The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[harsh.ag]

England ATXI

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe

Len Hutton (c)
Ken Barrington
Wally Hammond (6)
WG Grace (5)

Alan Knott +

Ian Botham (2)
Harold Larwood (3)
Fred Trueman (1)
Sydney Barnes (4)

 

[Zinzan]

England ATXI

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe

Len Hutton (c)
Ken Barrington
Wally Hammond (6)
WG Grace (5)

Alan Knott +

Ian Botham (2)
Harold Larwood (3)
Fred Trueman (1)
Sydney Barnes (4)

Excellent side, assuming Beefy bats ahead of Knott. The only question I would have is Barrington's inclusion ahead of Compton & May at 5.

 

[Zinzan]

England Post-1980 Test XI

Cook
Gooch
Root
Gower*
Pietersen
Stewart+
Botham
Flintoff
Swann
Broad/Anderson
Willis

Handy side, deep batting too.

 

[Red]

England is such a difficult ATG side to balance

Hutton
Hobbs
Ranji
Grace
Hammond
Ames +
Botham
Larwood
Barnes
Laker
Trueman

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but you have to say that post-1980 england side is a shall pool to choose from compared with some other countries.

And that's just the gene pool.

 

[S.Kennedy]

See, the English selectors screwed Stewart's careers over. As a batsman, he was very very good in the top order, either opening or at number 3. Had an average of around 45 in those positions (mostly without the gloves). He was very assured against pace bowling. It was when the selectors made him take the gloves and bat at 5, 6, or 7 that his batting output dropped, batting further down the order than suited his game.

If he'd just been allowed to open or bat at three for his whole career, without being made to keep wickets, he would have ended his career as an opener with a batting average of close to 50 and be remembered as a great (all my opinion but I think it's true). The fact that he's remembered as a bits and pieces player, handy with the bat and handy with the gloves, is an indicator of how English selection at that time got a lot wrong. He would have ranked with Gooch and Cook as the great English openers of the last couple decades.

Ray Illingworth? Atherton wanted Jack Russell.

 

[Red]

Ray Illingworth? Atherton wanted Jack Russell.

Dunno. Whoever was selecting Stewart to keep.

 

[marc71178]

Did Stewart offer enough over Russell with the bat to justify how much better Russell was as a keeper? Probably

What, 2 or 3 runs on average (as it was for the majority of the time their careers ran in parallel?) - I'll say that's a big no before you even consider how much better with the gloves Russell was.

 

[marc71178]

Doesn't care for the facts.

Contradicts himself the very next breath.

So the only way to judge wicket keepers is by number of dismissals then? What a load of total bullshit.

 

[the big bambino]

When 2 blokes from the same era are compared, then yes it is a fair comparison. Stewart got more dismissals bcos he got more games. He got more games bcos he was the better player.

 

[mr_mister]

What, 2 or 3 runs on average (as it was for the majority of the time their careers ran in parallel?) - I'll say that's a big no before you even consider how much better with the gloves Russell was.

It's pretty obvious the gap in batting skill between Stewart and Russell is huge

 

[marc71178]

When 2 blokes from the same era are compared, then yes it is a fair comparison. Stewart got more dismissals bcos he got more games. He got more games bcos he was the better player.

No, he got more games because the selectors (and anyone else who tries to claim it) were wrong. Russell was a far better keeper who was slightly worse with the bat in comparison to Stewart as a keeper batsman.

At the same time, Stewart was a far better opener then any other option available so should've been playing as that.

 

[marc71178]

It's pretty obvious the gap in batting skill between Stewart and Russell is huge

3 or 4 runs is now huge is it?

 

[Red]

It's pretty obvious the gap in batting skill between Stewart and Russell is huge

With regards to what?

Russell was a gun keeper, who averaged 28 with the bat (FWIW, in the same era, Australia had Healy averaging less)

Stewart, when keeping, only averaged 34 with the bat.

Stewart, when not keeping, averaged 46.

So, Stewart should have been opening or batting at #3. And Russell should have been at #7. But instead England were jamming in Mark Ealham, Ben Hollioake, Chris Lewis & Craig White as bits and pieces (read ineffective) all rounders.

 

[mr_mister]

3 or 4 runs is now huge is it?

wouldn't think you'd be a stickler for stats tbqh

 

[Burgey]

With regards to what?

Russell was a gun keeper, who averaged 28 with the bat (FWIW, in the same era, Australia had Healy averaging less)

Stewart, when keeping, only averaged 34 with the bat.

Stewart, when not keeping, averaged 46.

So, Stewart should have been opening or batting at #3. And Russell should have been at #7. But instead England were jamming in Mark Ealham, Ben Hollioake, Chris Lewis & Craig White as bits and pieces (read ineffective) all rounders.

Whenever Australian selections get me down, I always look back fondly on that era of English cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

With regards to what?

Russell was a gun keeper, who averaged 28 with the bat (FWIW, in the same era, Australia had Healy averaging less)

Stewart, when keeping, only averaged 34 with the bat.

Stewart, when not keeping, averaged 46.

So, Stewart should have been opening or batting at #3. And Russell should have been at #7. But instead England were jamming in Mark Ealham, Ben Hollioake, Chris Lewis & Craig White as bits and pieces (read ineffective) all rounders.

Well he was always the keeper the final 4-5 years he played, when he was an old man. The era of him being a batsman only came in his prime. I also think 7 runs is a big difference (27 and 34) to show one was more talented as a batsman while keeping.

Then there's the elephant in the room that their career batting averages of 27.1 and 39.5 speak for themselves. Yes I know Stewart was better without the gloves. Was still a better batsman than Jack Russell with them too - he was more likely to be tired after keeping all day but he didn't magically transform into a tailender

 

[AndrewB]

With regards to what?

Russell was a gun keeper, who averaged 28 with the bat (FWIW, in the same era, Australia had Healy averaging less)

Russell and Healy both averaged 27 in Tests (Healy actually averaged more by about 0.2)

In the period when all three were playing (1990-1998), Stewart averaged 32 (as keeper), Healy 30, Russell 24.

 

[Gowza]

Russell Vs Stewart. Doesn't it really just come down to whether you weight the keeping ability above the batting or vice versa? If I'm picking an all time team for England it's probably going to be Knott or Ames anyway, depending on how I want the team structured. Russell Vs Stewart is a similar debate.

 

[mr_mister]

But Marc is arguing the difference in batting ability is non existent