Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

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?

Haha wow, so now he shouldn't have even been picked for England you are good

Good well we have reached a ideological gridlock point like a position the conservatives and labour would never agree on in politics.

I disagree with that assessment of Stewarts career. He IMO was a very versatile test batsman who could have replicated his opening batting form in any top 6 if given a similar long run in the role, thus him & Knott are the two keepers that are worthy of being picked in ENG ATXI depending on opposition & match conditions.


And quit getting on defensive on me trying to suggest I'm holding no superior opinion to anybody I post with. I respect every poster - you are the one making the crazy revisionist views on Stewart & now White career's- thus I'm simply calling you out on it. So I'm waiting to here for you explain how Craig White was bits & pieces all-rounder just like 1990s failures David Capel, Mark Ealham, Chris Lewis, Ronnie Irani, Mike Watkinson.

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

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

According to your reasoning and interpretation its equal.

And Binny even by that unusual logic wouldn't quality as a all-rounder, he is simply a bits & pieces cricketer who India are risking/hoping can do a job for them in whatever format.

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.

Haha clearly you had a failed career as a investigator if that's what you discovered i got banned from planetcricket - love the characters on this site

 

[marc71178]

At no point have I ever said he shouldn't have been picked, but as per usual you want to make a scene.

I also love how I, having been around during the time and watched it, am being revisionist yet you, who weren't, are the font of all knowledge and reckon you know better.

White was a very much bits and pieces player who owed his selection considerably to the county he played for when Ray Illingworth was in charge. He wasn't good enough to bat top 6 or be a reliable front line bowler, much like the others that you've named (and didn't see)

 

[aussie]

At no point have I ever said he shouldn't have been picked, but as per usual you want to make a scene.

I also love how I, having been around during the time and watched it, am being revisionist yet you, who weren't, are the font of all knowledge and reckon you know better.

White was a very much bits and pieces player who owed his selection considerably to the county he played for when Ray Illingworth was in charge. He wasn't good enough to bat top 6 or be a reliable front line bowler, much like the others that you've named (and didn't see)

So who is the team he shouldn't have played for then? Quoting you "when in reality he shouldn't have even been picked for the team he played for" - that's not me wanting to cause a scene now or usual - I'm not concerned about your feelings, to cause anything with you haha.

Did I ever say i was watching cricket for the entirety of Stewart's career? I wasn't. And mind you someone doesn't have to see a players entire career to have a understanding of it. And its your dull suggestion that I know better - never said so, simply explained my viewpoint of Stewart's career.

Why are you comparing White pre-2000 days, to the actual period when he was a proven test match all-rounder from the 2000-2003? And why do you feel the need to mention he was not good enough to bat @ 6 - when that is already known?

Haha what you mean I didn't see them. Ok nostradumus, please tell me what year I started watching cricket that would prove I never saw them? Embarrassing

 

[marc71178]

I remember you coming on here as an immature racist poster who wasn't out of school. By definition that shows you weren't around early in their careers.

I have always said that Stewart should've been opening with Atherton and Russell batting 7 and keeping, because quite frankly Stewart was a poor wicket keeper and his batting suffered with the additional workload whereas Russell was the best glovesman I have seen and was a more than useful gritty number 7. For that reason there is not a single reason for Stewart to be in the England all time XI as a keeper. If you prefer a batsman keeper to Knott then Matt Prior is a mile ahead of him because he was easily his equal with the gloves and a much better batsman when keeping.

 

[aussie]

I remember you coming on here as an immature racist poster who wasn't out of school. By definition that shows you weren't around early in their careers.

Hello answer the question & stop trying to get personal, what year did i start watching cricket that proves I did not see the career's of the aforementioned players marc! haha

I have always said that Stewart should've been opening with Atherton and Russell batting 7 and keeping, because quite frankly Stewart was a poor wicket keeper and his batting suffered with the additional workload whereas Russell was the best glovesman I have seen and was a more than useful gritty number 7. For that reason there is not a single reason for Stewart to be in the England all time XI as a keeper. If you prefer a batsman keeper to Knott then Matt Prior is a mile ahead of him because he was easily his equal with the gloves and a much better batsman when keeping.

