Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Red]

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.

It doesn't throw my theory out the window! It just confirms England carried on with the same old selection process they had for all of Stewart's career.

 

[aussie]

Ha i'm enjoying this now..

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.

Who is these "everyone" that know's this? Ha

Fletcher simply picked the best available players available for ENG. The only sort of favourite Fletcher had was for Giles, he was indeed a "greater of sum of the parts" player as valuable lower-order bat & non world beating spinner - who was very useful in the right conditions in 5-man attack philosophy.

Maybe you also argue to some degree Thorpe could have started the Ashes 2005 & Pietersen could have come in middle of series when Bell starting failing - but its hard to say that given how brilliant KP was.

Otherwise there was no obvious player at the time who may have been better in a set role that was not picked by England, that Fletcher/Hussain/Graveney had in team over no "Fletcher favourites" - that is completely revisionist.

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

Haha oh my, these theories you all coming up with is makes me wonder if you were another planet when these matches were played.

First FYI i'm pretty sure the I said the period I was referring to where Fletcher/Hussain's England could have relieved Stewart with the gloves & used Foster long term ish was from Foster debuted tour in India 2001 to Stewart Final series vs S Africa 2003.

So mentioning 1999 is reference to Flintoff is totally irrelevant since its well known at that point Stewart was still needed as keeper because ENG had finished with Russell by then & Flintoff was joke player during 1998-2000

Flintoff also was a perfectly competent # 6 batsman from 2001, coincidentally during that same 2001 series in India when he began to look international standard. White was the one who was only a # 7 & rightfully he never batted so high.

A correct synopsis from the 2001-2003 period looking at the entire ENG team at the time would clearly show a way where Stewart could have played as top 6 batsman, Flintoff/White/ all-rounders & Foster as keeper.

- You had Trescothick/Vaughan as openers with Vaughan peaking during that time

- Hussain//Butcher were two regular middle-order players throughout this period because Thorpe went awol from international cricket until Stewart's final test

- Guys like Ramprakash/John Crawley/Ed Smith/Rob Key were given chances and struggled to hold down a regular place

- Caddick/Hoggard/Cork main three seamers because Gough didn't play much tests - while Harmison/Jones were now emerging

Thus the team below could have easily be chosen so try again:

Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Stewart
Flintoff
White
Foster
Giles
Caddick
Hoggard

 

[aussie]

It doesn't throw my theory out the window! It just confirms England carried on with the same old selection process they had for all of Stewart's career.

Indeed. England choosing the let Stewart keeping almost 100% full-time from 1997-2003 was certainly carrying on with same old selection policies of Stewart's 89-96 career period - when he hardly kept and opened the batting mainly.

 

[Red]

Indeed. England choosing the let Stewart keeping almost 100% full-time from 1997-2003 was certainly carrying on with same old selection policies of Stewart's 89-96 career period - when he hardly kept and opened the batting mainly.

I'm not sure what we're even arguing any more.

England should have picked Stewart as a top 3 batsman and selected a better/proper keeper to bat at seven and relied on their 4 bowlers. Instead they jammed Stewart somewhere in the top 6 and made him keep so they could pick half arsed all rounders like Craig White and have 5 mediocre bowlers.

Stewart sans gloves would've easily been England's greatest batsman of that era, but the selectors screwed him over in two ways (batting out of position and making him keep).

 

[Victor Ian]

When you stop bashing your head against a wall, then the wall has won.

 

[Riggins]

Its very puzzling this revisionist view of Stewart keeping to just refer it as "adequate" - it was just a good as Prior

Talk about a low bar.

 

[marc71178]

Well, seeing as Prior was much better with the bat when keeping and overall a better glovesman, he's a better option for an England AT XI than Stewart.

 

[aussie]

I'm not sure what we're even arguing any more.

England should have picked Stewart as a top 3 batsman and selected a better/proper keeper to bat at seven and relied on their 4 bowlers. Instead they jammed Stewart somewhere in the top 6 and made him keep so they could pick half arsed all rounders like Craig White and have 5 mediocre bowlers.

Stewart sans gloves would've easily been England's greatest batsman of that era, but the selectors screwed him over in two ways (batting out of position and making him keep).

Haha oh dear when will the revisionist insults end! Now Craig White was actually the only good all-rounder ENG produced between the end of Botham and emergence of Flintoff is now termed "half-arsed" all=rounder by CW.

