Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Pratters]

Wow ha, amazing that you can still state this about Stewart when I clearly remember myself, Richard and other posters rubbishing this theory over years on CW.

When England in the 1990s finally decided to stop rotating between Stewart and Russell for the keeper spot after the 1996 home series vs Pakistan, although at times it could be argued England didn't have a choice especially given a lack of an all-rounder - Stewart averaged 37.64 with the bat when he got a better extended run in the role as a versatile batsman + keeper from ZIM 96 - SA 2003 retirement.

There was nothing mediocre about his batting then - All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So are you telling me when Stewart was keeping in the last days of his career in the aforementioned period you had issue with the England selectors playing him because in your opinion his keeping skills were "mediocre" & wanted him dropped?

Also its a grave insult to insult to his keeping skills to throw that slag at him. When he was keeping in ENGs famous away series victories in PAK/SRI 2001 to Giles/Croft on those turning pitches (one of the few times he keeping technique was tested in such a scenario) he passed with flying colours.

But Knott averages 42 at 7 bro.

 

[aussie]

But Knott averages 42 at 7 bro.

Ian Botham bats @ # 7 in my version of the ENG ATXI. Plus in case you missed the comment I did say despite choosing Stewart as keeper in the initial line-up, him and Knott can be rotated depending on match conditions and opposition. A flexibility luxury when selecting one can have when picking a ATXI.

Similarly in a AUS ATXI although i won't start Miller because i reckon a Lille/Lindwall/McGrath/Warne attack is legendary enough to 20 wickets against any batting line-up, their are situations where I would drop a batsman in the Bradman/Ponting/Chappell/Border middle order (not the Don of course ha) and bring in Miller.

 

[marc71178]

Wow ha, amazing that you can still state this about Stewart when I clearly remember myself, Richard and other posters rubbishing this theory over years on CW.

When England in the 1990s finally decided to stop rotating between Stewart and Russell for the keeper spot after the 1996 home series vs Pakistan, although at times it could be argued England didn't have a choice especially given a lack of an all-rounder - Stewart averaged 37.64 with the bat when he got a better extended run in the role as a versatile batsman + keeper from ZIM 96 - SA 2003 retirement.

There was nothing mediocre about his batting then - All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So are you telling me when Stewart was keeping in the last days of his career in the aforementioned period you had issue with the England selectors playing him because in your opinion his keeping skills were "mediocre" & wanted him dropped?

Also its a grave insult to insult to his keeping skills to throw that slag at him. When he was keeping in ENGs famous away series victories in PAK/SRI 2001 to Giles/Croft on those turning pitches (one of the few times he keeping technique was tested in such a scenario) he passed with flying colours.

Stewart was never more than a serviceable keeper, so mediocre is a very apt description of him. I don't care if if you think that you rubbished it. Russell was one of the best keepers ever and almost a good a batsman as the keeper Stewart. Stewart should've just been opening and ignore his so called keeping skills.

 

[aussie]

Stewart was never more than a serviceable keeper, so mediocre is a very apt description of him. I don't care if if you think that you rubbished it. Russell was one of the best keepers ever and almost a good a batsman as the keeper Stewart. Stewart should've just been opening and ignore his so called keeping skills.

Totally DTWA. Stewart was simply a very versatile batsman - a bit like Simon Katich for AUS in the way he could given different roles in the team and be equally competent. Stewart scored hundred's in pretty much every position he batted in for ENG.

He was more than just a serviceable keeper - an actual example of a ENG keeper who was servicable/mediocre was Geraint Jones.

Stewart was better than Prior and if the Stewart/Russell battle was in the 2000s after Gilchrist redefined the role worldwide for teams wanting to have a keeper for their strong batting ability and when England had all-rounders Flintoff & Stokes unlike the 1990s - Russell just like James Foster (who has always been one of the best glovesman in CC & world since 2000) would have never or played very little tests for England.

 

[Red]

If you're gonna pick Stewart as keeper to strengthen the batting down the order, just pick Ames FFS.