Did i not just say we have reached a ideological gridlock point like a position the conservatives and labour would never agree on in politics on viewpoints on how Stewart's career evolved?. In case you didn't understand that mean's let it ride and move on. But no you must be Mr stick record and go over and over again & yet you are the one telling me I'm the one acting like I know it all

 

[TheJediBrah]

At no point have I ever said he shouldn't have been picked, but as per usual you want to make a scene.

in reality he shouldn't have even been picked for the team he played for.

wut

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At no point have I ever said he shouldn't have been picked, but as per usual you want to make a scene.

in reality he shouldn't have even been picked for the team he played for.

wut

If you take the whole post instead of cutting bits out:
"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."

He's saying that picking Stewart as a wicket keeper batsman for an All Time XI makes no sense as he shouldn't have been picked in that role for the team he played for. Aussie managed to interpret that as saying he should never have played for England at all. But that's just Aussie being Aussie.

 

[aussie]

If you take the whole post instead of cutting bits out:
"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."

He's saying that picking Stewart as a wicket keeper batsman for an All Time XI makes no sense as he shouldn't have been picked in that role for the team he played for. Aussie managed to interpret that as saying he should never have played for England at all. But that's just Aussie being Aussie.

Its not me alone as the other poster showed that wasn't totally clear what he meant - since marc being marc in his almost 60 thousands posts in CW history is to post confusion.

 

[Dan]

-- Ideally, Stewart would have played for England as an opener, not a wicketkeeper (but he didn't because of team balance issues wrt needing a 'keeper to bat 6 to fit in the all-rounder at 7).
-- Stewart was not a brilliant wicketkeeper, and his batting suffered when he took the gloves.
-- Therefore, Stewart being picked as a wicketkeeper-batsman in an English ATG XI is a strange decision; it smacks of reading stats out of context (much like picking Sangakkara as a wicketkeeper batting #7 because he averaged near-60 with the bat and took the gloves at some point is also a strange decision)

Its like the 'Macartney/Rhodes was an all-rounder' discourse; they had distinct periods of their careers with different roles, which means making a career-long judgment based on stats misses important things.

 

[Dan]

you are the one making the crazy revisionist views on Stewart & now White career's- thus I'm simply calling you out on it. So I'm waiting to here for you explain how Craig White was bits & pieces all-rounder just like 1990s failures David Capel, Mark Ealham, Chris Lewis, Ronnie Irani, Mike Watkinson.

White was bits-and-pieces though; he was neither a Test batsman nor a Test bowler. He was certainly a class above all the names you mentioned there, but that's damning with faint praise really -- all of those others were borderline incompetent. He was just less bits-and-pieces than his contemporaries.

 

[Prince EWS]

White was bits-and-pieces though; he was neither a Test batsman nor a Test bowler. He was certainly a class above all the names you mentioned there, but that's damning with faint praise really -- all of those others were borderline incompetent. He was just less bits-and-pieces than his contemporaries.

I think if you really examine White's career, he was a passable Test bowler on bowling alone; certainly a bowler better than his average. He played in a very batting-friendly era and played against Australia more than any other opposition, mostly in Australia. When you look at it in context his record stacks up okay against the other specialist bowlers England played around that time. He was probably more a 33-35 average bowler under 'normal' circumstances which isn't good but makes him a serious bowling option moreso than just a bits-and-pieces guy, particularly for a poor side.

 

[BigBrother]

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.

Before this thread, I thought viriya was comfortably going to be the worst analyzer of cricketers among the consistently annoying posters that I will meet on cricketweb. But then a fellow calling himself aussie came into existence all of a sudden.

 

[Red]

Sometimes I learn a new word (like "revisionist") and I just can't stop using it, also.

 

[aussie]

White was bits-and-pieces though; he was neither a Test batsman nor a Test bowler. He was certainly a class above all the names you mentioned there, but that's damning with faint praise really -- all of those others were borderline incompetent. He was just less bits-and-pieces than his contemporaries.

