The stats do not do him justice!

[aussie]

Stewart was pretty good, but is mostly given too much credit since he wasn't expected to be as good as he ended up.

Fair point. But the fact that he did keep so well, theirfore he should be given extra credit. When in fact he is seriously under-rated as a glovesman. Calling him a sub-standard keeper as LT suggested is crap.

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'd be willing to put Healy, Latif, Mongia, Ruusell, Read () ahead of him in the athleticism area in my time of watching cricket.

Which ultimately the difference between the excellent glovesmen like Knott, Evans, Grout, Tallon, Cameron, Oldfied to the very good glovesman of Gilchrist, Lindsay, Stewart, Dujon etc

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

Ha, nah.

Its simply the fact that in my lifetime of watching cricket 1997 to now. It just happened to be cover the entire carrer of Gilchrist, i've seen all of his test live except tours NZ 2000 & 2005. Plus the period when Stewart coincedentally kept for an extended period, and i cant split them as glovesmen TBF.

Big Rich agreeing, is likely because he has skyports like myself & should have had similar TV view of these two over their careers.

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.

All true. I have thought long and hard about this. Once ENG ATXI picks 5 bowlers, Stewart is the best option behind the stumps.

The only compromise i can see that would be best suited for picking Knott indefinately, as you yourself suggested before is picking 6 pure batsmen:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
KP/Dexter
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Snow
Statham

...So you sacrificing the spinner. Unless you have faith in Botham as one of 3 seamers, then you can drop one of Snow/Staham for one of Verity/Underwood.

 

[The Sean]

Thought Kirmani averaged something like 26?

Certainly a considerably inferior batsman to his predecessor.

Think it was 27/28 off the top of my head - or "nearly 30" as I said. You're right, not as good a bat as Engineer, but better than Bari, which is who I was comparing him to.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

I'm no longer bothering with aussie's inane rambling as it sends me to sleep, so I'll quote this post instead.

I don't believe you pick the best wicketkeeper "regardless". The point is that if you're not going to pick the best wicketkeeper the keeper you do pick has to be of a certain standard. There was little to choose between Knott and Taylor as keepers and Knott was so good that you lost nothing by choosing him even if you think Taylor is the better keeper.
Stewart on the other hand is not a very good keeper so putting him in an All Time XI is completely ridiculous - a case could be argued for Les Ames because by all accounts he was a high quality keeper.
Over the last few years the only two quality keepers England have had are Foster and Read and they should have played even if they had to bat at 8 or 9. Throwing the gloves to inadequate keepers who can bat makes no sense at all. If any of them were Test class keepers remotely close to Read or Foster then there could be a case for their inclusion.
Wanting Test class cricketers playing for England isn't ideology, it's common sense.
Some might jump in and argue that Stewart was a Test class keeper, that depends on how low you set your standards, but the bunch that have been rotated in the last four years certainly aren't.

 

[GIMH]

I largely disagree with the notion of Read being all-that as a keeper to be honest. He's got good hands, yeah, but he leaves a lot of catches to first slip that he should be going for (Geraint Jones was panned - rightly - for often doing the opposite). Well, I haven't watched him keep since his last couple of stints in the England side, but it was a big problem throughout. I'm no expert on wicketkeeping but it stood out.

 

[Richard]

I'm no longer bothering with aussie's inane rambling as it sends me to sleep, so I'll quote this post instead.

I don't believe you pick the best wicketkeeper "regardless". The point is that if you're not going to pick the best wicketkeeper the keeper you do pick has to be of a certain standard. There was little to choose between Knott and Taylor as keepers and Knott was so good that you lost nothing by choosing him even if you think Taylor is the better keeper.
Stewart on the other hand is not a very good keeper so putting him in an All Time XI is completely ridiculous - a case could be argued for Les Ames because by all accounts he was a high quality keeper.
Over the last few years the only two quality keepers England have had are Foster and Read and they should have played even if they had to bat at 8 or 9. Throwing the gloves to inadequate keepers who can bat makes no sense at all. If any of them were Test class keepers remotely close to Read or Foster then there could be a case for their inclusion.
Wanting Test class cricketers playing for England isn't ideology, it's common sense.
Some might jump in and argue that Stewart was a Test class keeper, that depends on how low you set your standards, but the bunch that have been rotated in the last four years certainly aren't.

I for one have never remotely suggested they are - I'm as appalled as the next man by some of those who've been picked to keep wicket in Tests for England in the last four years. I've said throughout the time I've understood cricket that any wicketkeeper has to be of a certain standard.

I simply do not agree remotely with the ideology that if you have a very good batting line-up it doesn't really matter whether your wicketkeeper bats. By all accounts Don Tallon was a fair bit better than Ian Healy as a wicketkeeper but if the choice was between the two of them I'd have Healy without a backward thought, for any side, however strong the batting, because he was a better batsman by far and a very good rather than brilliant wicketkeeper.

The notion that Stewart was not good enough to keep wicket for an all-time England team is not completely stupid; the notion that he was a poor-quality wicketkeeper is, because he quite simply was not. I'd have Ames over him any time. But I'd also have Ames over Knott, because there's little doubt Ames was the better batsman and the difference in wicketkeeping was probably about the same as that between Tallon and Healy.

Stewart was easily good enough to keep wicket for England at the time he did, and had he kept for longer than he ended-up doing England's side would in all likelihood have been stronger for it. Yes, if a Knott or Ames was around he'd never have kept if they were fit, but if it was a case of picking a Read\Foster\Russell\Evans over Stewart I'd never remotely countenance it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I for one have never remotely suggested they are - I'm as appalled as the next man by some of those who've been picked to keep wicket in Tests for England in the last four years. I've said throughout the time I've understood cricket that any wicketkeeper has to be of a certain standard.

I simply do not agree remotely with the ideology that if you have a very good batting line-up it doesn't really matter whether your wicketkeeper bats. By all accounts Don Tallon was a fair bit better than Ian Healy as a wicketkeeper but if the choice was between the two of them I'd have Healy without a backward thought, for any side, however strong the batting, because he was a better batsman by far and a very good rather than brilliant wicketkeeper.

The notion that Stewart was not good enough to keep wicket for an all-time England team is not completely stupid; the notion that he was a poor-quality wicketkeeper is, because he quite simply was not. I'd have Ames over him any time. But I'd also have Ames over Knott, because there's little doubt Ames was the better batsman and the difference in wicketkeeping was probably about the same as that between Tallon and Healy.

Stewart was easily good enough to keep wicket for England at the time he did, and had he kept for longer than he ended-up doing England's side would in all likelihood have been stronger for it. Yes, if a Knott or Ames was around he'd never have kept if they were fit, but if it was a case of picking a Read\Foster\Russell\Evans over Stewart I'd never remotely countenance it.

I'm not really interested in re-hashing the Stewart discussion, I was just correcting what has been said about always picking the best wicketkeeper irrespective of anything else.
Healy over Tallon is a good example as he was a high quality keeper whether he was as good as Tallon or not. Stewart on the other hand was not a high quality keeper and therefore not an alternative to Knott.

 

[Richard]

I'm not really interested in re-hashing the Stewart discussion, I was just correcting what has been said about always picking the best wicketkeeper irrespective of anything else.

I didn't quite say that, and made it particularly clear that I didn't quite say that. I very specifically and deliberately inserted an "almost" in there.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I didn't quite say that, and made it particularly clear that I didn't quite say that. I very specifically and deliberately inserted an "almost" in there.

I know. As I said in the post, I quoted your post to deliberately avoid quoting aussie. (Rather childish I suppose but no man is an island).

 

[aussie]

I know. As I said in the post, I quoted your post to deliberately avoid quoting aussie. (Rather childish I suppose but no man is an island).

I'm no longer bothering with aussie's inane rambling as it sends me to sleep, so I'll quote this post instead.

The onlt thing isane is your ideological position on the matter. Haha you afraid to quote my posts now. Clear indicator that your losing this debate.

I don't believe you pick the best wicketkeeper "regardless". The point is that if you're not going to pick the best wicketkeeper the keeper you do pick has to be of a certain standard. There was little to choose between Knott and Taylor as keepers and Knott was so good that you lost nothing by choosing him even if you think Taylor is the better keeper.
Stewart on the other hand is not a very good keeper so putting him in an All Time XI is completely ridiculous - a case could be argued for Les Ames because by all accounts he was a high quality keeper.

What makes Stewart not a very good keeper?. You have yet to coherently articulate why this is case. All you have done is ramble with this foolish notion, i have stated clearly why this isn't the case & instead of line by line trying to disapprove this notion, you avoid my posts ha.

Fair enough if some feel uncomfortable with having Stewart in an All Time England XI. But facts remain if you want pick 5-bowlers Stewart suits the balance of the All Time England XI best.

Only way Knott could play if is you want to pick 6 batsman, Bothan @ 7, Knott @ 8.

Over the last few years the only two quality keepers England have had are Foster and Read and they should have played even if they had to bat at 8 or 9. Throwing the gloves to inadequate keepers who can bat makes no sense at all. If any of them were Test class keepers remotely close to Read or Foster then there could be a case for their inclusion.

THIS STATEMENT, further proves contradicts your earlier point that you "don't believe you pick the best wicketkeeper "regardless". . This is idelology of the highest standard. You should join the republican party in the USA.

Given the respective circumstances of both Read & Foster especially THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, for the sake of balance England could have accomodated them just because they where top glovesmen.

Firstly when Read was picked in 99 vs NZ & in WI 04. His inept batting ability seriously affected the balance of England' team, there was no way he could have been persisted with. Any defense of him is not cricket sense.

Of course it unfortunate that Jones was his replacement post 2004. But there is no way ENG could have picked Read in the last few years. FOR THE MAIN REASOSN, that Flintoff's injury's record has dictated that England could never risk him as part of a 4-man attack.

Plus it also would have prevented England in having the 5-man bowling attack that eventually won the Ashes. You see how foolish you sounding now.


Secondly Foster only played in 6 tests vs IND & NZ because Stewart skipped the IND tour because that was the year of September 11th attacks & teams where afraid of touring the sub-continent. There was nothing about Foster's keeping in those 6 tests that suggested that Stewart needed replacing with the gloves.

Wanting Test class cricketers playing for England isn't ideology, it's common sense.

Nobody nor I am debating wanting a test class keeper is common sense. Thats everyones preference. Its all about what the best balance for your side., if circumstances dictate you cant pick the best keeper you can't simple.

The only ideology is your consistent stance that the best keeper MUST BE PICKED ALLLL TIME. As your utter foolish notions that Read & Foster should have played for England in the last few years, regardless of the circumstances that dictated otherwise.

Some might jump in and argue that Stewart was a Test class keeper, that depends on how low you set your standards,.

No. But rather that your criminally under-rated Stewart as a keeeper. Calling him sub-standard has absolutely no merit at all.

Could you tell me how the sub-standard keeping of Stewart was more solid at 40 years old than Gilchirst between ENG 05 - IND 07/08?

but the bunch that have been rotated in the last four years certainly aren't.

True. But fact is England will have to live with Prior for a while yet, especially now that Flintoff is retiring. Picking Foster wont make sense at all in the coming years unless Prior batting declines substantially.

But of course you would discredit all the runs Prior has been scoring now & say Foster should be picked, BUMBACLATHH yo..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The onlt thing isane is your ideological position on the matter. Haha you afraid to quote my posts now. Clear indicator that your losing this debate.

You can interpret it that way if you wish, but it's actually because you're semi-literate, clueless, repetitive and boring - I'm sure the rest of the post would confirm that if I could be bothered reading it.

 

[aussie]

You can interpret it that way if you wish, but it's actually because you're semi-literate, clueless, repetitive and boring - I'm sure the rest of the post would confirm that if I could be bothered reading it.

lame cop out. Typical response from ideologs, now that you cannot come up with any sensible rebuttal to my factual points. You now have resorted to personal insults over a simple cricket debate.

Everyone who has come in this thread has either agreed or seen the basic fact of my argument. While you have just stuck a stick between your ears & said la la la la la la la to everyone.

Just like the republicans in the USA starting conspiracy theories that Obama is a non-america because they can't argue with him factually over any of his government intiatives.

LT you are weak sir. I'm very disappointed in the way you have posted in this thread.

 

[Dissector]

How good a batsman was Les Ames actually? I had a quick look at his record and he averaged 27 against Australia and just 17 in Australia. He seems to have been a minnow-basher averaging 58 against NZ and 50 against West Indies. Knott by contrast made runs against some very good 70's bowling attacks often in difficult situations.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

lame cop out. Typical response from ideologs, now that you cannot come up with any sensible rebuttal to my factual points. You now have resorted to personal insults over a simple cricket debate.

Everyone who has come in this thread has either agreed or seen the basic fact of my argument. While you have just stuck a stick between your ears & said la la la la la la la to everyone.

Just like the republicans in the USA starting conspiracy theories that Obama is a non-america because they can't argue with him factually over any of his government intiatives.

LT you are weak sir. I'm very disappointed in the way you have posted in this thread.

Like I said, how you chose to interpret it is up to you. You're not the first person I've come across who's thinks watching cricket for ten years and playing around with the Statsguru means you know it all and you won't be the last.

 

[Richard]

How good a batsman was Les Ames actually? I had a quick look at his record and he averaged 27 against Australia and just 17 in Australia. He seems to have been a minnow-basher averaging 58 against NZ and 50 against West Indies. Knott by contrast made runs against some very good 70's bowling attacks often in difficult situations.

West Indies were not a substandard side in the 1930s - their bowling alone included the likes of Constantine, Martindale and Griffith. New Zealand were, but even with them excluded Ames' Test record is still excellent.

Until very recently I'd taken Ames' record against Australia for granted as well but SJS posted some dissection of it earlier this thread and it's actually nowhere near as bad as it seems.

 

[aussie]

Like I said, how you chose to interpret it is up to you.

. This is a quite erudite way of making it seem to the odd glancer of this debate in this thread. That I am the rambler & you are the one holding the intellectual beacon in this discussion.

Very clever, you are not fooling anyone though..

You're not the first person I've come across who's thinks watching cricket for ten years and playing around with the Statsguru means you know it all and you won't be the last.

Nope. As a young student of game i read alot, watch alot of videos listen to elders like yourself, parents etc who would have seen great players & come to valid conclusions.

In this debate with Stewart, it a clear case of your holding an ideological stance that "the best keeper" should play all-time. The fact that you keep saying the SIMPLE PLAIN fact that Stewart kept non-stop (excpet for a few tests) between 96-2002/03 is "playing around with stats" proves this. I wonder if all this if you have ever managed to have a look a this time period of cricinfo?

You are not the only older person who has been involved in this debate this time & before. The Sean, SJS, JBHOO1 (from before), Richard (i know u aint all that old dawg haa) etc they all have seen the clear facts in my assertion of Stewart even if they may not feel comfortable personally of having Stewart in their England All Time XIs. While also discreting everything you have said.

The fact that you keep saying the SIMPLE fact that Stewart kept non-stop (excpet for a few tests) between 96-2002/03 is "playing around with stats", continues to show your

So instead this is a case of an arrogant older person, thinking a younger poster who has been viewing the game for less years CANNOT POSSIBLY enligthen you on some facet of the game. Its sad...

 

[Ikki]

The only compromise i can see that would be best suited for picking Knott indefinately, as you yourself suggested before is picking 6 pure batsmen:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
KP/Dexter
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Snow
Statham

...So you sacrificing the spinner. Unless you have faith in Botham as one of 3 seamers, then you can drop one of Snow/Staham for one of Verity/Underwood.

I would drop Statham for Underwood, and I'd have Barrington in there instead of KP/Dexter. That was pretty much my line-up when I listed it here before.

 

[aussie]

West Indies were not a substandard side in the 1930s - their bowling alone included the likes of Constantine, Martindale and Griffith. New Zealand were, but even with them excluded Ames' Test record is still excellent.

Well given you are comparing those fast bowlers to what Knott & Stewart had to face it is sub-standard. The only serious fast bowler as you know that played in the 30s was his team mate Larwood. As well as others like Farnes & Voce.

Until very recently I'd taken Ames' record against Australia for granted as well but SJS posted some dissection of it earlier this thread and it's actually nowhere near as bad as it seems.

Yes it was a bit of a statistical oddity. What SJS dissection did prove was that when at least comparing his batting agains spin vs Stewart, Ames wins given Stewart was always poor againts spin.

But again if its a shoot out to who bats @ 6 in the ENG ATXI. I still feel Stewart has to take the slight upper hand because he of the quality of fast-bowling he faced & did well againts. Ames has a question big question mark there, that in a hypotetical match-up it leaves him a bit too vulnerable to be a pick for that position.

 

[Pigeon]

Behave.



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

Nope. Was just handy.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

...

I'm not sure which bit you're having trouble with here, so I'll try again.

I am not interested the following:
1) A cricketing debate extolling the virtues of selecting poor wicketkeepers.
2) The self congratulatory reasons that exist only in your head for the fact that I can't be bothered with it.

 

[fredfertang]

I am not sure I have picked up on all the nuances of this particular "debate" but if I have understood it correctly the issue is whether a great keeper, such as Alan Knott, or a merely very good keeper, who is a frontline batsman, like Alec Stewart, would keep for an all time England XI?

I can't see anywhere that LT has stated in terms that if Knott batted like, with all due respect to him, Monty Panesar, he should be included irrespective of his lack of batting ability.

Now Alan Knott is the best keeper I've ever seen without a shadow of doubt. I tend to support LT's argument that if you've got the best five/six batsman of all time in your order that you shouldn't be compromising lower down the order just in case that top order fails you so Knott would be one of my eleven names irrespective, but with Knotty it doesn't, in fact, matter one iota anyway.

If you need runs from your keeper then it's because you're in trouble - as I tried to point out earlier in the thread Knott was a magnificent batsman in a crisis so if you don't trust the top six I'd pick him to shore up the batting anyway, irrespective of his wicketkeeping ability!