The stats do not do him justice!

[Lillian Thomson]

We are not debating who is the better keeper LT. Come on stay focused.

But rather who suits the balance of England ATXI better & i've given solid reasons why Stewart is the better option, & i repeat:

Because Botham @6 in an ATXI is too high & risky, given his failures vs WI even during his peak. Thus hypotetically given he would be facing that standard of bowling againts ever ATXI except for IND, NZ & PAK. He is better suited to batting @ 7 & given a free role to attack like Gilchrist did for AUS.

Theirfore given that situation. Stewart easily becomes the best option bat @ 6. Given his performances when he was played as a keeper batsman from 96-2003, consistently. Instead of 1990-96 when he was juggled around as opener, # 3, keeper/bat to aid in balancing England's team.

Once again not reading other posts properly and rehashing the same nonsense.
Stewart "isn't good enough" to be considered for an All Time England XI. Your solid reasons are total bollox. You only need to scratch around looking for a few extra runs if your batting is weak. In an All Time XI you have five of the best batsman in history plus Botham, plus Knott. There's no need to severely weaken the fielding aspect of the game by putting in a sub-standard keeper just to dig out half a dozen extra runs.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, this.

In fact, Gilly > Healy as a pure keeper, IMO.

No.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, this.

In fact, Gilly > Healy as a pure keeper, IMO.

Behave.

Averaged nearly 30 and hit a couple of Test tons. Was a good batsman as far as 'keepers go IMO.

 

[Richard]

Thought Kirmani averaged something like 26?

Certainly a considerably inferior batsman to his predecessor.

 

[fredfertang]

Thought Kirmani averaged something like 26?

Certainly a considerably inferior batsman to his predecessor.

........... Engineer was a genius

 

[aussie]

Once again not reading other posts properly and rehashing the same nonsense.
Stewart "isn't good enough" to be considered for an All Time England XI. Your solid reasons are total bollox.

How is it bollox?

How can Ian Botham be considered #6 spot for England ATXI, when he failed againts the WI - the best bowling attack of his time at his peak 77-84. When in a hypotetical ATXI match-ups he will be facing that standard of bowling vs WI, AUS, SA, PAK in presumably testing bowling condtions as well??

The only all-rounders as i've said before that can be considered for a #6 spot for their respective ATXI's are Miller, Rice, Procter, Sobers & Imran (depending on the circumstances & balance of the PAK ATXI).

You only need to scratch around looking for a few extra runs if your batting is weak.

. You clearly are losing it now to think given the unbelievable standard of bowling in ATXI cricket, that teams would be able "scratch around for a few extra runs", if they have a weak batting. That is a CRIMINAL tactical error.

In an All Time XI you have five of the best batsman in history plus Botham, plus Knott.

Well its not like the top 5 of ENG ATXI would be indestructable LT. They would be facing some of the best bowling attacks ever compiled in some toughest bowling conditions.

In ATXI cricket its all about pick your best BALANCE in your team, especially your batting-lineup to counter such bowling attacks. You just haven't grasped that idea & are just sticking to your ideological guns.

There's no need to severely weaken the fielding aspect of the game by putting in a sub-standard keeper just to dig out half a dozen extra runs.

Haha. The fact that keep refering to Stewart as a sub-standard keepers, again shows how your ideological presmise on the matter is coluding any proper judgement on the matter.

How the hell can Stewart be a sub-standard keeper, when he was on par with Gilchrist for most of his carrer. Plus at 40 years old wasn't making the kind of mistakes Gilchrist made post 2005 Ashes???

Added to the FACT the when Stewart played as an extended keeper batsman from 96-2002/03. He averaged more Knott with the bat. How can Knott be a DEFINITE pick ahead of Stewart based on these facts??

 

[Richard]

Because he was a better wicketkeeper, and some believe that the best wicketkeeper should play almost regardless.

And when he was a highly useful lower-order batsman like Knott was, the case for not playing him is non-existant.

I don't agree with this ideology, but arguing against someone who holds it is about as fruitless as trying to drive to the moon. As I said earlier this thread, those who believe in the batsman-wicketkeeper and those who believe in the wicketkeeper are completely wasting their time trying to convince each other that their POV is the right one.

