The stats do not do him justice!

[Richard]

It's not really his keeping that's being judged though. I hope there's no one in the entire universe who would argue that Stewart is a better keeper than Knott. The only issue is whether in the early days the uncertainity over his keeping role affected his batting to the point where all those performances should be arbitrarily removed from his batting average.
Whatever affect it had on him is unquantifiable.

No-one's saying anything should be arbitrarily removed from anything. The point is it makes little sense to treat a period when he was being constantly tossed from one role to another as exactly the same thing as one where he had a clearly defined role. Especially when the results were so different.

 

[Richard]

I've never seen a better keeper than Alan Knott and I don't believe that any keeper in history, Adam Gilchrist included, would have been more effective than he was batting against Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding et al in the mid 70's

Reckon Stewart would TBH. Stewart's batting had a fair bit of weakness, but he was dynamite off the back-foot to quick bowlers.

Obviously he'd be very unlikely to keep as well to the Underwoods and Illingworths as Knott did, but that's a different matter.

It really does surprise me that anyone would claim Knott's batting - as wicketkeeper, as specialist batsman, as anything but anything - was particularly close to being as good as Stewart's.

 

[Richard]

If Stewart had been around in Knott's day there is not a cat in hells chance that he would have been chosen ahead of him - nor would he have been chosen ahead of Bob Taylor.

He'd probably have been chosen for the team though, because he was quite a bit better as a batsman than the likes of Keith Fletcher and Mike Denness. And thus if England were behind in a series and Stewart could keep adequately, as he could, Taylor might well be dropped every now and then for a specialist batsman, even if that batsman was only Mike Denness.

 

[SJS]

By watching them keep wicket where applicable. In the case of Les Ames there's no choice but to go by the testimony of people who did see him. I'd be amazed if he was a better keeper than Alan Knott but if a knowledgable person who saw both says he is then fair enough. Putting Alec Stewart's sub-standard keeping and moderate batting ahead of Alan Knott's supreme keeping and adequate batting makes no sense at all. If Stewart had been around in Knott's day there is not a cat in hells chance that he would have been chosen ahead of him - nor would he have been chosen ahead of Bob Taylor.

Fair enough.

When I posed the query on Ames, I did not compare him to Knott although by all contemporary accounts he (Ames) was a fantastic keeper whose keeping was slightly underplayed because of his magnificent batting.

I too would chose Knott before him as an all time England keeper (although I would give Evans a good consideration before that) but if I was ever asked to chose a batsman keeper for England (for Tests) or for a world side for that matter (its not a choice I normally make) my first choice would be Ames and Stewart wouldn't even figure in it.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, to keep wicket in any England all-time team for me would be Les Ames, no questions asked. Possibly an inferior batsman to Stewart, but if so marginally, and by accounts I've only relatively recently discovered an excellent wicketkeeper.

 

[aussie]

Just out of curiosity again, why wouldn't you chose Les Ames in place of Stewart if you wanted a keeper who could bat at number six?

Because he failed againts the best team of his time with the bat.

 

[Ikki]

Because he failed againts the best team of his time with the bat.

And Stewart didn't? IIRC he had a poor record against both WIndies and Australia.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For a front line batsman Stewart had an appalling record against Australia and moderate against the West Indies. He wasn't a particularly good keeper either yet there he sits fulfilling both roles in an All Time England XI..........excellent.

 

[aussie]

I've never seen a better keeper than Alan Knott and I don't believe that any keeper in history, Adam Gilchrist included, would have been more effective than he was batting against Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding et al in the mid 70's

Thats a VERY big call about Knott's batting, although he did bat very well againts those great bowlers in his day. No doubt in Ashes 05, some technical issues that if he played againts those bowlers he may not have been so dominant.

But i reckon the likes of Gilchrist, Stewart, Sangakkara, Lindsay, Healy, Flower at their respective batting peaks, could have batted just as effectively as Knott againts those bowlers if they played in the mid 70s.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Thats a VERY big call abot Knott's batting, although he did bat very well againts those great bowlers in his car.

No, he always parked his car at least 2 miles from the ground out of superstition.

 

[aussie]

You actually believe that someone who peaks later in their career is automatically more worthy than someone who peaks early.

Why does it matter when you peak?

