Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Prince EWS]

Infallible selectors fallacy.

 

[cnerd123]

I also still don't understand how Knott -who is supposedly better than Gilchrist batting at 7- is considered good enough to keep wicket for the ATG XI but not good enough for the England XI.

 

[harsh.ag]

I also still don't understand how Knott -who is supposedly better than Gilchrist batting at 7- is considered good enough to keep wicket for the ATG XI but not good enough for the England XI.

England's ATG batting is weaker than the world's ATG batting. If Gilly was available, he would have picked him as well. Tbf he has as much right to select Stewart as people do Ames, and Ames' selection is not something we usually give people grief for.

 

[Prince EWS]

I also still don't understand how Knott -who is supposedly better than Gilchrist batting at 7- is considered good enough to keep wicket for the ATG XI but not good enough for the England XI.

I found the whole thing rather amusing but it's certainly possible to come to that conclusion just for balance reasons. Aussie felt that having a keeper in the top six was the best way to balance England's side given the resources available (Botham basically), but didn't feel that way about his World side because Sobers is good enough to make it on batting alone and still provide the fifth bowling option. Given this, he felt Stewart the better pick for England but Knott was the better pick for his World side. This is fine as long as he doesn't go with the 'World XI top order is so awesome so #7 won't matter much" fallacy that I detected he may have been hinting at, because obviously awesomeness is relative to the standard of the opposition.

The whole thing definitely was rather amusing though. He started a thread asking whether the greatest wicket keeper batsman was Gilchrist or Sanga, but then answered his own question with Knott, and then didn't pick Knott in his all-time England team. It's just funny, even if explainable. All in all I think the main thing we can gather from all this is that he doesn't really think much of Gilchrist.

 

[cnerd123]

So if he believes Stewart > Knott in batting, and Knott = Gilchrist in batting at number 7...does Aussie feel Alec Stewart was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist???

 

[Prince EWS]

So if he believes Stewart > Knott in batting, and Knott = Gilchrist in batting at number 7...does Aussie feel Alec Stewart was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist???

I think so yeah. Unless he thinks Gilchrist > Knott at 6 but Gilchrist = Knott at 7, which would be strange but possible I guess.

 

[harsh.ag]

The whole thing definitely was rather amusing though. He started a thread asking whether the greatest wicket keeper batsman was Gilchrist or Sanga, but then answered his own question with Knott, and then didn't pick Knott in his all-time England team. It's just funny, even if explainable. All in all I think the main thing we can gather from all this is that he doesn't really think much of Gilchrist.

Haha yeah

 

[cnerd123]

Bizarre thinking either way.

And he doesn't rate Sehwag either. Aussie is basically the guy who thinks that it's impossible for players to be so good, that there must be a critical flaw to their game that everyone just missed, or that they must have had a load of unfair advantages that other players didn't.

 

[aussie]

Ha only on CW i swear I can hear such things. But here goes

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.[/QUOTE]

Well based on your knowledge and understanding of the England team from 2000-2003 especially up until Stewart retired, pleased then give an example of team ENG could have put together where as you suggested they could have "dropped Stewart for Foster and not lost a lot in batting" especially.

How is it weird? Because it proves my point?

If Stewart's keeping was just "adequate" ENG had the option circa 2001-2003 to relieve him with the gloves when Foster emerged on many occasions, just like how in the 1999s they regularly rotated with Russell and let Stewart open or any other middle-order position that his versatile batting skills could help team with. Which sane selector/coach/captain (and the Hussain & Fletcher and combo plus former chairman of selector David Graveney were very sane) in the situation of being able to strengthen their team in a key area like keeping would not do so?

And you tell me what I said is revisionist history I've heard it all

I also still don't understand how Knott -who is supposedly better than Gilchrist batting at 7- is considered good enough to keep wicket for the ATG XI but not good enough for the England XI.

Seems like my previous explanation that Stewart & Knott could be rotated in an ENG ATXI depending on match & team situation flew right over your head.
Bizarre thinking either way.

So if he believes Stewart > Knott in batting, and Knott = Gilchrist in batting at number 7...does Aussie feel Alec Stewart was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist???