 

[fredfertang]

Knott would be a certain selection for me - quite apart from being the best keeper i have ever seen the other factor to look at with him is when he scored his runs - have a look at all his centuries and half centuries in Tests - it is no exaggeration to say that almost every time he got runs England were deep in a hole - the bloke was a wonder of his time

 

[aussie]

Because he was a better wicketkeeper, and some believe that the best wicketkeeper should play almost regardless.

And when he was a highly useful lower-order batsman like Knott was, the case for not playing him is non-existant.

I don't agree with this ideology, but arguing against someone who holds it is about as fruitless as trying to drive to the moon. As I said earlier this thread, those who believe in the batsman-wicketkeeper and those who believe in the wicketkeeper are completely wasting their time trying to convince each other that their POV is the right one.

Well i wont say I BELIEVE in the batsman keeper over the keeper/batsman. As i'm saying its all about the balance of the team.
Lets look at other ATXIs.

Dujon vs Deryck Murray:

Clearly Dujon wins here, given the top 6 WI would have. No issue here.

Engineer & Kirmani vs Dhoni:

Even Dhoni's batting improves to a career average of 40 for example. I would never consider him for an IND ATXI given that IND strenght will be their spin & a top glovesman will always be needed.

Healy vs Gilchrist: This should be clear cut.

Cameron vs Lindsay: Lindsay wins given the likely balance of SA ATXI.

Wasim Bari vs Moin Khan:

PAK presuming they pick 6 batsman & Imran @ 7 generally, Bari would get the nod. But if Imran see's it fit to bring himself up to 6 then Moin at his peak 98-2000 would come in @ 7.

Sangakkara vs Kaluwitharana/Amal Silva:

Sangakkara would always have to take the gloves for SRI ATS of their history, given SRI would always need a strong batting line-up.

McCullum vs Parore/Smtih/Wadsworth:

Given NZ only have ONE WC batsman, i'd say McCullum would have to picked for the sake of balance.

 

[Richard]

NZ had at least 3 TBF - Sutcliffe, Turner, Crowe (M), in chronological order.

Arguable that Stewie Dempster was such as well but they weren't Test-class in those days.

 

[fredfertang]

and Martin Donnelly

 

[Ikki]

How the hell can Stewart be a sub-standard keeper, when he was on par with Gilchrist for most of his carrer. Plus at 40 years old wasn't making the kind of mistakes Gilchrist made post 2005 Ashes???

He certainly wasn't on par with Gilchrist, TBF.

 

[aussie]

NZ had at least 3 TBF - Sutcliffe, Turner, Crowe (M), in chronological order

Arguable that Stewie Dempster was such as well but they weren't Test-class in those days. .

and Martin Donnelly

No doubt Turner, Sutcliffe & Donnelly where the WC NZ batsmen of their respecitve times. But at ATXI level, they go down a notch to the "very good" category. Given the default position they have of not facing HIGH quality pace much in their careers.

But at least we know fore SURE Sutcliffe had alot of spine given what he did vs SA in 1953.After being hit on the head by Adcock & coming back out to bat. I've read he was never the same after that incident.

Dempster well no doubt he was special talent of the early days of NZ cricket. But i'd say its a bit of stretch to put him in the world-class category.

 

[aussie]

He certainly wasn't on par with Gilchrist, TBF.

I honestly don't think there was much of a difference. You can say maybe Gilly would have been better off againts the spin given he had to deal with Warne, MacGill & Miller.

But remembering Stewart in PAK & SRI 2000/01 on some difficult wickets againts Giles, Croft he was very tidy.

Plus as i said Stewart was better than Gilchrist towards the end of their careers.

 

[Richard]

He certainly wasn't on par with Gilchrist, TBF.

Yeah, Stewart was for a fair while quite a bit better than Gilchrist, judging on what I saw - which was lots of Stewart and not an incredibly large amount of Gilchrist.

Someone who saw otherwise (ie, lots of Gilchrist and not much of Stewart) might well think otherwise.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim Bari vs Moin Khan:

PAK presuming they pick 6 batsman & Imran @ 7 generally, Bari would get the nod. But if Imran see's it fit to bring himself up to 6 then Moin at his peak 98-2000 would come in @ 7.

I saw Moin for most of his career, and even at his peak, he was never as safe or clean as Bari for keeper. If you are going to pick a keeper, batting should be a second factor unless its a freak like Gilchrist who was excellent with the gloves but amazing with the bat.

I would always go with Rashid Lateef for Pakistan. At his peak, between 93-97, he was the best keeper in the game, and unlike Bari, was no mug with the bat either.

 

[aussie]

Wasim Bari vs Moin Khan:

PAK presuming they pick 6 batsman & Imran @ 7 generally, Bari would get the nod. But if Imran see's it fit to bring himself up to 6 then Moin at his peak 98-2000 would come in @ 7.

I saw Moin for most of his career, and even at his peak, he was never as safe or clean as Bari for keeper. If you are going to pick a keeper, batting should be a second factor unless its a freak like Gilchrist who was excellent with the gloves but amazing with the bat.

I would always go with Rashid Lateef for Pakistan. At his peak, between 93-97, he was the best keeper in the game, and unlike Bari, was no mug with the bat either.

Yea Latif was also a better keeper than Moin. I never saw him at his 93-97 peak but even when he came back in 2001, he was extremely impressive.

But as i suggested. if you have a hypotetical situation where PAK wanted to pick 5 bowlers in a test, with Imran coming up to bat @ 6. You need a keeper who can bat @ 7, dont you reckon then Moin would become the best option, even though his keeping may not be super solid?

 

[Ikki]

I honestly don't think there was much of a difference. You can say maybe Gilly would have been better off againts the spin given he had to deal with Warne, MacGill & Miller.

But remembering Stewart in PAK & SRI 2000/01 on some difficult wickets againts Giles, Croft he was very tidy.

Plus as i said Stewart was better than Gilchrist towards the end of their careers.

Stewart was pretty good, but is mostly given too much credit since he wasn't expected to be as good as he ended up. Gilchrist on the other hand was very very good, and tidy to all kinds of bowling. I am not sure his athleticism is matched by any wicket-keeper I've seen and he often made catches most keepers would have trouble getting a glove on.

I can comfortably say you are overestimating how good Stewart was. I wouldn't let Richard sway you into thinking him that good.

Anyway, I think I see why you would place Stewart ahead of Knott, when you think he was as good as Gilchrist, but I think a lot of people will disagree with him being good enough to take the gloves in an all-time XI for England. And unlike some others, for me, it is not because I think you MUST have a pure glovesman, but because I think him not being as good as the other glovesmen in the other alltime XI teams will actually be more detrimental than the upside he'll bring in batting depth.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim Bari vs Moin Khan:

PAK presuming they pick 6 batsman & Imran @ 7 generally, Bari would get the nod. But if Imran see's it fit to bring himself up to 6 then Moin at his peak 98-2000 would come in @ 7.


Yea Latif was also a better keeper than Moin. I never saw him at his 93-97 peak but even when he came back in 2001, he was extremely impressive.

But as i suggested. if you have a hypotetical situation where PAK wanted to pick 5 bowlers in a test, with Imran coming up to bat @ 6. You need a keeper who can bat @ 7, dont you reckon then Moin would become the best option, even though his keeping may not be super solid?

Latif and Moin actually had the same batting average. Sure, Moin was a better bat, but not significantly better like Gilchrist to make keeping a non-issue. If I had to pick between the two, I would pick Latif knowing I would be getting the best keeper possible who was not a walking wicket like Bari. Latif is a good comprimise between Bari and Moin.

 

[aussie]

Latif and Moin actually had the same batting average. Sure, Moin was a better bat, but not significantly better like Gilchrist to make keeping a non-issue. If I had to pick between the two, I would pick Latif knowing I would be getting the best keeper possible who was not a walking wicket like Bari. Latif is a good comprimise between Bari and Moin.

I like this reasoning. Agreed 100%.