The stats do not do him justice!

[Burgey]

You don't end-up with a much inferior opener at all - for much of the time England had Gooch and Atherton. If Stewart had kept wicket from 1993 onwards rather than 1996/97 onwards, England would've been far better-off. What damaged them was the constant to-and-fro between Russell and Stewart - and, worse, the fact that the likes of Blakey, Rhodes and Hegg were picked as well.

Stewart and Russell were in genuine competition, incidentally, for a whole 5 years - 1993 to 1998. Before then Stewart was only ever a short-term option (and performed accordingly) and after then Russell had retired.

This 5-year period proves nothing compared the the 7 years of excellence Stewart managed after he was given the gloves permanently - which soon induced Russell to retire (and still the selectors weren't satisfied, this time giving the gloves to some random 20-year-old called Chris Read who had done nothing whatsoever to merit them).

Ha ha - Hegg.

 

[Richard]

It really was like "well we made ourselves look silly in 1994/95 in Australia by picking Rhodes - let's make sure we don't look quite as bad for that error, though we will have to make ourselves look even worse this time, and give Hegg a couple of games".

How he got on that tour ahead of Russell I'll never know. But it was the final straw for ol' Jack, and he refused to play international cricket again. Shame... I'd have much preferred him to Chris Read in 1999.

Mind, I'd have preferred Stewart to both of them TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha ha - Hegg.

Although he was a bit fortunate to play for England he was still a better wicketkeeper than Alec Stewart.

 

[Richard]

Not that that stopped him keeping pretty awfully in the couple of Tests he played.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He was perfectly adequate compared to the likes of Ambrose and Prior, not that following Stewart gave him much to live up to.

 

[Richard]

So adaquete that he dropped about 3 chances in 2 Tests - which is pretty much more than Ambrose has dropped in 10.

Hegg was a much better wicketkeeper than he demonstrated in his couple of Tests, but he kept very poorly in them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

About 3 chances? Completely fatuous made up nonsense. Anyway whatever he did or didn't do in two Tests he was still a far better keeper than Ambrose or Stewart and had he played more he would have demonstrated it. That's not to say he should have played more, or at all, as he wasn't the best wicketkeeper of his time.

 

[Richard]

About 3 chances? Completely fatuous made up nonsense.

Not really - even the Wisden tour report described Hegg's glovework as "below the highest class".

Anyway whatever he did or didn't do in two Tests he was still a far better keeper than Ambrose or Stewart and had he played more he would have demonstrated it.

I said as much. Well, no, actually he wasn't a far better wicketkeeper than Stewart - better, certainly, but not far better, at least not unless you base everything on natural talent - but he was better, and his couple of Tests did not give a true demonstration of his ability.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not really - even the Wisden tour report described Hegg's glovework as "below the highest class".

........or you could go to his Cricinfo page and read that "he kept tidily". Very little of merit can be gleaned from either statement.

 

[Richard]

I'd tend to trust a report which was written by someone watching the tour unfold, and in the immediate aftermath of it, more than one written almost certainly several years down the line by someone who might perfectly easily have not watched a thing.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Still nothing to suggest he was "awful", "Below the highest class" glovework applied to Stewart very often.

 

[Richard]

By Hegg's standards, his keeping was pretty awful. By Matthew Prior's, it was OK, if not pretty decent. Hegg was well below the sort of wicketkeeping standards you'd expect from someone chosen for Test cricket essentially purely because of wicketkeeping (Hegg was never a batsman of much note by international standards).

 

[aussie]

Well having had a bit of first hand experience seeing Hegg keeping close up, going to OT playing club cricket between 99-2005. He was definately a technically sound keeper. But i can't say i'd agree that he was a better glovesman than Stewart overall, he probably looked more tidy thats it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well having had a bit of first hand experience seeing Hegg keeping close up, going to OT playing club cricket between 99-2005. He was definately a technically sound keeper. But i can't say i'd agree that he was a better glovesman than Stewart overall, he probably looked more tidy thats it.

The other day you were putting Alec Stewart in your All-Time England XI which suggests acute bias, flawed judgement or the school of thought which makes a keepers batting more important than his wicketkeeping.

 

[aussie]

The other day you were putting Alec Stewart in your All-Time England XI which suggests acute bias, flawed judgement or the school of thought which makes a keepers batting more important than his wicketkeeping.

Neither of the 3. The basis of my reasoning which i still stand by, why i put Stewart in my ENG ATXI over Knott. Was not because i believe Stewart was a better keeper than for two. That clearly isn't the case.

But for the simple reasons that Stewart better batting strenght as a # 6 in a hypotetical ENG ATXI, plus his very solid keeping at his best. Is a better overall package than Knott.

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Stewart
Botham
Rhodes
Trueman
Snow
Statham

Which is key, because Botham batting higher than #7 in a ATXI is too risky IMO. Given his fragilties vs WI at their pomp even during his peak years 77-84. The only all-rounders in the games history who should bat in the top 6 in ATXIs without question should be Miller, Sobers, Procter, Rice, Imran.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Imran can bat in the top 6 but Botham can't? It's clearly not worthwhile going over old ground or derailing the thread any further.

 

[Ikki]

Disagree with aussie there. I think overall Knott was the better package. Infinately better as keeper and with an average of 33 it showed he could hold a bat. Then, of course, there is Les Ames.

 

[Pothas]

Agree, plus I always think when picking an all time team that one should make an atempt to include the greatest cricketers of that country rather than simply picking the best or most flexable side. Alan Knott as indisputably one of the greatest keepers of all time deserves to be there

 

[aussie]

Imran can bat in the top 6 but Botham can't? It's clearly not worthwhile going over old ground or derailing the thread any further.

By no means is it derailing the thread, if my memory serves me correct in the "Why Ken Barrington isn't an All-time great thread, where this debate last occured. I got more consensus on my view, so i belief you still have an ideological gridlock on matter instead of having an open mind.

Its almost like Healy batting @ 7 for AUS in an ATXI, if Gilchrist never played. I'd be uncomfortable with that, even though he would be the best option.

On Imran based on alot of reading & researching i'd back Imran at his peak as an ultimate all-rounder (WI 80 - WI 88) to bat @6 over Botham @ his peak. Given Sir Ian's failing vs WI.

In a hypotetical AT match set-up where he would be facing great bowling attacks all the time (except vs IND & SRI away from home), i have my doubts about him so high up the order. I prefer to give the Gilchrist's role to attack freely at 7, with a SOLID top 6 before him.

Of course there is the argument that the captaincy burden, played a legitimate role in Botham weak performances vs WI in 10 tests 1980/81. But fact is he failed, Imran didn't vs WI.

 

[aussie]

Disagree with aussie there. I think overall Knott was the better package. Infinately better as keeper and with an average of 33 it showed he could hold a bat.

The achilles heel as i said is Botham batting @ 6 vs the bowling attacks of WI, AUS, SA, PAK, IND (at home) ATXI.

So againts those teams, you need as strong a batting as you can. Its not as if Stewart was a stop gap keeper, he clearly was very solid technitian just as good as Gilchrist. Knott was just one of the greatest, but Stewart's better batting gives ENG a better balance againts most ATXI's.

Hypotetical match selection for ATXI's should just be like a normal team selection. Assesing the best team for the circumstances & conditions, not picking a team to frame on a wall.

Then, of course, there is Les Ames.

Nah he failed vs AUS the best team of his time. Only Knott & Stewart should be considered for keeper position for ENG. Plus i've always felt Jim Parks also should be ahead of Ames.