Knott better than Gilchrist no equal. Stewart better general player of good fast bowling than Gilchrist - both of them fairly average vs quality spin, but Gilchrist was slightly better vs spin overall, since Stewart has no inning's vs spin compared to Gilly efforts at Mumbai 2001, Bangalore 2004, Kandy 2004 and Fatullah 2006.

And he doesn't rate Sehwag either. Aussie is basically the guy who thinks that it's impossible for players to be so good, that there must be a critical flaw to their game that everyone just missed, or that they must have had a load of unfair advantages that other players didn't.

Will avoid answering Sehwag questions, since knowing how much fans he has here & how people get emotionally unstable when I speak about him - just want to keep discussion here revolving around keepers/keeping.

 

[cnerd123]

Which sane selector/coach/captain (and the Hussain & Fletcher and combo plus former chairman of selector David Graveney were very sane) in the situation of being able to strengthen their team in a key area like keeping would not do so?

One who values team stability, and values the off-pitch qualities a player brings to the table.

Alternately; you could just say a bad one and be done with it.

Can't believe you think selectors are never wrong or never make mistakes lol.

Knott better than Gilchrist no equal. Stewart better general player of good fast bowling than Gilchrist - both of them fairly average vs quality spin, but Gilchrist was slightly better vs spin overall, since Stewart has no inning's vs spin compared to Gilly efforts at Mumbai 2001, Bangalore 2004, Kandy 2004 and Fatullah 2006.

Will avoid answering Sehwag questions, since knowing how much fans he has here & how people get emotionally unstable when I speak about him - just want to keep discussion here revolving around keepers/keeping.

Wasn't a Sehwag question but okay

 

[Prince EWS]

Ha only on CW i swear I can hear such things.

"Only in Test cricket I swear do I face such bowling."
~ Graeme Hick

 

[viriya]

Sangakkara, not even close.

 

[aussie]

I found the whole thing rather amusing but it's certainly possible to come to that conclusion just for balance reasons. Aussie felt that having a keeper in the top six was the best way to balance England's side given the resources available (Botham basically), but didn't feel that way about his World side because Sobers is good enough to make it on batting alone and still provide the fifth bowling option. Given this, he felt Stewart the better pick for England but Knott was the better pick for his World side. This is fine as long as he doesn't go with the 'World XI top order is so awesome so #7 won't matter much" fallacy that I detected he may have been hinting at, because obviously awesomeness is relative to the standard of the opposition.

The whole thing definitely was rather amusing though. He started a thread asking whether the greatest wicket keeper batsman was Gilchrist or Sanga, but then answered his own question with Knott, and then didn't pick Knott in his all-time England team. It's just funny, even if explainable. All in all I think the main thing we can gather from all this is that he doesn't really think much of Gilchrist.

Haha, well firstly let me say over the years I've always enjoyed your uncanny ability to respond to post of mine with a litany of jargon that you are confident is bullet proof counter argument - I respond - you disappear. Then you come without responding to previous points, to repeat process again with another posts and then have the nerve to me I'm the one that is amusing, coming up with infalliable selection fallacies or whatever phrases you learnt in English class that you have in your lexicon.

Your detection is way off with the Knott point. I clearly stated the following:

"If you have in a World XI with Gavaskar/Hutton/Bradman/Tendulkar/Richards/Sobers as your top 6 - you don't need a best "batting keeper" in cricket history at 7. You also just don't need the best "glovesman" who was a rabbit with the bat either.

You need someone who has the best characteristics of both worlds in keeping evolution & that is Knott."

Secondly I will have to question your comprehension skills a bit because clearly stated in opening post in reference to Gilly/Sanga with which one of them is the best keeping in test history with the best "batting skills" since they are the two front runners in the category that would also include De Villiers, Flower, Ames, John Waite, Stewart, Prior, Dennis Lindsay, Dhoni, Farook Enginner, Haddin.

And finally i also stated this regarding what i think of Gilchrist, which not surprisingly you missed whether willfully or unusual comprehension of what I said.

"I'm a massive Gilchrist fan who has seen 93 of his 96 tests live, has many old videos of his 17 tests hundreds that i watch regularly - overall I'm trying to put his career into a fair context instead of him being slightly over-rated - especially when he is referred to as greatest "batting" keeper in tests history."