No those guys were bits and pieces not White. Its well established he was the only all-rounder of between the end of Botham and emergence of Flintoff where at his best from West Indies 2000 - Australia 2003, when he averaged 28 with the bat & 36 with the ball http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/22403.html?class=1;spanmin1=1+jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround. He was a test standard # 7 & a solid 4th seamer, the best ENG bowling exponent of reverse -swing outside of Gough in the early 2000s - until Flintoff/Jones mastered the art in Ashes 2005.

Stats hardly tell the truth of how solid he was in this period & doesn't consider how even during his best days he was battling injuries regularly to play. He played 22 test during his peak, but missed 14 tests where I'm sure he would better his average in both departments a bit more - if he played to a 30 average with bat around 33-35 with ball for eg.

I'm amazed that you guys can suggest a guy who played such a pivotal role in England winning in PAK & SRI 2000 was such a player - I wish Nasser Hussain and Duncan Fletcher can read this ha smh...

 

[aussie]

I think if you really examine White's career, he was a passable Test bowler on bowling alone; certainly a bowler better than his average. He played in a very batting-friendly era and played against Australia more than any other opposition, mostly in Australia. When you look at it in context his record stacks up okay against the other specialist bowlers England played around that time. He was probably more a 33-35 average bowler under 'normal' circumstances which isn't good but makes him a serious bowling option moreso than just a bits-and-pieces guy, particularly for a poor side.

Indeed that was what his bowling average is normal circumstances and i would consider that passable - not "isn't good" - in the right conditions as i said before he was a very dangerous with reverse swing and was a bowler Hussain could depend in at his best to keep things tight.

And ENG were not a poor side when White played either - there had moved of from the "worst team in the world" tag which they infamously clinched at the end of 1999 series home loss to N Zealand to become a solid/hard working team under Hussain & would have been better if injuries and outside circumstances hadn't kept players like Thorpe, Gough, White, Flintoff out the test team so often.

 

[aussie]

-- Ideally, Stewart would have played for England as an opener, not a wicketkeeper (but he didn't because of team balance issues wrt needing a 'keeper to bat 6 to fit in the all-rounder at 7).
-- Stewart was not a brilliant wicketkeeper, and his batting suffered when he took the gloves.
-- Therefore, Stewart being picked as a wicketkeeper-batsman in an English ATG XI is a strange decision; it smacks of reading stats out of context (much like picking Sangakkara as a wicketkeeper batting #7 because he averaged near-60 with the bat and took the gloves at some point is also a strange decision)

Its like the 'Macartney/Rhodes was an all-rounder' discourse; they had distinct periods of their careers with different roles, which means making a career-long judgment based on stats misses important things.

So as to avoid going around in circles with this - lets just say I plan to come back in due course with a clinching argument to this point.

 

[adub]

Screw you all, Binny is awesome.

Give me Madam Lal any day

 

[cnerd123]

Stats hardly tell the truth of how solid he was in this period & doesn't consider how even during his best days he was battling injuries regularly to play. He played 22 test during his peak, but missed 14 tests where I'm sure he would better his average in both departments a bit more - if he played to a 30 average with bat around 33-35 with ball for eg.

"if you ignore the cricket he did play and consider the cricket he didnt play he would have had a much better record"

Lol.

 

[harsh.ag]

White performed well in the subcontinent and was a valuable asset because

a) he was good at hitting out against spinners from what I remember; and
b) he was a decent exponent of reverse swing.

Those strengths were of less help in other conditions though. It was a nice experiment to see, and one that was made possible by the presence of Stewart,

 

[cnerd123]

I like how this debate has evolved from talking about how Stewart was a mediocre keeper to Craig White's allround credentials.

Aussies logic, for those just tuning in, is that Stewart must have been a world-class keeper batsman because, when England had the opportunity to play two 'good' allrounders in Flintoff and White + a specialist keeper in Foster, they chose not to and decided to instead persist with Stewart.

This selection decision + Stewarts success as an opener + average of 35 at 6 qualifies him, in Aussie's eyes, to keep wicket for an England ATG XI.

Infalliable selectors fallacy (thanks cribb) + equating 'best option available' as being the same as 'good' + evaluating a cricketers capabilities on cricket they never played. Take your pick folks.