Best young Batsman in World Cricket today

[marc71178]

I am not talking of today. Inzamam is at the end of his career. I am talking 5 years from now.

BTW, its interesting to see the drop in Stewart's batting performance as a keeper and as a pure batsman. The figures in the brackets are when he played as pure batsman.

- Tests : 82 (51)
- Innings : 145 (91)
- Runs : 4540 (3593)
- 100's : 6 (9)
- Average : 34.9 (46.7)
- Inns per century : 24.2 (10.0)
- Inns per 50+ score : 5.0 (3.9)
- Inns per duck : 13.2 (30.0)

The difference is HUGE !!

Yet ironically he was keeping because Russell's batting was supposedly not good enough (career average of about 31 or 32 I believe)

Also Russell was about as good a keeper as there has been in the last 25 years.

 

[quytst0rm]

Pietersen is tremedously talented and is the best young batsman.

 

[danish]

Pietersen is tremedously talented and is the best young batsman.

He's not exactly young as such, he's 25.

 

[Armadillo]

Dhoni looks like quite some player, as does Kamran Akmal. That knock in the Third Test must be a little overrated, as there seems little doubt he was lbw (don't know the score, by the way - if he'd already got 80 it's not much overrated).
Interesting that both are wicketkeepers.
As for Salman Butt, I'm nowhere near so convinced about him. At least not in Tests.

Just don't give up on those first-chance averages do you?

 

[Autobahn]

27.10 was his test average and you could say that was passable but it did lengthen the tail sometimes

17.62 as ODI average though was pretty poor though.

Keeping was top-notch however.

 

[open365]

I agree with sjs on Akmal.

He still needs more big scores and to grow in maturity but he has unrivalled potential. He hits the ball cleaner than nearly everyone i've seen in modern cricket and i don't see any weak areas in his technique.

Quality player.

 

[danish]

I agree with sjs on Akmal.

He still needs more big scores and to grow in maturity but he has unrivalled potential. He hits the ball cleaner than nearly everyone i've seen in modern cricket and i don't see any weak areas in his technique.

Quality player.

He's yet to play quality spin bowling, he's made a name for himself so far by playing England and India, and made a century against West Indies.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

I'm surprised noone has said Peter Fulton. I would be reluctant to say best young batsmen going around, but he hasn't put a foot wrong yet.

 

[Richard]

In which case Stewart should definitely have never donned the gloves except in an emergency.

Rubbish, it's when Stewart only donned the gloves in an emergency that his batting suffered.
When he had them long-term he performed perfectly well.

 

[Richard]

That was mostly because Illingworth and Mike Atherton where always arguing about wether russell or stewart should have the gloves and it only really got settled when illingworth quit i think.

Plus he also for a while had to wear the gloves, open the innings, be the vice-captain and stand-in captain for ages which didn't help.

See...

You read lots of things in lots of places.
The truth of the matter is that, in the early days when Stewart was mostly keeping wicket only occasionally (before 1996\97 he only kept wicket for all or most of a series on 2 occasions - Australia 1993 and West Indies 1995) and in those days it did affect his batting (averaged 25.10 in his first 16 Tests as a wicketkeeper, compared to 47.44 when not keeping).
However, when he was given the gloves full-time (after The Oval 1996 there were only 10 Tests in which he did not keep wicket - the series in West Indies in 1998 and 5 consecutive Tests where he was promoted to open, and the main reason for that was the fact that he was captain when the change happened) there was little affect on his batting (he averaged 39 between the Test where he was given the gloves full-time and his penultimate series in 2002\03).
Had he been given the gloves full-stop from 1993, maybe things would've been a whole lot different.

 

[Richard]

I am not talking of today. Inzamam is at the end of his career. I am talking 5 years from now.

I hope Inzamam has at least a couple of years left in him.
Kamran will be into cricketing middle-age in 5 years' time. He's already been playing for quite a while.
Anyway, it's likely is it not that Younis will still be there?

BTW, its interesting to see the drop in Stewart's batting performance as a keeper and as a pure batsman. The figures in the brackets are when he played as pure batsman.

- Tests : 82 (51)
- Innings : 145 (91)
- Runs : 4540 (3593)
- 100's : 6 (9)
- Average : 34.9 (46.7)
- Inns per century : 24.2 (10.0)
- Inns per 50+ score : 5.0 (3.9)
- Inns per duck : 13.2 (30.0)

The difference is HUGE !!

Read my quote from myself above...

 

[Richard]

Yet ironically he was keeping because Russell's batting was supposedly not good enough (career average of about 31 or 32 I believe)

Also Russell was about as good a keeper as there has been in the last 25 years.

A career average of 31 (it was actually 27) is not good enough when you have someone averaging 39 (as Stewart did with the gloves once he got settled with them).

 

[Richard]

Just don't give up on those first-chance averages do you?

Well why on Earth would I?

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised noone has said Peter Fulton. I would be reluctant to say best young batsmen going around, but he hasn't put a foot wrong yet.

Well... mainly because he hasn't had many chances to put feet wrong.

 

[Armadillo]

Well why on Earth would I?

Because they're unrealistic and impossible to record.
Its very debatable on occasions as to what is a chance and what isn't, what then?

 

[Richard]

It's debatable only on a tiny amount of occasions.
They certainly aren't "unrealistic", and they're impossible to record only for the simple-minded.

 

[Armadillo]

So its like saying, for personal sakes, there is no point in you going on now that you've been dropped.

 

[Richard]

Nope.
It's like saying (well... it is saying) that as far as the batsman's ability is concerned there's no difference between a dropped catch and a caught catch \ there's no difference between an accepted stumping and a missed stumping \ whatever let-off it may be.
It's about analysis of a batsman, not analysis of a game.

 

[marc71178]

It's debatable only on a tiny amount of occasions.

Yet you derided the "in control" thing that Cricinfo look at...

 

[Armadillo]

Nope.
It's like saying (well... it is saying) that as far as the batsman's ability is concerned there's no difference between a dropped catch and a caught catch \ there's no difference between an accepted stumping and a missed stumping \ whatever let-off it may be.
It's about analysis of a batsman, not analysis of a game.

I've seen this argument before, you are unrelenting Richard!