Do you have a problem calling Steve Waugh a great batsman he peaked almost 10 years into his career & many reckon that period of batting was almost as good as Tendy & Lara in the 90s.

Anil Kumble wasn't a complete bowler in all-conditions (overseas) until AUS 2003/04. The later half of his career was his best.

Flintoff after becoming test quality in IND 2001. Didn't become the GREAT Freddie until Bridgetown 04.

Bob Simpson, didn't become a top-quality opener until 10 years into his career. He like Imran transformed from a caterpillar to a butterfly. I can go on here...

....Plus inversely like Botham the likes of Vinood Kambli, Blewett, Tufnell, Harmison, Jimmy Adams plus i'm sure many others, Had fantastic test starts only to fell of due to technical issues.

So your point doesn't hold any water. Natural talent doesn't carry you through the rigours of test cricket. You need alot more than that.

 

[aussie]

No, he always parked his car at least 2 miles from the ground out of superstition.

Ha, my bad. I am playing Need for Speed, so the word odly slipped out..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why does it matter when you peak?

Do you have a problem calling Steve Waugh a great batsman he peaked almost 10 years into his career & many reckon that period of batting was almost as good as Tendy & Lara in the 90s.

Anil Kumble wasn't a complete bowler in all-conditions (overseas) until AUS 2003/04. The later half of his career was his best.

Flintoff after becoming test quality in IND 2001. Didn't become the GREAT Freddie until Bridgetown 04.

Bob Simpson, didn't become a top-quality opener until 10 years into his career. He like Imran transformed from a caterpillar to a butterfly. I can go on here...

....Plus inversely like Botham the likes of Vinood Kambli, Blewett, Tufnell, Harmison, Jimmy Adams plus i'm sure many others, Had fantastic test starts only to fell of due to technical issues.

So your point doesn't hold any water. Natural talent doesn't carry you through the rigours of test cricket. You need alot more than that.

It's hard to know what point of view you're on about considering that post has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.

 

[fredfertang]

Thats a VERY big call abot Knott's batting, although he did bat very well againts those great bowlers in his car. No doubt in Ashes 05, some technical issues that if he played againts those bowlers he may not have been so dominant.

But i reckon the likes of Gilchrist, Stewart, Sangakkara, Lindsay, Healy, Flower at their respective batting peaks, could have batted just as effectively as Knott againts those bowlers if they played in the mid 70s.

It is, but I do limit the comment to the 74/75, 75 and 76 series - I wouldn't suggest that he was as good as those you mention at any other time

 

[aussie]

It's hard to know what point of view you're on about considering that post has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.

Ha, you serious. Ok let me review how we got this point quickly.

I first said:

No, their respective careers are totally different.

Botham started like race car @ 100 mph & crashed (injury 1984/85). Never to reclaim that speed again.

Imran transformed from a caterpillar to butterfly.

You said:

You actually believe that someone who peaks later in their career is automatically more worthy than someone who peaks early.

I discredited that notion with:

Why does it matter when you peak?.

Do you have a problem calling Steve Waugh a great batsman he peaked almost 10 years into his career & many reckon that period of batting was almost as good as Tendy & Lara in the 90s.

Anil Kumble wasn't a complete bowler in all-conditions (overseas) until AUS 2003/04. The later half of his career was his best.

Flintoff after becoming test quality in IND 2001. Didn't become the GREAT Freddie until Bridgetown 04.

Bob Simpson, didn't become a top-quality opener until 10 years into his career. He like Imran transformed from a caterpillar to a butterfly. I can go on here...

....Plus inversely like Botham the likes of Vinood Kambli, Blewett, Tufnell, Harmison, Jimmy Adams plus i'm sure many others, Had fantastic test starts only to fell of due to technical issues.

So your point doesn't hold any water. Natural talent doesn't carry you through the rigours of test cricket. You need alot more than that.

Now i think your confused:

It's hard to know what point of view you're on about considering that post has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.

Hopefully this helps..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, you serious. Ok let me review how we got this point quickly.

I first said:



You said:



I discredited that notion with:



Now i think your confused:



Hopefully this helps..

