mr_mister said:
It's not complicated yet you fail to see the other side's point. It's gone beyond Stewart keeping in an ATG side it's about Stewart vs Russell. Russell, god love him, did not add much with the bat. With Stewart gloved up it allowed another specialist bat to strengthen the side. Hick or Ramps or Crawley usually. And sometimes they went with Ealham, Lewis or White as an AR. But the poster earlier(forget who) ignored the fact that sometimes it was a Hick or Ramprakash in at 7 instead of an AR, and sometimes Stewart himself. I at least see what the selectors were trying to do there.
Yes it didn't work out as that extra bat usually failed and the AR's for England in the 90s did **** all.
Yes Stewart's contribution with the bat was far weaker when he was gloved up. But he still got six tons.
Basically, I really doubt Stewart strictly opening and Russell doing the full time keeper's job throughout the 90s would have resulted in a drastically different outcome for England's test success. Besides its not like Stewart was dropping edges left right and centre - Russell was just apparently some weird autistic savant at keeping and somehow was a god behind the stumps despite looking like an uncoordinated fool when holding a bat.
Did the 1990s English side really need more than a 'serviceable' keeper? I feel there's only so much they can do to change the game if the edges arent coming. It's not like England were producing top quality spin to allow for a lot of stumping chances. There's a lot of factors armchair posters fail to grasp when commenting on perceived selection stupidity, like the selectors are apparently brainless.
I disagree wholeheartedly. It's not a failure to grasp different factors.
The facts stand that Stewart without the gloves was a far better batsman. And it's a lot more than just an increase of 6 or 7 runs on his average.
Without keeping, Stewart has a significantly higher ratio of 50s and 100s per innings than he had as a keeper. He made nine 100s and twenty two 50s from 51 tests as a non keeper, and only six 100s and twenty three 50s from 82 tests as a non-keeper.
So as a keeper, he'd make a 50 or 100 in tests only
35% of the time.
As a non-keeper, he'd make a 50 or 100 in tests
60% of the time.
That's a massive and significant difference, and having Stewart opening or at 3 would have put England into a lot stronger positions early in tests.
During Stewart's time England had a lot of guys averaging mid 30s which doesn't make a good team, and hints at inconsistency. By giving the gloves to Stewart, they effectively made another inconsistent and mediocre batsman who could have been a great. Having Stewart open and not keep for most of his career would have made them a significantly better side imo.
mr_mister said:
It's not complicated yet you fail to see the other side's point. It's gone beyond Stewart keeping in an ATG side it's about Stewart vs Russell. Russell, god love him, did not add much with the bat. With Stewart gloved up it allowed another specialist bat to strengthen the side. Hick or Ramps or Crawley usually. And sometimes they went with Ealham, Lewis or White as an AR. But the poster earlier(forget who) ignored the fact that sometimes it was a Hick or Ramprakash in at 7 instead of an AR, and sometimes Stewart himself. I at least see what the selectors were trying to do there.
As far as this goes, playing another specialist bat was not much better than playing Russell and Stewart as a specialist bat. Career batting averages for the players you mentioned were:
Ramps: 27
Crawley: 34
Hick: 31
Russell's career average of 27 plus the extra you get from Stewart as a non keeper makes the side far better IMO.
mr_mister said:
Did the 1990s English side really need more than a 'serviceable' keeper? I feel there's only so much they can do to change the game if the edges arent coming. It's not like England were producing top quality spin to allow for a lot of stumping chances. There's a lot of factors armchair posters fail to grasp when commenting on perceived selection stupidity, like the selectors are apparently brainless.
Although they weren't world beaters, Tufnell, Giles & Croft played plenty of tests and deserved the best keeper (as all spinners do). In addition, there's a lot more scope in England for keepers to keep up to the stumps to medium pace than there is in Aust and other places (if the keeper is good enough). Fraser, Cork and a few other fast/medium pacers of that era were in that category.
.
