The stats do not do him justice!

[aussie]

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.

Ha, still calling Stewart a poor keeper i see. Unless you can clearly articulate why this is the case. This point of your has absolutely no merit.

2) The self congratulatory reasons that exist only in your head for the fact that I can't be bothered with it.

Haaa. You are the one that resorted to personal insults over this simple debate, when someone does that its always means you have run out of factual arguments to contribute.

 

[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.

 

[aussie]

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.

He has:

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.

For all who has followed England's team from 99 to now, would know why this is not cricket sense.

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!

All you have said about Knott is 100% true.

The highlighted part is key. If you picking 5 batsmen. The problem problem with picking Knott @ 7, is the fact that Botham @ 6 in an ATXI is too high, given his failures vs WI at this peak.

That certainly weakens the batting since Botham @ 6 in hypotetical match-ups vs the bowling attacks vs WI, AUS, SA, PAK, IND (at home) becomes hit and miss.

If you pick 6 pure batsman, Botham @ 7. I have no problem with Knott playing. Its just a matter of balance.

 

[aussie]

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.

Oh you are a stick record now. Post it again i still dont get it...

 

[aussie]

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.

Yea well i like this line-up. But surely in a hypotetical match-up in English conditions, there is strong case for picking 4-seamers.

Plus the reason i chose KP/Dexter of Barrington is well, i prefer a counter attacking player @ 6 instead of a stonewaller.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

You're right I have never said that. What I did say was that he should play irrespective of his batting ability IF there isn't another keeper of Test Match class available.
Of course anyone who doesn't understand what a top class keeper brings to the fielding side would argue against that and say someone like Prior scoring a half century makes up for his inept keeping (yes, he's doing okay at the moment) - and that's the sort of argument I can't be bothered having.

 

[aussie]

You're right I have never said that. What I did say was that he should play irrespective of his batting ability IF there isn't another keeper of Test Match class available.

Yes but you still failed to accept the achillies heel Botham's batting brings batting @ 6 potentially. If you want to pick 5 bowlers in the All Time XI.

Of course anyone who doesn't understand what a top class keeper brings to the fielding side would argue against that and say someone like Prior scoring a half century makes up for his inept keeping (yes, he's doing okay at the moment) - and that's the sort of argument I can't be bothered having.

Well now you making sense. Since its a pull back from your earlier drivel:

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.

.

Of course even though Prior is doing well ATM, there is still always a bit of worry about him. His catch to dismiss North really shows he is really improving, so maybe we can sleep a bit easier.

In a perfect world, i'd have Foster keeping & would allow Prior to play as a # 6 batsman. But for balance sake, especially with Freddie retiring that can never happen in the near future.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes but you still failed to accept the achillies heel Botham's batting brings batting @ 6 potentially. If you want to pick 5 bowlers in the All Time XI.



Well now you making sense. Since its a pull back from your earlier drivel:

I don't accept that Botham can't bat at 6 behind 5 top class batsman with Knott following at 7.

It's not a pull back from anything, it's what I said.

 

[aussie]

I don't accept that Botham can't bat at 6 behind 5 top class batsman with Knott following at 7.

Botham failed againts the West Indies at his peak with the bat. How then can he be entrusted to bat @ 6 in a hypotetical ATXI match-ups, when he will be facing that standard of bowling which he failed againts vs AUS, SA, WI, PAK?.

It's not a pull back from anything, it's what I said.

Ha. So you are saying these in these two statements of yours, you are making the same point?

Of course anyone who doesn't understand what a top class keeper brings to the fielding side would argue against that and say someone like Prior scoring a half century makes up for his inept keeping (yes, he's doing okay at the moment) - and that's the sort of argument I can't be bothered having.

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.

 

[marc71178]

Botham failed againts the West Indies at his peak with the bat. How then can he be entrusted to bat @ 6 in a hypotetical ATXI match-ups, when he will be facing that standard of bowling which he failed againts vs AUS, SA, WI, PAK?.

Stewart was found wanting with both bat (in the middle order) and gloves at the highest level, but you're happy to put him there

 

[Ikki]

Yea well i like this line-up. But surely in a hypotetical match-up in English conditions, there is strong case for picking 4-seamers.

Plus the reason i chose KP/Dexter of Barrington is well, i prefer a counter attacking player @ 6 instead of a stonewaller.

In a team that'll likely have Botham batting at 7, I think Barrington is a must at 6. Then Botham and Knott at 7 & 8 is a pretty strong tail. You have 1 very good seamer, 2 great seamers and 1 great spinner. All-set IMO.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Botham failed againts the West Indies at his peak with the bat. How then can he be entrusted to bat @ 6 in a hypotetical ATXI match-ups, when he will be facing that standard of bowling which he failed againts vs AUS, SA, WI, PAK?.



Ha. So you are saying these in these two statements of yours, you are making the same point?

If you're using stats to say Botham is bound to fail then you can use them to say it doesn't matter as the top 5 are bound to succeed.

Yes they are making exactly the same point.

 

[aussie]

Stewart was found wanting with both bat (in the middle order) and gloves at the highest level, but you're happy to put him there

In the period he kept consistenty instead of being constantly rotated.That was clearly not the case.Plus if you can remember any test in this period where his glovework was "found wanting", kindly highlight.

 

[aussie]

If you're using stats to say Botham is bound to fail then you can use them to say it doesn't matter as the top 5 are bound to succeed..

Would that top 5 succeed everytime they come out to bat againts the some of highest quality of bowling ever put together?. Definately not.

So theirfore for the safety & the sake of getting the best balance depending on whether England want to accomodate 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers. Sir Ian can't bat higher than 7.

Yes they are making exactly the same point.

Ha, I dont see how thats possible. Clear difference.

But anyway going back to the controversial second quote of yours, since i do agree with the first:

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.

Can you in detail explain on what merit between 1999 to now could England have afforded to pick both Read & Foster consistently?

 

[aussie]

In a team that'll likely have Botham batting at 7, I think Barrington is a must at 6. Then Botham and Knott at 7 & 8 is a pretty strong tail. You have 1 very good seamer, 2 great seamers and 1 great spinner. All-set IMO.

Great yea, but not indespensable like a Warne or Murali. As i said in lets say a hypotetical traditional English test @ the Headingley green-top. Underwood/Verity (still can't spit them personally) could be dropped for Statham for an all-pace attack.

But yea i agree with Barrington now. Since if 4-seamers are picked, his leg-spin along with Compton would be very useful fill in overs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, I dont see how thats possible. Clear difference.

But anyway going back to the controversial second quote of yours, since i do agree with the first:



Can you in detail explain on what merit between 1999 to now could England have afforded to pick both Read & Foster consistently?

The two points were precisely the same.

Details of what? The merit is that they were/are Test class keepers and those selected ahead of them are not. Anything said in terms of what might have been lost in the batting or gained in the fielding is purely hypothetical and can't be measured.

 

[Ikki]

Great yea, but not indespensable like a Warne or Murali. As i said in lets say a hypotetical traditional English test @ the Headingley green-top. Underwood/Verity (still can't spit them personally) could be dropped for Statham for an all-pace attack.

But yea i agree with Barrington now. Since if 4-seamers are picked, his leg-spin along with Compton would be very useful fill in overs.

When you have a spinner in Underwood's class, then for the sake of balance IMO you pick them. There are only 2 other spinners who are in Warne/Murali class, it doesn't mean the rest can't be picked or that they aren't worthwhile.

 

[aussie]

The two points were precisely the same.

Ha if you say so..

Details of what? The merit is that they were/are Test class keepers and those selected ahead of them are not. Anything said in terms of what might have been lost in the batting or gained in the fielding is purely hypothetical and can't be measured.

Nonsense.

If Chris Read as you claimed should have played & batted even at 8 or 9. It would have in 2004, prevented England from fielding that successful 5-man attack which won them the Ashes.

Secondly given Flintoff's injury record, England could never afford to play him as part of 4-man attack.

Thats not hypotetical those are hardcore FACTS.

Same thing with Foster. There was nothing in his keeping in the 6 tests he played in 2001/02 summer. That suggested that his keeping was better than Stewart.

The days of Godfrey Evans batting @ 7 are long gone. Of course if you play your best keeper, thats brilliant. But you need to get the best balance possible. You just haven't grasped this idea somehow.

 

[aussie]

When you have a spinner in Underwood's class, then for the sake of balance IMO you pick them.

Underwood does have the little chick in his record that after uncovered wicket ceased to exist in the 70s. His penetration decreased at, his record vs WI proves this. I would think in hypotetical ATXI match-ups they way the WI batsman played him, would be a slight issue for him.

Same worry with Verity. Thats why depending on opposition & conditions Underwood/Verity could be dropped for a pacer in Statham.

This little debate is why i think you will see why picking Stewart @ 6, although it may be perfect to purist. Only then it gives England the option to pick 5 bowlers. Since even with 4bowlers (especially if you want to pick a spinner), you tend to feel againts certain oppositions ENG are a great fast-bowler short.

There are only 3-4 spinners who are in Warne/Murali class, it doesn't mean the rest can't be picked or that they aren't worthwhile.

Well just to make sure we are on the same page. The only spinners that i reckon are in the same class with Warne/Murali would be O'Reilly, Grimmett & maybe Gibbs.

The two AUS spinners already would not play due to Warne & Gibbs is definately indespesable for the WI, given he would only play i would think in the sub-continent or a really slow pitch.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha if you say so..



Nonsense.

If Chris Read as you claimed should have played & batted even at 8 or 9. It would have in 2004, prevented England from fielding that successful 5-man attack which won them the Ashes.

Secondly given Flintoff's injury record, England could never afford to play him as part of 4-man attack.

Thats not hypotetical those are hardcore FACTS.

Same thing with Foster. There was nothing in his keeping in the 6 tests he played in 2001/02 summer. That suggested that his keeping was better than Stewart.

The days of Godfrey Evans batting @ 7 are long gone. Of course if you play your best keeper, thats brilliant. But you need to get the best balance possible. You just haven't grasped this idea somehow.

It is entirely hypothetical what would have happened had England's line-up been different.

What you fail to grasp is that I haven't said you have to play your best keeper. You do however have to play one of Test standard. Throwing the gloves to someone who's primarily a batsman balances nothing.

Incidently if you can't be bothered to read my posts properly you should at least read your own. The following sentence for example"Same thing with Foster. There was nothing in his keeping in the 6 tests he played in 2001/02 summer. That suggested that his keeping was better than Stewart."
By taking so little care over what you write you're actually saying there was nothing in Fosters keeping in those six Tests and his keeping was better than Stewart's.