Stewart is either a top order batsman or nothing in an ATG context.

 

[cnerd123]

Totally DTWA. Stewart was simply a very versatile batsman - a bit like Simon Katich for AUS in the way he could given different roles in the team and be equally competent. Stewart scored hundred's in pretty much every position he batted in for ENG.

He was more than just a serviceable keeper - an actual example of a ENG keeper who was servicable/mediocre was Geraint Jones.

Stewart was better than Prior and if the Stewart/Russell battle was in the 2000s after Gilchrist redefined the role worldwide for teams wanting to have a keeper for their strong batting ability and when England had all-rounders Flintoff & Stokes unlike the 1990s - Russell just like James Foster (who has always been one of the best glovesman in CC & world since 2000) would have never or played very little tests for England.

In your humble opinion

 

[aussie]

If you're gonna pick Stewart as keeper to strengthen the batting down the order, just pick Ames FFS.

Stewart is either a top order batsman or nothing in an ATG context.

Aww is this discussion getting you mad? What all the cursing about, easy now

No to go into a stick record mode, Stewart was a versatile batsman and could easily bat in the top 6 in set role in an ENG ATG.

Stewart playing in one the toughest batting era in test history would also gives him clear edge over Ames in selection.

 

[Red]

Mad? No. Just baffled at the logic that sees Stewart picked in an ATG team out of position as a keeper.

Stewart was an adequate keeper, nothing more. And he had limitations batting against spin, but he was exceptional against pace. If he were to play in an ATG England team, it's gotta be opening, but it's not gonna be because Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton etc etc

Ask Underwood, SF Barnes or Laker if they are gonna want Stewart keeping, or if they'd prefer Knott, Evans or Ames.

 

[Burgey]

Did Richard change his username to aussie?

 

[aussie]

Mad? No. Just baffled at the logic that sees Stewart picked in an ATG team out of position as a keeper.

Stewart was an adequate keeper, nothing more. And he had limitations batting against spin, but he was exceptional against pace. If he were to play in an ATG England team, it's gotta be opening, but it's not gonna be because Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton etc etc

Ask Underwood, SF Barnes or Laker if they are gonna want Stewart keeping, or if they'd prefer Knott, Evans or Ames.

Its very puzzling this revisionist view of Stewart keeping to just refer it as "adequate" - it was just a good as Prior at his peak for England recently. You need look back a videos of Stewart keeping in Pakistan & Sri Lanka 2001, he would do fine keeping to any great ENG bowler in a hypothetical ATXI.

If Stewart's keeping was just adequate at the back end of his career especially when Hussain was captain & Fletcher was coach, they would not let him kept so often - especially when a Jack Russell like keeper in James Foster was around.

Also as you guys are seriously under-rating how versatile a batsman he was - if the fact the he got 100s in pretty much all the positions he batted in top 7, plus technically has his highest average @ # 7 despite excelling as an opener, doesn't make that clear then nothing will.

 

[Pratters]

Stewart played some outstanding innings at the end of his career. People became crazy fans of his who saw him mostly during that phase. Your and Richard's age grouping coincides perfectly with this. Richard has mentioned from when he started watching serious cricket. I have a friend who is also a crazy Stewart fan and he also watched him just during this period.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The difference between the modern keeper and the old blokes with crap batting averages is that the aforementioned old blokes learned their trade in First Class Cricket and didn't play for England until they were good enough keepers. These days they toss the gloves to a batsman and provided they make enough runs they're allowed to learn the art of keeping during the start of their Test career. Some like Stewart and Prior will eventually become semi-proficient and adequate by today's required standards. If Alan Knott was around today he would work more on his batting than his keeping and make more runs to the detriment of his keeping. In the old days the keeper would set the tone in the field keeping everyone alert and on their toes. These days as long as they don't drop chances everyone is happy no matter how untidy their general work is. Gilchrist is slightly different as he was in the ODI side for quite a while before replacing Healey and was a Test class keeper when he started playing Test Cricket. The requirement of the keeper to make runs is unlikely to go away so we just have to move with the times (whilst not necessarily agreeing with it).

