How about Botham not as #6?
If you did get more concensus on your view it's because of the generation involved in the discussion ie; those brought up in the Gilchrist era who believe you sacrifice wicketkeeping skills to score a couple of extra runs. TBH it wasn't so much a case of not derailing the thread as not being bothered discussing cricket with anyone with such ridiculous ideas. (That's not saying that anyone isn't entitled to their own opinion but I have no interest in it.)
The best cricketers and the most likely to produce a good XI aren't always the absolute same thing. Excellence as a cricketer is not just about how good a batsman or bowler (or all-rounder, or wicketkeeper-batsman, or whatever) you are, it's about all sorts of things.
And I think it's relevant to ur argument that u only include Stewart's stats when he was the established wicketkeeper. If anyone can be bothered (I can't), that's 1996/97 to 2002/03.
In cricketing terms it makes no difference at all. It just conveniently dissects his stats and makes his average bigger to attempt to add weight to a flimsy argument.
If you - or anyone - will view it as a preconceived notion, that's their choice. And their error. Nothing more for me to say, as I know what I've done, you don't.
There's no missing of any points. The point is that Stewart has a wicketkeeping batting average little better than Alan Knott. There is no way of telling whether the fact that he didn't initially keep for the whole series made any difference to the number of runs he made therefore removing them means nothing.
Nah, you need 5 bowlers in hypotetical ATXI cricket.
Not all sir. The last discussion if my memory is correct (i cant find the thread in advanced search), posters like JBHOO1, Goughy, Richard (well he was always with me anyway), a few other English posters & now Ikki have assesed the reasoning & have agreed. All i 95%sure did not starting watching cricket in 99 when Gilchrist began. So Unfortunately LT sir, the fact that you brought the debate up back up shows that you still have your ideological premise on the matter.
I think Stewart being fairly judged as a keeper is tainted by the fact that he was given the gloves when he clearly was not ready and took it for the benefit of the team. When he did become what would truly be regarded as a keeper it is almost unfair to judge him wholly like that.
LOL, I've had 3 showers and I still feel dirty.(I have noted this date in my diary though and the words "I agree with Rich here" will probably come back to haunt you)
There's no way of telling anything for sure, but most people tend to acknowledge that cricketers have a better chance of performing with a defined role and security over their place and position, and that being constantly tossed from one role to another is quite difficult and will often restrict a player. Ergo, AFAIC it's absolutely possible that Stewart suffered for being constantly tossed from middle-order batsman to opener to opener-wicketkeeper to middle-order-batsman-wicketkeeper, as he was between 1990 and 1996. To suggest that such a thing didn't happen is perfectly reasonable; to suggest it isn't remotely likely isn't reasonable. It is quite plausible and Stewart's experiences lead me to believe it happened in his case.
Stewart from 96/97 to Ashes 2002/03 - is Stewart keeping no-stop (except for 4 test in WI 98) & he averaged more than Knott with that bat with solid keeping. Thats A FACT, thats not finding a way to dissect stats to find a pre-concieved notion.
