The stats do not do him justice!

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Since you brought up Gilchrist, if Gilly & Healy where playing together in the 90s who you think AUS would have picked?. Surely not Healy. Plus if England had Flintoff in the 90s to help balance the team, Russell wouldn't have played much either. You are making it sound as if Stewart would be like a Prior behind the stumps.

Well actually Gilchrist spent 3 years playing ODI's only and only replaced Healy in the Test team when Healey retired.

 

[aussie]

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.

Plus you could say that was his peak years as batsman, although hsi great longevity between 96/97 to 2002/03 enabled him to still be a force with the blade @ 40. Shows of versatile he was, not knowing your or being played in a unfamiliar role can definately affect your performances, especially againts quality oppostion.

Look at Bopara. Johnson vs WI 08 (as AUS tried to turn him into a swing bowler). Ponting before he became a # 3 in 2001. VVS Laxman opening for IND in the late 90s..plus i'm sure many others..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Examples of doing so would be to say Botham was all-rounder of all-time due to his peak, even though he dropped off greatly in the latter half of his career.

A better example would be saying Imran Khan is capable of batting in the top 6 when for the first 10 years of his career he averaged about 25.

 

[aussie]

Well actually Gilchrist spent 3 years playing ODI's only and only replaced Healy in the Test team when Healey retired.

Ha, no. Im saying If Healy & Gilchrist where keeper rivals from 1988 to 1999. Gilchrist would have played more, if not all the time except for injuries. But of course he may not have been as dominant given the standard of bowling in the 90s.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, no. Im saying If Healy & Gilchrist where keeper rivals from 1988 to 1999. Gilchrist would have played more, if not all the time except for injuries. But of course he may not have been as dominant given the standard of bowling in the 90s.

When they were rivals Gilchrist never had a look in and had to wait until he was 27 and Healy retired before making the Test team. It can only have been because of Healy's supremacy with the gloves.

 

[aussie]

A better example would be saying Imran Khan is capable of batting in the top 6 when for the first 10 years of his career he averaged about 25.

Ha, you cant be serious. Clearly you off all people should know Imran's career was of two phases, those first 9 years rather (71-80) where he was a bowler who could bat a bit. Then the other half (80-88) where he was the great all-rounder that many people praise. You better don't let any PAK fans on this forum come into this thread.

NOTE: But lets be clear here, i do believe Botham at his peak was a more natural batsman than Imran during his all-rounder peak (80-88) & better in a few area's. Just that Botham's failures vs WI are too big to ignore, even though captaincy as i said before definately had an effect. Imran didn't fail vs WI & he was captain as well during that same period.

But after Imran bowling losts is spark after WI 88 and he became & even more solid bat until retirement in 92. He was probably just as good as Sir Ian between 77-84 or slighty better, i cant say for sure.

But overall, this point It has absolutely to relevance to your notion that, the argument about Stewart is "Conveniently finding a way to dissect stats in an attempt to prove a pre-conceived notion".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, you cant be serious. Clearly you off all people should know Imran's career was of two phases, those first 9 years rather (71-80) where he was a bowler who could bat a bit. Then the other half (80-88) where he was the great all-rounder that many people praise. You better don't let any PAK fans on this forum come into this thread.

Completely irrelevant. You said Botham can't be considered the best allrounder of all time based on his peak because he "dropped off greatly in the latter half of his career". Therefore by the same reckoning Imran has to be judged on his entire career - which as far as batting goes was lower order for the first half of it.

 

[aussie]

When they were rivals Gilchrist never had a look in and had to wait until he was 27 and Healy retired before making the Test team. It can only have been because of Healy's supremacy with the gloves.

Gilchrist & Healy where never genuine test rivals in the 90s in that 3 year period. Except for the Antigua test vs WI 99 & the 3 tests vs SRI, since Healy's form with the blade had fell of badly.

Gilchrist simply just replaced Healy as the ODI because he was the better option, as all ODI sides where looking to mould themselves of the SRI revolutionary way of approaching the first 15 overs in ODIs.

There was never any worries about Gilly's keeping. Just that his ultra aggressive batting (slogger like ATT) was generally felt was not suited for tests.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

It's not really his keeping that's being judged though. I hope there's no one in the entire universe who would argue that Stewart is a better keeper than Knott. The only issue is whether in the early days the uncertainity over his keeping role affected his batting to the point where all those performances should be arbitrarily removed from his batting average.
Whatever affect it had on him is unquantifiable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Gilchrist & Healy where never genuine test rivals in the 90s in that 3 year period. Except for the Antigua test vs WI 99 & the 3 tests vs SRI, since Healy's form with the blade had fell of badly.