 

[Pratters]

Wicket keepers haven't been around forever. Earlier, teams had no such thing as a specialist keeper as we know in modern cricket. We saw the growth of the specialist keeper. Then, we saw the change to a situation where the keeper has to be able to bat. Of course, seeing the ridiculous situation of players who are not very good keepers thrust is pitiable. Robin Uthappa is keeping in half the games while the specialist keeper of Karnataka is keeping in half the games so that Uthappa can make the national team as a keeper batsman.

 

[aussie]

The difference between the modern keeper and the old blokes with crap batting averages is that the aforementioned old blokes learned their trade in First Class Cricket and didn't play for England until they were good enough keepers. These days they toss the gloves to a batsman and provided they make enough runs they're allowed to learn the art of keeping during the start of their Test career. Some like Stewart and Prior will eventually become semi-proficient and adequate by today's required standards. If Alan Knott was around today he would work more on his batting than his keeping and make more runs to the detriment of his keeping. In the old days the keeper would set the tone in the field keeping everyone alert and on their toes. These days as long as they don't drop chances everyone is happy no matter how untidy their general work is. Gilchrist is slightly different as he was in the ODI side for quite a while before replacing Healey and was a Test class keeper when he started playing Test Cricket. The requirement of the keeper to make runs is unlikely to go away so we just have to move with the times (whilst not necessarily agreeing with it).

Agree in general - but I'm not sure if Knott played in modern times if he would have done that. His batting in what was arguably toughest batting era in cricket history was certainly very good to make him a competent # 7 currently without having to do that much extra work on it.

The scenario's in modern times won't always happen - but if a team has lets say a top 7 where you can field a multitude of quality all-rounders like South Africa in the 1990s where they had Kallis, McMillan, Klusener, Pollock - you can certainly pick a keeper based on his keeping strength first as the proteas did with Dave Richardson.

England when Alec Stewart missed a few tests in IND/NZ 2001/02 tried James Foster in role because you had all-rounders Flintoff/White in side.

 

[watson]

I inderstand the above statements but I still find it an unfair double standard to insist that keepers be good batsman, but not worry so much about the bowlers.

If you have some bowlers who show some promise with the bat then why not turn them into a No.7 or No.8 batsman so that a potential Tallon can occupy the No.9 spot? After all, everyone enjoys watching an exciting bowling allrounder and a brilliant keeper.

 

[nevermind]

I don't get why there is a debate on this at all. Bradman was the best ever keeper/batsman. If Bradman dropped down the order to bat at 7 like Gilly, and like Knott, when he was supposedly good, and like Sangakara, who would have been awesome if he did, even though he didn't, then Bradman would have averaged 160, which he did. Now let's just say Knott was a 50 runs better wicket keeper than Bradman, well, turd!... He is still a long way short of being up to scratch. And Gilly, if he was a 30 runs better keeper than Bradman, further behind. And Sangakara is so far behind because he is. When he batted at 3 like Bradman and didn't glove up he was a worse player. And when he batted and gloved up he was a much worse batsman, and had Bradman been given the gloves he would have been awesome. So clearly, even though Bradman never kept that is only because he was doing the team thing, but he could have had he wanted to, because he caught balls rebounding off a corregated water tank. So, It's Bradman, because also, he would have been keeping to Grimmet and Bill Oreiily and Miller and Lindwall. That is just an awesome effort. Aussie, you just can't debate this. It is beyond logic.

Superb. Thread should have ended after this post.

 

[Red]

Its very puzzling this revisionist view of Stewart keeping to just refer it as "adequate" - it was just a good as Prior at his peak for England recently. You need look back a videos of Stewart keeping in Pakistan & Sri Lanka 2001, he would do fine keeping to any great ENG bowler in a hypothetical ATXI..

It's not revisionist. I watched him keep and it's my opinion What are you saying? That Stewart was as good a keeper as Knott or Evans?

If Stewart's keeping was just adequate at the back end of his career especially when Hussain was captain & Fletcher was coach, they would not let him kept so often - especially when a Jack Russell like keeper in James Foster was around..

