Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?

[marc71178]

Did Sobers/Imran play during 1996-2006 ?? what I meant was during 1996-2005 gilly could have walked into any XI that consisted of players of 1996-2005/6 era.

Fair enough - I did think it seemed a bit of an over the top point - maybe if you'd have prefixed it with "I can assure you" then it would've had more validity.

 

[Sanz]

How many times must this be gone through?
Stewart early on in his career was perceived as a batsman, who occasionally could keep wicket. Early on he only ever kept when England needed to claw back a losing series. Eventually, he was given the gloves for 2 near-full series (1993 and 1995), but even then he was far from convincing.
However, from the final Test of 1996 onwards, Stewart was clearly a batsman-wicketkeeper of the highest class. Not only was his wicketkeeping virtually faultless, he also combined it with run-scoring so well that no-one ever really seriously questioned his role in the side, so that of he played 66 Tests as a wicketkeeper and just 10 as a batsman.

So how can a player who was less than ordinary as a WK batsman for majority of his career can be compared to Gilchrist who has been excellent as a Wicketkeeper and as a batsman for most of his career ?

Accept it, Stewart cant touch Gilly and is miles behind him in either skills, one is an all time great, while the other was just another WK batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Common I am not disrespecting Alec Stewart, but comparing him to Gilly would be like I Comparing Srinath to Mcgrath/Akram etc.

 

[Sanz]

You clearly have absolutely no clue.
Alec Stewart from 1997 onwards was as good a wicketkeeper as you could wish to see - rarely missed a thing.

And as far as I remember Alec Stewart made his international debut in 19989-90. But since you have to win the argument, start arguing that he made his debut in 1997 and then how all the tests before 1997 dont count,, do one more thing, include only those tests where Stewartd made 100+ scores, that way you can argue that he was a better batsman than Sir Don and he could also keep, hence deserved to be in the team ahead of Sir Don.

 

[Goughy]

I actually agree with Richard on this one.

Stewart was a batsman who turned to keeping to help his team. As time progressed he turned himself into a very good keeper.

Throughout the late 1990's the only English name IMO that would have go close to a World XI was Stewart and even he was beaten to my teamsheet by Flower.

As a batsman/keeper Stewart would have been in virtually any test team of the period. Its possible to knock his keeping, its possible to point out his av. is lower when keeping but what he brought to the team and the versitility in selection this allowed made him a special player.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's no way Stewart was a better keeper than Boucher.

Or Latif.

 

[Sanz]

Throughout the late 1990's the only English name IMO that would have go close to a World XI was Stewart and even he was beaten to my teamsheet by Flower.

Getting into world XI is way different than getting into a national XI of countries like India, Pak etc. India had an excellent WK in Mongia and for Stewart to be able to replace him, meaning he would have to be bettr than Nayan in keeping to Kumble, Bhajji etc on turning tracks, which I doubt he was.

As a batsman/keeper Stewart would have been in virtually any test team of the period. Its possible to knock his keeping, its possible to point out his av. is lower when keeping but what he brought to the team and the versitility in selection this allowed made him a special player.

His value may have been immense for England, but I dont think it would have been like that for teams like India. Even now, India needs a WK who can bat, not a batsman who can keep wickets.

 

[PakPowered]

Would Stewart have replaced Healy or Gilchrist? No.
Would he have replaced Latif\Moin? Unless the Pakistan selectors were completely insane, yes.
.

As far as keeping is concerned, Lateef was a far better keeper than Stewart.

 

[greg]

And as far as I remember Alec Stewart made his international debut in 19989-90. But since you have to win the argument, start arguing that he made his debut in 1997 and then how all the tests before 1997 dont count,, do one more thing, include only those tests where Stewartd made 100+ scores, that way you can argue that he was a better batsman than Sir Don and he could also keep, hence deserved to be in the team ahead of Sir Don.

That's a silly comparison. There's obviously a difference between taking ALL tests from a certain key moment in a player's career and selectively picking out individual matches where they did well. Stewart only really started keeping seriously after he was already in the England team so his learning years were in full view of everyone. We don't judge other keepers from their performances at 13 or whenever they started doing it seriously.

And Stewart was as good a keeper as Boucher on the evidence available. I don't really understand on what grounds they could be separated - both dropped virtually nothing. If they could be separated on the basis of their keeping to spinners we wouldn't know because they had to do little of it.

 

[marc71178]

Stewart was a batsman who turned to keeping to help his team. As time progressed he turned himself into a very good keeper.

