Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[Pratters]

This thread reminds of the time I had real bad samosa with terrible oil. It was poor samosa because of bad oil but I will keep arguing it was the best samosa ever.

 

[Pratters]

Would Stewart also be your man for All time XI of the whole of cricket, I wonder, aussie.

 

[cnerd123]

Would Stewart also be your man for All time XI of the whole of cricket, I wonder, aussie.

No he picked Alan Knott for that, lol.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Impossible to do but will be amusing to see you try.

Just wonder which website article you'll link to to do it.

 

[aussie]

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

Lol.

Ha, you do realize that PEWS made exactly the same point about White's bowling right? Why are you not using the favourite word from your lexicon "infalliable" to call him out on that assertion also? #CWbias

 

[aussie]

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,

No in India 2001, when he batted @ 7 scoring his lone test century - Stewart wasn't there

 

[aussie]

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.

Ha the more some of you speak I'm convinced your understanding of many things related to cricket history and players career's are limited, along with the how many cricket observers outside the CW world look at the game.

Right so based on your logic & dissatisfaction of my reasons for picking Stewart in ENG ATXI:

- the esteemed panel of Sri Lanka journalist who picked the Sri Lanka all-time XI for ESPN Cricinfo that choose Chaminda Vaas as an all-rounder & Sangakkara to bat @ 3 & keep - despite their careers actual career best efforts not being in those roles - was a infallible selection fallacy then? Sri Lanka all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Proteas journalist who picked S Pollock to bat @ # 7 in the SA ATXI - even though he scored his two hundreds @ # 9 - plus batting John Waite @ # 8 despite him being better top order batsman - were a infallible selection fallacy then? - All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Kiwi Journalist who put John Reid to bat @ # 6 in their despite his best runs coming at 4/5 - this also infallible ?New Zealand all-time XI revealed | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the PAK journalist batting Imran Khan @ # 6, when at his all-round best, he was never a top 6 batsman - how infallible is this? - Pakistan all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

This response I gotta see

 

[Cabinet96]

God, if CW is so full of idiots compared to your buddies at Cricinfo it's a wonder you came back at all.

 

[Spark]

Cricinfo journalists, the ultimate authority on everything ever.

 

[aussie]

God, if CW is so full of idiots compared to your buddies at Cricinfo it's a wonder you came back at all.

I never called and insinuated that anybody on CW is an idiot - i respect everyone I post with. Simply highlighting why the reasons I chose to pick Stewart in my version of a ENG ATXI, was done by many actually known journalist from around the world (who are not my buddies mind you) when they selected players in the only official Cricket all-time XI media exercise.

 

[Coronis]

Ha the more some of you speak I'm convinced your understanding of many things related to cricket history and players career's are limited, along with the how many cricket observers outside the CW world look at the game.

Right so based on your logic & dissatisfaction of my reasons for picking Stewart in ENG ATXI:

- the esteemed panel of Sri Lanka journalist who picked the Sri Lanka all-time XI for ESPN Cricinfo that choose Chaminda Vaas as an all-rounder & Sangakkara to bat @ 3 & keep - despite their careers actual career best efforts not being in those roles - was a infallible selection fallacy then? Sri Lanka all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Proteas journalist who picked S Pollock to bat @ # 7 in the SA ATXI - even though he scored his two hundreds @ # 9 - plus batting John Waite @ # 8 despite him being better top order batsman - were a infallible selection fallacy then? - All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Kiwi Journalist who put John Reid to bat @ # 6 in their despite his best runs coming at 4/5 - this also infallible ?New Zealand all-time XI revealed | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the PAK journalist batting Imran Khan @ # 6, when at his all-round best, he was never a top 6 batsman - how infallible is this? - Pakistan all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

This response I gotta see

Where else does Sanga bat? He's by far Sri Lanka's best top order batsman, and at worst, lets say a capable keeper. Why pick an inferior batsmen as the keeper, when he has experience keeping to both Murali and Vaas, the main bowlers on the team. The reason for picking the team like this is because you need 3 pacers in an ATG side, its just fact. I don't see a better way of doing it than how Cricinfo did it.

Pollock and Procter batting above Waite isn't such a bad selection... if you'd seen them play, you'd understand why. Not saying either is better than Waite, or that Cricinfo is infallible, personally I'd bat them Procter, Waite, Pollock. Even then Procter and Waite are interchangeable.