It was just adequate, and they kept him in as keeper because his batting was so strong. England were pretty weak at that time and Stewart's batting was considered more important than selecting a better keeper/lesser batsman. In any case, Eng screwed Stewart's career over, because he should've been an opener and not kept his entire career. I'd guess he'd have averaged much closer to 50 had he been allowed to do that.

Also as you guys are seriously under-rating how versatile a batsman he was - if the fact the he got 100s in pretty much all the positions he batted in top 7, plus technically has his highest average @ # 7 despite excelling as an opener, doesn't make that clear then nothing will.

Ha. Don't be so disingenuous. He only batted at 7 in 9 tests (5 not outs) and despite having a good average there his highest score was only 70. He clearly batted at his best in the top order (opening or 3) and his record shows this.

 

[aussie]

It's not revisionist. I watched him keep and it's my opinion What are you saying? That Stewart was as good a keeper as Knott or Evans?

And I'm saying your opinion about is keeping is not based on the reality of his keeping skills if you are saying it was just "adequate" - that is disrespectful to Stewart. Adequate would have been Geraint Jones level, Alec Stewart was a B class 7/10 skill keeper.

You guys make it sound as if Stewart as he was some hack with the gloves that ENG selectors just gave to keep and hoped for the best.

What would make you think I am in any way suggesting Stewart was as good a keepr as Knott/Evans? Unusual question to ask based on last post I made.

It was just adequate, and they kept him in as keeper because his batting was so strong. England were pretty weak at that time and Stewart's batting was considered more important than selecting a better keeper/lesser batsman. In any case, Eng screwed Stewart's career over, because he should've been an opener and not kept his entire career. I'd guess he'd have averaged much closer to 50 had he been allowed to do that.

No the early days of the Hussain/Fletcher era revived England from the dark 1990s era - enabling them to beat West Indies for the 1st time in 31 years in 2000 & secure famous away series wins in SRI/PAK (first win in PAK since 1961/62)

The emergence of James Foster a better pure glovesman from 2001 alongside two good all-rounders in Flintoff/White (after the bits a pieces county so called all-rounders that were used in the 90s) certainly gave England the clear option to relieve Stewart who was closing in on 40 mind you of the gloves and let him open the batting or bat in the middle-order in the final two years of his career on many occasions, without affecting the team balance.

But Hussain/Fletcher didn't so that throws your theory out the window.

There are very few keepers in test history who were still the main glovesman for their team around age 40. Off my head I can think of Wally Grout at up to age 39 on retirement in 1966, Bert Oldfield 43 in the 1930s, Evans 39 in the 50s, Dave Richardson 39 in the late 90s. He is in very esteemed company, so ease with the insulting of Stewart's keeping ability.

Ha. Don't be so disingenuous. He only batted at 7 in 9 tests (5 not outs) and despite having a good average there his highest score was only 70. He clearly batted at his best in the top order (opening or 3) and his record shows this.

Ha and you think I'm not aware of that of the limited amount of times he batted @ 7?. By using the word "technically" then acknowledging his excellence as a opener - I thought I was making a obvious disclaimer about it, ah well.

I certainly agree he could have excelled as an opener if that was his focused role throughout his career. However his career record clearly shows which made him essentially England's inadvertent all-rounder between the end of Botham & emergence of Flintoff - that he was versatile enough to bat in any top 3-7 position and do a very good job with equal competence.

 

[harsh.ag]

Wouldn't have Stewart keeping for the simple reason that he looked effing miserable half the time he was doing it

 

[cnerd123]

This is so weird. Aussie is using the selector's decisions to justify his theories.

It is perfectly believable that England could have dropped Stewart for someone like Foster and not lost a lot in batting while gaining a lot in keeping, but just chose to not do so for non-cricketing reason. Aussies however refuses to accept this - "No, the selectors picked player X over Y, therefore X MUST be atleast as good". Cricket selections often don't work this way.

It's like a new form of revisionist history.