Gilchrist simply just replaced Healy as the ODI because he was the better option, as all ODI sides where looking to mould themselves of the SRI revolutionary way of approaching the first 15 overs in ODIs.

There was never any worries about Gilly's keeping. Just that his ultra aggressive batting (slogger like ATT) was generally felt was not suited for tests.

................and that would still have been the case had they been rivals from 1988 so there's no reason to suppose " Gilchrist would have played more, if not all the time except for injuries."

 

[aussie]

Completely irrelevant. You said Botham can't be considered the best allrounder of all time based on his peak because he "dropped off greatly in the latter half of his career". Therefore by the same reckoning Imran has to be judged on his entire career - which as far as batting goes was lower order for the first half of it.

No, their respective careers are totally different.

Botham started like race car @ 100 mph & crashed (injury 1984/85). Never to reclaim that speed again.

Imran transformed from a caterpillar to butterfly.

 

[Ikki]

It's not really his keeping that's being judged though. I hope there's no one in the entire universe who would argue that Stewart is a better keeper than Knott. The only issue is whether in the early days the uncertainity over his keeping role affected his batting to the point where all those performances should be arbitrarily removed from his batting average.
Whatever affect it had on him is unquantifiable.

So in your opinion, adjusting and learning to keep better didn't hinder him initially, or at least whilst he was being shuffled around? Pretty harsh methinks if you think it didn't.

I think Richard here is saying that his average whilst keeping was hindered enough to the point that his initial foray into keeping made his batting suffer. To the point that overall as a keeper his average looks something like Knott's, whereas he is a clearly better batsman than Knott.

 

[aussie]

................and that would still have been the case had they been rivals from 1988 so there's no reason to suppose " Gilchrist would have played more, if not all the time except for injuries."

Ok well lets pull it back then. AUS after losing Marsh in the rough summer of 84. For 4 years juggled between Wayne Phillips, Tim Zoheer & Greg Dyer, with neither holding down a spot. A bit like England today since Stewart.

So now a young Gilchrist & Healy are the options Allan Border has to chose from has the 1988 tour to PAK commences. Gilchrist would also would have the same 3 years of ODI performances has he did between 96-99 in the late 80s.

You have Healy a talented young glovesman but an average bat & Gilchrist a super attacking batsman & a solid keeper. Gievn AUS batting woes in the late 80s, who you think Border & the selectors would have chosen?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, their respective careers are totally different.

Botham started like race car @ 100 mph & crashed (injury 1984/85). Never to reclaim that speed again.

Imran transformed from a caterpillar to butterfly.

You actually believe that someone who peaks later in their career is automatically more worthy than someone who peaks early.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So in your opinion, adjusting and learning to keep better didn't hinder him initially, or at least whilst he was being shuffled around? Pretty harsh methinks if you think it didn't.

I think Richard here is saying that his average whilst keeping was hindered enough to the point that his initial foray into keeping made his batting suffer. To the point that overall as a keeper his average looks something like Knott's, whereas he is a clearly better batsman than Knott.

I'm not saying it didn't hinder him, just that it's not quantifiable. Just blindly removing those stats suggests that people doing so think it is.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ok well lets pull it back then.

Let's not. Thank God the pubs are open.

 

[SJS]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who is a better keeper ?

 

[SJS]

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.

Just out of curiosity again, why wouldn't you chose Les Ames in place of Stewart if you wanted a keeper who could bat at number six?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who is a better keeper ?

By watching them keep wicket where applicable. In the case of Les Ames there's no choice but to go by the testimony of people who did see him. I'd be amazed if he was a better keeper than Alan Knott but if a knowledgable person who saw both says he is then fair enough. Putting Alec Stewart's sub-standard keeping and moderate batting ahead of Alan Knott's supreme keeping and adequate batting makes no sense at all. If Stewart had been around in Knott's day there is not a cat in hells chance that he would have been chosen ahead of him - nor would he have been chosen ahead of Bob Taylor.

 

[fredfertang]

I've never seen a better keeper than Alan Knott and I don't believe that any keeper in history, Adam Gilchrist included, would have been more effective than he was batting against Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding et al in the mid 70's