The stats do not do him justice!

[aussie]

Leaving aside the fact that you think there were Ashes in 2004, it is entirely hypothetical what would have happened had England's line-up been different.

Oh geez, im not saying the Ashes where in 2004. I was refering to when Read was dropped i.e Antigua 04 - you know the test Lara make 400 not out?? Christ.

If as you claim Read or Foster should have played regardless. One of Harmison/Jones/Hoggard/Giles would have to be dropped. Which thank god Duncan Fletcher would never have done.

What you fail to grasp is that I haven't said you have to play your best keeper.

Correction. You in the last few posts are retracting that earlier stance. This statement proves unequivocally, that you did say that.

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.

You do however have to play one of Test standard. Throwing the gloves to someone who's primarily a batsman balances nothing.

For once could you explain in detail why Stewart wasn't a test standard keeper??.

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.

Yes poor grammar & slight inaccurate facts by me. Let me correct it.

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

 

[Ikki]

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.

I can't get the stats where Underwood played on unaffected pitches but I am under the impression that he could hold his own surely. It was just that he could destroy and decimate a line-up if the pitches were affected. Anyway, I'd invite him still for reasons of balance. I think a spinner of that class is needed more than a fourth seamer that would not bring anything different to the 3 already there.

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.

I wouldn't pick Stewart as a keeper because he was simply a decent keeper and nothing more. You tend to think he was as good as Gilchrist and, simply said, I disagree with that a lot. In fact, other than you and Richard, I have never heard him spoken of even remotely in that bracket.

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.

Only Tiger and Clarrie. Gibbs, not even close.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh geez, im not saying the Ashes where in 2004. I was refering to when Read was dropped i.e Antigua 04 - you know the test Lara make 400 not out?? Christ.

If as you claim Read or Foster should have played regardless. One of Harmison/Jones/Hoggard/Giles would have to be dropped. Which thank god Duncan Fletcher would never have done.



Correction. You in the last few posts are retracting that earlier stance. This statement proves unequivocally, that you did say that.





For once could you explain in detail why Stewart wasn't a test standard keeper??.





Yes poor grammar & slight inaccurate facts by me. Let me correct it.

Okay I misread your badly worded first sentence and withdraw that remark.

Considering Jones contribution with the bat was about 200 runs and by the end of the series he was batting at 8 anyway (due to Simon Jones being injured and England playing the extra batsman), playing Read as a direct replacement would have made little difference.

I'm not retracting anything. The statement you're so fond of quoting says "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."

They are the best keepers AND none of those chosen instead are of Test class so one of them should have played.


As far as Stewart goes I'm not sure what detail you're expecting. I formed an opinion of him based on watching him keep and he was thoroughly untidy in his glove work, his footwork and receiving the ball from the outfield. If you want a blaze of stats you can start looking elsewhere.

 

[aussie]

Considering Jones contribution with the bat was about 200 runs and by the end of the series he was batting at 8 anyway, playing Read as a direct replacement would have made little difference..

At time although Jones contribution with the gloves was really bad. Dropping him for 5th test, given S Jones was out i tend to agree. But of course Fletcher & Vaughan would never have done it.

But lets not forget Jones glovework between PAK 05 to PAK 06 improved a great deal. When Read was recalled vs PAK 06 when Jones was failing with the blade, with the thought was that his batting had improved that wasn't the case. Plus Read's keeping had declined from the standards he set in 2004. So he affected the balance of batting, plus his glovework was pretty much on par with Jones ATT. England gained nothing.

I'm not retracting anything. The statement you're so fond of quoting says "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."

They are the best keepers AND none of those chosen instead are of Test class so one of them should have played.

So what?. There was no instance between 1999 to now that Foster & Read HAD TO BE PICKED, given that their lack of proper batting would have affected the balance of the England team. Plus given Flintoff's injury record England could not afford to pick him as part of a 4-man attack.

It was an unfortuante predicament that England where forced to deal with. You cannot foolishly without no creditable facts, say that Read & Foster should have ALWAYS played.

As far as Stewart goes I'm not sure what detail you're expecting. I formed an opinion of him based on watching him keep and he was thoroughly untidy in his glove work, his footwork and receiving the ball from the outfield. If you want a blaze of stats you can start looking elsewhere.

Well thats opinion i incorrect. The example i've used before how can Stewart be sub-standard when at 40 years old in 2003, he was more solid than Gilchrist in the last 3 years of his carrer?

You want to see Stewart keeping at his best?. I have some old tapes of the 6 tests of winter 2000/01 on some difficult wickets, him keeping Giles & Croft. If you wish i am willing to send to you via mail or we cant meet up one day & i'll lend you them.