Simply, the team is better with Donnelly in it. Would you bat Reid ahead of Donnelly? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would.

Imran is a far better batsman than the wicketkeeper selected, and really, most if not all eligible wicketkeepers Pakistan have produced.

Now, lets look at Stewart. You can't select him as an opener when you have 3 of the top 4 (arguably 5) openers to ever play the game available. Batting lower down the order, there is practically no difference between their batting performance. Why pick Stewart when Knott was obviously the better keeper?

Anyway, in regards to the opening question, Gilchrist.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Cricinfo journalists, the ultimate authority on everything ever.

I suspect that if you asked a cricinfo journo on their opinion on this thread you would probably say Ravi Bopara was/is the best wicketkeeper-batsman ever.

 

[cnerd123]

Yay a new fallacy - appeal to authority; in this case Cricinfo journalists lol.

 

[Pratters]

If I cared what Cricinfo journalists think, I would be reading Cricinfo, not Cricketweb.

 

[Pratters]

I never called and insinuated that anybody on CW is an idiot - i respect everyone I post with. Simply highlighting why the reasons I chose to pick Stewart in my version of a ENG ATXI, was done by many actually known journalist from around the world (who are not my buddies mind you) when they selected players in the only official Cricket all-time XI media exercise.

You did imply we are idiots. No one thinks your Stewart thing makes any sense except you. So you bring in articles from various online sites to say, oh look what world are you guys living in. Seriously, every one can think for themselves. We don't need to be schooled. You believe what you believe but not need to try to run your beliefs down the noses of people.

 

[watson]

Ha the more some of you speak I'm convinced your understanding of many things related to cricket history and players career's are limited, along with the how many cricket observers outside the CW world look at the game.

Right so based on your logic & dissatisfaction of my reasons for picking Stewart in ENG ATXI:

- the esteemed panel of Sri Lanka journalist who picked the Sri Lanka all-time XI for ESPN Cricinfo that choose Chaminda Vaas as an all-rounder & Sangakkara to bat @ 3 & keep - despite their careers actual career best efforts not being in those roles - was a infallible selection fallacy then? Sri Lanka all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Proteas journalist who picked S Pollock to bat @ # 7 in the SA ATXI - even though he scored his two hundreds @ # 9 - plus batting John Waite @ # 8 despite him being better top order batsman - were a infallible selection fallacy then? - All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

- the Kiwi Journalist who put John Reid to bat @ # 6 in their despite his best runs coming at 4/5 - this also infallible ?New Zealand all-time XI revealed | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

- the PAK journalist batting Imran Khan @ # 6, when at his all-round best, he was never a top 6 batsman - how infallible is this? - Pakistan all-time XI: The XI | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

This response I gotta see

I have never met a person who has been persuaded by the logic of a rational argument. Not one. Rather we make our decision based on how we feel about the person making the argument.

 

[aussie]

Where else does Sanga bat? He's by far Sri Lanka's best top order batsman, and at worst, lets say a capable keeper. Why pick an inferior batsmen as the keeper, when he has experience keeping to both Murali and Vaas, the main bowlers on the team. The reason for picking the team like this is because you need 3 pacers in an ATG side, its just fact. I don't see a better way of doing it than how Cricinfo did it.

The balance was wrong in the SRI ATXI team picked then because Vaas is not all-rounder & at the the time of exercise Mathews had not emerged yet. That the part of their selection I disagree with, since you could have picked Samaraweera instead of one of fast bowlers. A SRI ATXI is the one team that can only have 4 bowlers (same 3 pacers + Murali) & has the accept the disadvantage.

However many in this discussion before hand stated plainly Sanga with gloves = just good player - Sanga without gloves = great player - while my argument was I believe Sanga had ability to replicate his excellent batting peak with gloves - if circumstances with SRI allowed him to bat @ # 5 like Flower/De Villiers did.

So while I wouldn't bat him @ 3 in the SRI ATXI while keeping, probably would move Mahela up to that position - if those judges didn't think Sanga couldn't replicate his form while keeping at all, picking P Jayawardene or Amal Silva certainly would have made more sense for team balance reasons.