Total crap.
We got to that point because you (that's you) said that Botham couldn't be considered a top 6 six batsman in an All Time XI based on his peak because his career tailed off. Yet Imran could be considered for a top 6 place even though for the first half of his career he wasn't a batsman at all. The only difference between the two is one peaked early as a batsman and one peaked late. Yet you (that's you) consider Imran's peak more relevant than Botham's.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, my bad. I am playing Need for Speed, so the word odly slipped out..

Do yourself a favour. Slow down, read other posts properly and think properly before responding. That way you might one day actually post something that makes sense. As I expect to die sometime in the next 50 years I don't think I'll bother wasting time waiting.

 

[aussie]

Total crap.
We got to that point because you (that's you) said that Botham couldn't be considered a top 6 six batsman in an All Time XI based on his peak because his career tailed off.

Bumbaclathh, as i said before.

NOTE: But lets be clear here, i do believe Botham at his peak was a more natural batsman than Imran during his all-rounder peak (80-88) & better in a few area's. Just that Botham's failures vs WI are too big to ignore, even though captaincy as i said before definately had an effect. Imran didn't fail vs WI & he was captain as well during that same period.

But after Imran bowling losts is spark after WI 88 and he became & even more solid bat until retirement in 92. He was probably just as good as Sir Ian between 77-84 or slighty better, i cant say for sure.

Now please if you can, disapprove any of that. Without any of your dull ideological arrogance towards to matter. Since that doesn't make you right.

I am willing to go at this debate FOREVER FWIW until i am disapproved.

Yet Imran could be considered for a top 6 place even though for the first half of his career he wasn't a batsman at all. The only difference between the two is one peaked early as a batsman and one peaked late. Yet you (that's you) consider Imran's peak more relevant than Botham's.

What makes a player that peaks early better than player than peaks late?

I just gave you the examples of Steve Waugh, Flintoff, Simpson, Kumble, Gooch, Grimmett, Benaud, Davidson. Of players who transformed like Imran, who are ALL considered greats.

While the likes of Jimmy Adams, Blewett, Kambli, Saqlain Mushtaq, Thompson, Waqar Younis. Of players whose started with a bang and fell off greatly for various reasons.

The closest example being Waqar, its fairly unanimous that Waqar at his peak was one of the most destructive bowlers ever. But you don't hear people saying Waqar is best bowler of the 90s because of this.

Again here, i would like a hot cricket discussion, i am willing. No ideological grindlock PLEASEEEEEEEE

Do yourself a favour. Slow down, read other posts properly and think properly before responding. That way you might one day actually post something that makes sense. As I expect to die sometime in the next 50 years I don't think I'll bother wasting time waiting.

Haa, that smile aint fooling nobody. It was a typo, Fredfertag clearly knew that. Back up with the sly comments AND LETS TALK CRICKET. Such childish acts, just proves you are losing the argument sir.

 

[aussie]

And Stewart didn't? IIRC he had a poor record against both WIndies and Australia.

I'd use to word moderate. But again that would bring us back to argument that between 90-96 where Stewart rotated roles to help ENGs balance. It affected him, in fact during this period Stewart got some top innings againts top quality pace attacks. Most notably his performances vs WI @ Bridgetown 94.

Ames never faced such quality pace bowling in his career. But having looked at this before, the interesting thing is that Ames failures vs AUS where againts the spin of O'Reilly & Grimmett - which was Stewart's batting weakness. So there is legitimate argument (presuming you wish to make it), that Stewart would not have conquered those spin twins.

But its too margin, the underlying fact is that overall giving that Ames's failure vs AUS & the bettet standard of bowling Stewart faced. I would only have Knott & Stewart as the keeper choices for ENG ATXI.

 

[aussie]

It is, but I do limit the comment to the 74/75, 75 and 76 series - I wouldn't suggest that he was as good as those you mention at any other time

His batting definately definately stepped up superbly in those series no doubt. Although those keepers i mentioned where better batsmen than him, what he did vs AUS & WI in the mid 70s is a standard of gritty batting that those blokes would have done well to emulate.

But i dont think it would be fair to say those other keeper/bats "would not have as effective as he was batting against Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding et al in the mid 70's". Thats trending slightly on over-rating Knott.

Since all those others blokes got runs againts top quality pace attacks at some point in their respective careers, plus where better batsmen.