 

[aussie]

I can't get the stats where Underwood played on unaffected pitches but I am under the impression that he could hold his own surely. It was just that he could destroy and decimate a line-up if the pitches were affected.

Yea he would definately stand up. Just that its clear he as more devastating on uncovered pitches than normal wickets. Look at his record vs WI - the best players of spin in his era. They handled him quite comfortably, but he never caught them on an uncovered wicket.

His record to me as always reminded me of Kumble.

Anyway, I'd invite him still for reasons of balance. I think a spinner of that class is needed more than a fourth seamer that would not bring anything different to the 3 already there.

Not entirely you know:

- Trueman 90 mph, outswing specialist
- Snow 90 mph, inswing specialist, Very good with the old ball.
- Statham 85-90 mph. The metronome. Top quality seam movement.
- Botham. Swing specialist.

So that 4-man pace attack is full of variety.

I wouldn't pick Stewart as a keeper because he was simply a decent keeper and nothing more. You tend to think he was as good as Gilchrist and, simply said, I disagree with that a lot. In fact, other than you and Richard, I have never heard him spoken of even remotely in that bracket.

I need to get you that tape as well.

The question that i've continously asked. Gilchrist declined a great deal from the 2005 Ashes - IND 07/08. Stewart at 40 years old in 2003, was not making those mistakes. What does that tell you?

Only Tiger and Clarrie. Gibbs, not even close.

Don't be so harsh on Lance. Wasn't a pretty off-spinner like Laker or Prasanna, but batsmen of his era never really got on top of him.

 

[Ikki]

Not entirely you know:

- Trueman 90 mph, outswing specialist
- Snow 90 mph, inswing specialist, Very good with the old ball.
- Statham 85-90 mph. The metronome. Top quality seam movement.
- Botham. Swing specialist.

So that 4-man pace attack is full of variety.

Pretty much any 4 all-time pace bowlers is going to have variety. But they will not vary as much as a pace-bowler to a spinner. In fact, I probably wouldn't have Underwood as I'd have Barnes. But since you don't accept his record, I deviated.

Trueman, Snow, Botham and Barnes. A great, great attack.

I need to get you that tape as well.

The question that i've continously asked. Gilchrist declined a great deal from the 2005 Ashes - IND 07/08. Stewart at 40 years old in 2003, was not making those mistakes. What does that tell you?

Not much, and if that's what your basing your judgement on I don't know what to say. Even towards the end Gilchrist was one of the best keepers in the world, he just wasn't upto his own standards. Stewart was slow, untidy and clearly a level below. The fact that at his best he was no better than Gilchrist at his worst should say something here.

Don't be so harsh on Lance. Wasn't a pretty off-spinner like Laker or Prasanna, but batsmen of his era never really got on top of him.

I'd say Australia and New Zealand certainly got ontop of him. And, really, his record is not impressive at all. Averages 29 and strikes at 88. He is not even in the same post-code as Warne, etc.

 

[aussie]

Pretty much any 4 all-time pace bowlers is going to have variety. But they will not vary as much as a pace-bowler to a spinner. In fact, I probably wouldn't have Underwood as I'd have Barnes. But since you don't accept his record, I deviated.

Trueman, Snow, Botham and Barnes. A great, great attack.

Oh no no. I 100% accept his record. What bothers me is that bowlers like Barnes, Tate, Bedser where pretty much an extinct breed by mid 1950s, i just won't pick them over Snow or Statham.

Barnes over Underwood could work there yea, the idea of the kind of bowler he was according to quote i read Bradman once say, was that he was similar to O'Reilly.

But i'd love to see some creditable bowling clips of his too be 100% certain of his bowling style, too bad non-exist excpet some flat footage when he was 50+ years old haa.

Not much, and if that's what your basing your judgement on I don't know what to say. Even towards the end Gilchrist was one of the best keepers in the world, he just wasn't upto his own standards. Stewart was slow, untidy and clearly a level below. The fact that at his best he was no better than Gilchrist at his worst should say something here..

Ha na na na at alllll. Gilchrist declined very much past his standards from Ashes 05 to IND 07/08. I was at the Old Trafford test 2005, when i reckon Gilly had his worst ever test with the gloves. A easy drop catch off Vaughan, then missing a straight-forward stumping off Warne to dismiss G Jones. It was horrible.

His keeping vs IND 07/08 was poor, he himself said thats the reason he retired.

Stewart was not keeping that badly at the end of his career. Stewart was better than Gilchrist at least at the end of their careers. I'm willing to agree that Gily was better in the others years, MAINLY because of his work keeping to Warne.

I'd say Australia and New Zealand certainly got ontop of him. And, really, his record is not impressive at all. Averages 29 and strikes at 88. He is not even in the same post-code as Warne, etc.