Pollock and Procter batting above Waite isn't such a bad selection... if you'd seen them play, you'd understand why. Not saying either is better than Waite, or that Cricinfo is infallible, personally I'd bat them Procter, Waite, Pollock. Even then Procter and Waite are interchangeable.

I can certainly understand the interchangeable argument - but they are acting on a similar presumptions of ability similar to my reasoning behind selection Stewart - for batting Pollock @ # 7. I think a lot people who saw Pollock bat would agree he was more than capable of batting there long term. He just never basically because of other better batting all-rounders in the team like McMillan/Klusener +Boucher - he never batted their often.

But given that Waite is a top 6 batsman, one of the few keepers in the 20th century who had stronger batting than keeping skills - its more natural to bat him above Procter & Pollock. You can certainly argue Waite would be a bit wasted @ 8.

Simply, the team is better with Donnelly in it. Would you bat Reid ahead of Donnelly? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would.

I wouldn't. The the team is fine for me based on players chosen, although Cairns would have been picked for me no doubt.

Using similar critcism others have leveled with the Stewart POV that they believe he was a opener who was simply messed up by being allowed to keep - based on his averages in middle-order - one can certainly argue given that Reid was also at his best as a top 5 batsman for NZ, he also would be messed up in a ATXI not in his best role.

I don't, neither did jurors & certainly believe he would do fine at 6 - just as how I believe Stewart would be.

Imran is a far better batsman than the wicketkeeper selected, and really, most if not all eligible wicketkeepers Pakistan have produced.

Here lies the problem with Imran @ 6 in the ATXI (at least not vs all teams), check his peak as a all-rounder when he actually combined 90mph bowling with solid batting - instead of the exaggerated myth that he averaged 50 with the bat & 19 with ball as a "complete-all rounder" in the final 10 years of his career as his cricinfo profile states:

"And whereas Botham declined steadily, Imran just got better and better: in his last 10 years of international cricket he played 51 Tests, averaging a sensational 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball"

His actual all-rounder peak where he batted mainly @ # 7 from the 1980 series vs West Indies to 1988 series vs same opponent - his aggregate was: 44 tests, 1881 runs @ 40.02 & 216 wickets 17.51 - All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Then you have to factor in that Latif ideally is not a # 7 in a ATXI team (maybe Sarfraz Ahmed would be if he keeps building). So in the PAK ATXI, its a risk to bat Imran that high although I can understand why it was done under the presumptions he could bat their effectively.

Their team like SRI ATXI would be better off with a extra batsman in top 6 (Mushtaq Mohammad, Younis Khan, Asif Iqbal - your choice) & just 4 bowlers whether - Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir or all pace Imran/Wasim/Shoaib/Waqar. But unlike SRI that's a 4 bowler combination that would stand up to any ATG batting line-up.

Now, lets look at Stewart. You can't select him as an opener when you have 3 of the top 4 (arguably 5) openers to ever play the game available. Batting lower down the order, there is practically no difference between their batting performance. Why pick Stewart when Knott was obviously the better keeper?

Have stated reasons before my friend, no offence ain't able type it again. If you wish run through thread and you'll find it.

 

[cnerd123]

Ha, you do realize that PEWS made exactly the same point about White's bowling right? Why are you not using the favourite word from your lexicon "infalliable" to call him out on that assertion also? #CWbias

Hardly. PEWS analysed the cricket White did play to suggest he was a better bowler than his stats suggest, whereas your tried to analyse cricket he didn't play (the 14 tests he missed at his 'peak', in your words) to suggest he would have ended up with a better record than he did.

The former is analysis and the latter is speculation.

Neither match up to what your initial assertion was - that White was a 'good' allrounder and not a bits-and-pieces cricketer. PEWS leans towards him being more of a bowler who can bat a bit, and I'm sure you'll find a few who will agree on that. But you're going to have to do better to convince people that he was a Test Standard allrounder - and no a handful of Cricinfo articles wont be enough either

 

[cnerd123]

So the list of fallacies now read as:

- Infallible selectors fallacy
- Evaluating cricketers on cricket they never played
- Being the best option available = actually being good
- Appeal to Authority

Good stuff. Needs some statistical manhandling in here to round it off.

 

[Pratters]

Stewart shouldn't have kept in so many tests. He batted far better when he didn't keep. Would have made more sense to have him bat as a specialist and have some one else keep.