 

[cnerd123]

Bolding sections of your posts doesn't make you any less wrong FTR

 

[aussie]

One who values team stability, and values the off-pitch qualities a player brings to the table.

Alternately; you could just say a bad one and be done with it.

Can't believe you think selectors are never wrong or never make mistakes lol.

And where did i say I never think selectors ever make mistakes? You just moving the goal posts with whatever your attempting to ask.

But trying to go back to point of this specific portion of discussion, I hope my attempts to debunked the insulting statements the Alec Stewart was just a "adequate & mediocre" glovesman resonated with someone in the CW universe *ends prayer*

Wasn't a Sehwag question but okay

Me talking about Sehwag on CW.net directly or indirectly sends this website into similar pandemonium like opposition bowlers did when he was scoring those fast inning's - so i'll avoid the drama in this thread.

 

[harsh.ag]

Seen him a fair bit. Stewart was mediocre when he started out, and got much better by the end. He got lucky with not having to keep to great spinners though. Can't see him keeping well to Barnes and Underwood and Laker. So don't have him in the ATG English XI at any cost.

 

[aussie]

Seen him a fair bit. Stewart was mediocre when he started out, and got much better by the end. He got lucky with not having to keep to great spinners though. Can't see him keeping well to Barnes and Underwood and Laker. So don't have him in the ATG English XI at any cost.

Exactly he got better near the end for sure & this is why i posed the question before to people of who really watched him keep during England's tours to PAK/SRI 2000/2001?

Of course Giles/Croft were not great spinners however they bowled as well as top quality spinners could bowl in those series. The conditions for keeping were difficult & it was a unusual for Stewart to keep to so much spin for obvious reason & he passed that test with flying colours - which plays into my whole argument that his versatility to do any job asked of him especially during the 97-2003 made him such a special player for ENG & ENG ATG XI quality in certain match situations.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Secondly I will have to question your comprehension skills a bit because clearly stated in opening post in reference to Gilly/Sanga with which one of them is the best keeping in test history with the best "batting skills" since they are the two front runners in the category that would also include De Villiers, Flower, Ames, John Waite, Stewart, Prior, Dennis Lindsay, Dhoni, Farook Enginner, Haddin.

Watling is better than most of those players.

 

[Dan]

Haddin, FMD.

 

[Dan]

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.

Ok, this is bizarre.

1. Fletcher played favourites, everyone knows this. He has he mind set very much on "greater than the sum of their parts" cricketers who provide intangibles, and he selected teams based on that selection philosophy. So let's not pretend that Venn diagram of England's best available players and the squads Fletcher picked is a perfect circle; it isn't (and that's not necessarily a critique on Fletcher, so many unrevealed things mean that selectors decisions may be fine at the time, but look really **** in hindsight). As Cribb points out, selectors aren't omniscient.

2. Flintoff and White weren't good enough as batsmen or as bowlers to play Test cricket in the Hussain/Fletcher era. Flintoff's average split from 1999-2003 was 27/44, White's was 28/36. That is fine if you're a #7 batsman and a 4th seamer, but not if you're a frontline bowler who just happens to be good enough to bat at #7. In short, playing either of Flintoff or White at #7 requires a 'keeper who bats at #6. You wouldn't want to pick: 6. Next-Best-Batsman, 7. Flintoff, 8. Foster, 9. Giles, 10. Caddick, 11. Hoggard in 2002; you'd never take any bloody wickets. Or you can pick 6. Stewart, 7. Flintoff, 8. Giles, 9. Caddick, 10. Next-Best-Quick, 11. Hoggard and be far better balanced. You might've been able to pick the former if Giles was actually Swann, but he wasn't.

The England selectors picked Stewart with the gloves in 2003 for literally the same reason you pick him in your England ATG XI -- because the all-rounder wasn't a #6 at that level.

The emergence of Alan Knott a better pure gloveman from the 1970s alongside two good all-rounders in Flintoff/Botham (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 of the gloves and let him open the batting or bat in the middle-order (or not play at all), without affecting team balance.

But aussie the hypothetical England ATG selector didn't so that throws your theory out the window.