Thats a bit of blind reading of stats though. When Gibbs first faced NZ in 1969, NZ wickets are never that spin friendly, so its no surprise he wasn't that threatening.

In the WI 72, those where some of flattest wickets ever. 5 boring draws proves that. Plus he was passed his peak.

Can't see how AUS got on top of him either. Especially during his peak years in the 60s. His hatrick in Adelaide 61, plus his decimation of them @ Bourda 1965, exposed AUS historical weakness to quality off-spinners.

But yea i agree he aint on the same level as Warne/Murali/Tiger/Grims. Just that when conditions suited he was as good as any spinner in history.

 

[Richard]

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.

The standard of bowling was weak in the 1930s undoubtedly (ironically West Indies had one of the best attacks) but West Indies were in no way a substandard team, along the lines of Bangladesh. Their side was a serious one capable of competing at Test level with a good few quality players.

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.

I'm not neccessarily saying Ames was a better batsman than Stewart - though it is eminently possible. Merely that Ames' apparently poor record against Australia is sometimes held as clear proof that he wasn't really much of a batsman, and looking again after SJS's post such a notion is clearly eminently false.

 

[Richard]

Stewart was found wanting with both bat (in the middle order) and gloves at the highest level

In reality he was nothing of the sort - but some people had made-up their minds by 1996, and nothing was ever going to change it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So what?. There was no instance between 1999 to now that Foster & Read HAD TO BE PICKED, given that their lack of proper batting would have affected the balance of the England team. Plus given Flintoff's injury record England could not afford to pick him as part of a 4-man attack.

It was an unfortuante predicament that England where forced to deal with. You cannot foolishly without no creditable facts, say that Read & Foster should have ALWAYS played.

]Well thats opinion i incorrect. The example i've used before how can Stewart be sub-standard when at 40 years old in 2003, he was more solid than Gilchrist in the last 3 years of his carrer?

You want to see Stewart keeping at his best?. I have some old tapes of the 6 tests of winter 2000/01 on some difficult wickets, him keeping Giles & Croft. If you wish i am willing to send to you via mail or we cant meet up one day & i'll lend you them.

The only relevant "creditable fact" is that none of the merry-go-round of batsman who've been given the gloves during the last four years have performed consistently in either role rendering the selection policy an abject failure.

I don't need to see tapes of Stewarts keeping to know how he performed. To be charitable about him you could argue that he was poor to start with but was allowed to learn on the job and as a result was bordering on adequate for much of his tenure and by the end had become semi-proficient. You could also argue that he was never good enough to be selected in the first place and was allowed far too much leeway for a Test cricketer to learn his trade at the highest level.

 

[Richard]

Stewart was always good enough to play as a batsman - well, at least, after a year in the side he was. Whether he should ever have kept wicket in the early days is a moot point - I can to some extent understand why he did, but had England not kept going behind in series' he'd very probably not have done so and the wicketkeeping position would've been stronger for it - but once he became good enough with the gloves to do the job full-time it'd have been mad to waste the opportunity.

What I suppose would've been best was if Stewart had either a) been an earlier learner (he was 33 by the time he finally attained the required level of wicketkeeping proficiency) or b) had played only ever as a batsman only until 1996/97. But when he did play, between 1991 and 1996, he justified his selection on batting alone, regardless of what might be said about his wicketkeeping.

 

[The Sean]

Nope. Was just handy.

The "IMO" and "for a 'keeper" were the giveaways in my post I reckon. Anyway...

 

[slippyslip]

Sachin Tendulkar: Innings 261. Not out 27.

So 10% of the time Tendulkar walks out to bat he doesnt get out. Theres no doubt that Tendulkar's average is bloated by his not outs.

Brian Lara: Innings 232. Not outs 6.

Of course the standard device for working out batting averages is runs divided dismissals. However, if you do total innings (regardless of getting out or not) Tendulkar's average is 48.9 whereas Lara's is 51.5. Lara averaged 91.2 runs per test. Tendulkar averages 80.3

Ponting's per inninngs average is 49.77 and per test 83.9.

Lara's average doesnt do justice to him. Lara could by counted per innings, and per match, to deliver more runs than either Ponting or Tendulkar.

 

[aussie]

The only relevant "creditable fact" is that none of the merry-go-round of batsman who've been given the gloves during the last four years have performed consistently in either role rendering the selection policy an abject failure.

Well say that. Dont say Stewart was a sub-standard glovesman. Thats 100% false.

I don't need to see tapes of Stewarts keeping to know how he performed. To be charitable about him you could argue that he was poor to start with but was allowed to learn on the job and as a result was bordering on adequate for much of his tenure and by the end had become semi-proficient. You could also argue that he was never good enough to be selected in the first place and was allowed far too much leeway for a Test cricketer to learn his trade at the highest level.