Who was also far far less effective with the bat then when he wasn't keeping, thus negating the "advantage" of being a batsman.

 

[Richard]

Bring back Clayton Lambert and Philo Wallace that's what I say.

And get Atherton to stick his finger up at them, too.
I couldn't stand watching those 2 get runs and it gave me great satisfaction to watch them get torn to pieces in South Africa.

 

[Richard]

Stewart was pretty useless as a wicket keeper and I dont see how he could keep to Murali, Kumble, Kaneria, Saqlain etc.

How many times do you have to be told you're wrong about this?

 

[Richard]

They would have to be insane to include Stewart as a wicketkeeper, Latif was MILES ahead of Stewart as a wicketkeeper.

No, he wasn't - he was just a bit better. Once again - you just don't seem to understand how good a wicketkeeper Stewart actually was. And he could bat better than Latif in his sleep.

How about NEVER ? Once again both were miles ahead as WK and in India you need a wicketkeeper first than a batsman, Mongia was a pretty decent bat as well.

No-one, ever, needs that. Batting is far more important thant wickekeeping. Neither were miles ahead - perhaps (and only perhaps) they might have been better wicketkeepers, but the differential was nowhere near enough to justify them playing ahead of Stewart.

Not as a wicket-keeper batsman though. Andy played only 8 tests as a pure batsman, Stewart played 50+

Might that just have something to do with the difference of reserves?

Richardson/Boucher both were/are better Wk than Alec and a pretty decent bat.

Rubbish, Boucher was embarrased on both his trips to England. Stewart is clearly twice the batsman Richardson ever was and whether Richardson was a bit better as a wicketkeeper is hardly relevant.

May be, I dont remember Germon/Pareore's wicket Keeping, I know they were okay batsmen but not in Stewart's class

Their wicketkeeping isn't really relevant - their batting was nowhere near good enough to keep Stewart out of the side.

NEVER, NEVER. I dont think Stewart had the skills to keep Murali.

You clearly haven't watched enough, then. Stewart had the skills to keep to ANYONE. Sangakkara, even, had to learn to (and I presume Kalu did, too, I just didn't witness it at first-hand).

Why Spare australia, why not claim that he could have replaced Bradman as a batsman as well, you know you can do that. all you have to do is repeat 19000 times.

Err, what?

 

[Richard]

Even though he wasn't even the best wicketkeeper in England for a lot of his career?

He was close enough to being the best for 76 of his 118 Tests.

 

[Richard]

A whole 2 runs.

No doubt you'll assure us that he was over-rated because he was dropped every time he got past 3.

2 runs is something, is it not?
Substandard teams affect averages - not massively, but they do affect them.

 

[Richard]

More importantly - England - Russell - NO WAY.

Which would of course explain why he was selected ahead of Russell in all bar 6 Tests post-1996?

 

[Richard]

There's no way Stewart was a better keeper than Boucher.

What? I don't know what you've been watching but there's little or nothing to divide them - except that Stewart is clearly better when the ball's regularly swinging after passing the bat.

 

[Richard]

So how can a player who was less than ordinary as a WK batsman for majority of his career can be compared to Gilchrist who has been excellent as a Wicketkeeper and as a batsman for most of his career ?

Explain, please, how Stewart was "less than ordinary" as a wicketkeeper-batsman when he managed to average 38 while keeping wicket for well over half his career?

Accept it, Stewart cant touch Gilly and is miles behind him in either skills, one is an all time great, while the other was just another WK batsman.

Stewart is clearly not massively behind Gilchrist as a batsman, Gilchrist has just played much worse attacks.
Stewart was one of the best batsman-wicketkeepers ever.

 

[luckyeddie]

Stewart was one of the best batsman-wicketkeepers ever.

Now THAT is just plain stupid.

 

[Richard]

And as far as I remember Alec Stewart made his international debut in 19989-90. But since you have to win the argument, start arguing that he made his debut in 1997 and then how all the tests before 1997 dont count

I hardly see how pre-1996\97 matters? The days of Stewart the batsman-wicketkeeper started at The Oval in 1996. Before that he was just a batsman who occasionally kept wicket.
I hardly see how something that numbers 16 matters in comparison to something that numbers 66?

do one more thing, include only those tests where Stewartd made 100+ scores, that way you can argue that he was a better batsman than Sir Don and he could also keep, hence deserved to be in the team ahead of Sir Don.

Blah, blah, blah, do something that's utterly pointless, der, der, der...
Trying to suggest that this is comparable clearly shows you are losing the argument, as it always does when people start saying silly things like that.