatic in NZ All-time & many won't hesistate with the notion that "if he played more test he would been a great bowler". Given that he only played 17 test its still a presumption.

Barry Richards, Mike Procter, Clive Rice, Garth Le Roux - All expect Le Roux are pretty much definites in SA's all-time but aparthied blocked their careers. Everyone reckons they would have been test greats, but they never played a test. So like Stewart, still a presumption to pick them since they didn't play enough test or not at all.

For India, there is the situation with Mohammad Nissar & Amar Singh as probable new-ball bowlers.

Oh & a probable situation that is very similar to Stewart. Would be Moin Khan batting @ 7 in PAK's All-time, if theretically Imran wanted to play 5 bowlers, since Moin at his best was definately capable of batting there efficiently.

 

[aussie]

Mainly because the explanation was bollox and remains so. But as you say, it's all imaginary so if in your imagination Botham can't bat at 6 and Stewart is the best keeping option then so be it.

Botham not being able to bat @ 6 should not be an issue. Given that he failed againts the West Indies, the only attack comparable to a theoretical All-time attack in his short but illustrious peak.

 

[aussie]

Ive already explained why. Firstly he didnt (he averaged 35 when keeping from beg 97 season to end 2003 season) and secondly his game doesnt translate well to number 6. It isnt the position what you can get full value from him at.

Now theoretically (as the game will never be played) you could have Stewart as an opener keeper as that suits his batting best. Unfortunately Stewart wasnt suited to middle order batting and was an excellent opener but ordinary number 6.

The only thing that exposed Stewart that is saw in him batting in the middle order was that he would & was (in 2000/01 vs SRI & PAK) exposed againts quality spin, in which he was definately ordinary no doubt. But i disagree with the notion that he was ordinary middle-order test batsman overall (test match number 6).

Innings that come to mind right now are his 95 batting with Hussain in Durban, very solid 50s vs AUS in 02/03 (especially his innings in Sydney) & a couple of good centuries & just generally looking solid down there.All of this as i mentioned before was done with him @ the back end of his career 35+ where regardless of his longevity he showed the versatility to bat in this role he was past his batting peak.

So again if he had the role as batsman/keeper from 90-97 none stop, if Atherton had a steady opening partner & Flintoff was playing in that period i don't see why the presumptive notion that he could have averaged 40+ is not warranted.

 

[archie mac]

Yes i am. But there are other examples in other All-time XI's i.e:

Shane Bond - Regardless of the fact that he will be an automatic in NZ All-time & many won't hesistate with the notion that "if he played more test he would been a great bowler". Given that he only played 17 test its still a presumption.

Barry Richards, Mike Procter, Clive Rice, Garth Le Roux - All expect Le Roux are pretty much definites in SA's all-time but aparthied blocked their careers. Everyone reckons they would have been test greats, but they never played a test. So like Stewart, still a presumption to pick them since they didn't play enough test or not at all.

For India, there is the situation with Mohammad Nissar & Amar Singh as probable new-ball bowlers.

Oh & a probable situation that is very similar to Stewart. Would be Moin Khan batting @ 7 in PAK's All-time, if theretically Imran wanted to play 5 bowlers, since Moin at his best was definately capable of batting there efficiently.

Not in my team

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh & a probable situation that is very similar to Stewart. Would be Moin Khan batting @ 7 in PAK's All-time, if theretically Imran wanted to play 5 bowlers, since Moin at his best was definately capable of batting there efficiently.

So Moin Khan is good enough to bat at number 7 in a Pakistan All-time XI but Alan Knott isn't good enough to bat there for England. Walt Disney could have done with your imagination.

 

[Richard]

Of course Knott's good enough to bat seven against all-time teams. However, Stewart was better with the bat than Knott under any circumstances.

Except, obviously, starting his innings against the turning ball, which I presume Knott was better than very poor at though I don't know for certain.

 

[aussie]

So Moin Khan is good enough to bat at number 7 in a Pakistan All-time XI but Alan Knott isn't good enough to bat there for England. Walt Disney could have done with your imagination.

Lol, i did not say Moin Khan is good enough to bat number 7 in a Pakistan All-time XI.

I said him batting @ 7 for PAK ATXI would be a similar presumtive notion to Stewart's situation given at his best as a batsman he was good very complete test match #7 & would be a good tactical option if likely PAK captain Imran Khan theoretically wanted to play 5 bowlers in an away test for example. (Imran himself being good enough to bat @ 6 againts All-time attacks unlike Botham further solidifies to fictional tactical decision)

But as the situation with Knott @ 7 for England, Moin batting @ 7 doesn't give PAK ATXI the best competitive balance overall. Given that the best balanced PAK All-time XI is:

Anwar
H Mohammad
Abbas
Miandad
Inzamam
M Mohammad
Imran
Moin/Latif
Wasim
Qadir/Shoaib