Well Richard rebutted this well enough, so i shall not deliberate until you respond to his post.

 

[aussie]

The standard of bowling was weak in the 1930s undoubtedly (ironically West Indies had one of the best attacks) but West Indies were in no way a substandard team, along the lines of Bangladesh. Their side was a serious one capable of competing at Test level with a good few quality players.

Ye no doubt the WI where a level about BANG currently. But the standard of fast-bowling is still way below what Knott & Stewart faced.

I'm not neccessarily saying Ames was a better batsman than Stewart - though it is eminently possible. Merely that Ames' apparently poor record against Australia is sometimes held as clear proof that he wasn't really much of a batsman, and looking again after SJS's post such a notion is clearly eminently false.

Yea well fair enough.

 

[marc71178]

Well say that. Dont say Stewart was a sub-standard glovesman. Thats 100% false.

If you're discussing all time teams then it was

Ye no doubt the WI where a level about BANG currently. But the standard of fast-bowling is still way below what Knott & Stewart faced.

Yes, but when Stewart was keeping, he didn't really perform against the best attacks, or to that degree, many attacks at all.

When not keeping, he was a world class opening batsman (averaging 46-47 or so)

Biggest mistake made by the selectors of the 90s.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well say that. Dont say Stewart was a sub-standard glovesman. Thats 100% false.



Well Richard rebutted this well enough, so i shall not deliberate until you respond to his post.

It's not 100% false, it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion Stewart wasn't good enough to keep wicket at Test level amd certainly not a candidate to be the best option for an All-Time XI.

Your love-in with Richard is very moving but I'm not sure exactly what he's rebutted. As far as I can see he agrees that Stewart wasn't good enough to keep wicket in his early days and it's open to debate whether he should have been allowed so much time to learn on the job to reach the level he eventually did.

 

[Ikki]

Sachin Tendulkar: Innings 261. Not out 27.

So 10% of the time Tendulkar walks out to bat he doesnt get out. Theres no doubt that Tendulkar's average is bloated by his not outs.

Brian Lara: Innings 232. Not outs 6.

Of course the standard device for working out batting averages is runs divided dismissals. However, if you do total innings (regardless of getting out or not) Tendulkar's average is 48.9 whereas Lara's is 51.5. Lara averaged 91.2 runs per test. Tendulkar averages 80.3

Ponting's per inninngs average is 49.77 and per test 83.9.

Lara's average doesnt do justice to him. Lara could by counted per innings, and per match, to deliver more runs than either Ponting or Tendulkar.

I like the per Innings stat as it tells you much about Lara. But per Test is a bit misleading because a player can play 2 tests yet only bat 2 innings whereas a different player can play 1 test and bat 2 innings.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but when Stewart was keeping, he didn't really perform against the best attacks, or to that degree, many attacks at all.

When not keeping, he was a world class opening batsman (averaging 46-47 or so)

Biggest mistake made by the selectors of the 90s.

Stewart played many outstanding knocks against good attacks as wicketkeeper from 1996/97 onwards, none better than his 160-odd against South Africa at Old Trafford in 1998. And he actually performed better as a specialist middle-order batsman than as a specialist opener 1991-1999, when not wearing the gloves in either position.

Still, the oversimplified spoon-fed stuff is best for some people.

 

[aussie]

It's not 100% false, it's a matter of opinion.

Well if ATS you still have that opinion, its a dangerously poor one. Again i suggest lending those tapes of 2000/01 winter where he had his most challenging keeping conditions, since after all keeping to spin is the acid test for any keeper right?. Stewart was solid then.

I fear some of foolish nostaligia held againts Stewart's keeping was because like a Knott he never got to keep to any truly great bowlers.

In my opinion Stewart wasn't good enough to keep wicket at Test level amd certainly not a candidate to be the best option for an All-Time XI.

If you want to pick 5 bowlers then he is. But after going through this debate i've realised that ENG ATXI cant pick 5-bowlers, given the question marks over Botham & the unfortunate reluctance for those to pick Stewart in the ATXI.

So i've resorted to this:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Snow
Underwood/Statham - depening on conditions

Your love-in with Richard is very moving but I'm not sure exactly what he's rebutted. As far as I can see he agrees that Stewart wasn't good enough to keep wicket in his early days and it's open to debate whether he should have been allowed so much time to learn on the job to reach the level he eventually did.

I dont understand the logic here. Thats like saying whether Steve Waugh shouldn't have been allowed to so much time in the AUS team due to his sub-standard test batting for 8 years, before he became the superb test match batsman in the mid-90 that he is remembered for.

The fact Stewart BECAME test quality with the gloves from 96-2003. Thats facts, no going around that.

Haa @ love affair. Richard just knows wats up. I think an underlying problem with this Stewart debate is i fear is the lack of skysports