And once again you wrong about the realities of the ENG team in the 1990s, so i just you go and check your facts and come again.

 

[aussie]

Talk about a low bar.

If you talking about Prior from WI 2007 - IND 2008, then its a very low bar, Geraint Jones/Tim Ambrose level. But clearly not Prior from WI 20009 until his final series.

 

[aussie]

Well, seeing as Prior was much better with the bat when keeping and overall a better glovesman, he's a better option for an England AT XI than Stewart.

Key difference is that Prior batted predominantly @ # 7 in his best days, while Stewart was generally at 6 and was always a better natural top order player. Their keeping skills were even.

 

[marc71178]

Haha oh dear when will the revisionist insults end! Now Craig White was actually the only good all-rounder ENG produced between the end of Botham and emergence of Flintoff is now termed "half-arsed" all=rounder by CW.

And once again you wrong about the realities of the ENG team in the 1990s, so i just you go and check your facts and come again.

Craig White was another of the bits and pieces brigade. You're the one being shown to wrong, consistently.

 

[marc71178]

Key difference is that Prior batted predominantly @ # 7 in his best days, while Stewart was generally at 6 and was always a better natural top order player. Their keeping skills were even.

The key difference is that Prior was a much better batsman then Stewart was when keeping.

 

[aussie]

Craig White was another of the bits and pieces brigade. You're the one being shown to wrong, consistently.

Haha indeed, Craig White who played a key role in ENG beating WI for first time in 31 years in 2000 & famous overseas wins in PAK & SRI was clearly on the level of "bits of pieces" brigade all-rounders David Capel, Mark Ealham, Mark Watkinson, Ronnie Irani, Chris Lewis - keep going CWers looking forward to more information from this revisionist class, tell me more!!

 

[aussie]

The key difference is that Prior was a much better batsman then Stewart was when keeping.

Prior average 40 at his 2009-2014 best compared to Stewart's 37 from 97-2003, hardly a massive difference when one watched them bat in those respective periods. Stewart gets the edge on versatility grounds because he would still bat higher up the order and score hundreds as he did scoring 164 vs SA @ OT 98 & 105 vs WI @ # 5 in 2000. Prior at best depending on specific opposition was chosen @ 6.

This continuously proves how how you all here under-rated/do not appreciate/don't remember/don't understand how versatile Stewart was.

 

[cnerd123]

So being the best allround option available = being a good allrounder.

Huh. So that means that Binny is a good allrounder. Take that haters.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

So being the best allround option available = being a good allrounder.

Huh. So that means that Binny is a good allrounder. Take that haters.

Someone somewhere will hail Binny after few decades for the test series win against Sri Lanka and the emergence between Kapil and someone not known yet

 

[Dan]

Screw you all, Binny is awesome.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hates Vijay, loves Binny.

Dan is one weird cricket fan.

 

[marc71178]

Prior average 40 at his 2009-2014 best compared to Stewart's 37 from 97-2003, hardly a massive difference when one watched them bat in those respective periods. Stewart gets the edge on versatility grounds because he would still bat higher up the order and score hundreds as he did scoring 164 vs SA @ OT 98 & 105 vs WI @ # 5 in 2000. Prior at best depending on specific opposition was chosen @ 6.

This continuously proves how how you all here under-rated/do not appreciate/don't remember/don't understand how versatile Stewart was.

Oh I remember how good Stewart was as I actually watched his career, but he was an opening batsman, not a Test-class keeper-batsman and definitely not worthy of being picked in any all time great side when in reality he shouldn't have even been picked for the team he played for.

I'm getting the feeling that everyone here is clearly beneath your level of knowledge in your opinion so why are you wasting your time posting on here?

 

[cnerd123]

Oh I remember how good Stewart was as I actually watched his career, but he was an opening batsman, not a Test-class keeper-batsman and definitely not worthy of being picked in any all time great side when in reality he shouldn't have even been picked for the team he played for.

I'm getting the feeling that everyone here is clearly beneath your level of knowledge in your opinion so why are you wasting your time posting on here?

Probably copped a ban on PlanetCricket and needs an outlet for his crazy cricket theories since people IRL probably just walk away when he tells them Alan Knott was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist.