The stats do not do him justice!

[Burgey]

FWIW, of those I've seen Knott, Bob Taylor and Healy were all top shelf. Russell too, though I didn't see as much of him at the top level Always thought Kirmani was very good too, but as with Russell I didn't see as much of him as the other three.

 

[Uppercut]

A good keeper can and will miss a chance just like a great batsman will miss get bowled first ball. You can judge the quality of a keeper even if he does not take a single catch or get a stumping. Just watch as he collects each ball (standing up). A great keeper will have ball after ball going bang in the middle of both his palms with the minimum of impact. Its a sign of a great keeper. He will rise along with the ball and move sideways as the ball deviates in a manner that his hands are always directly behind the ball from the time the ball starts rising after pitching till it finally rests in his hands. If he does that ball after ball after ball then when that one chance comes along, his hands will be in the best possible position to be closest to the line (even after deviation). A thin edge will always end up in his gloves and a thick one will have a very good chance to.

Thats the best a keeper can do standing up, be in a position with his hands so that he will collect each and every ball (not played or missed by the batsman) exactly in the 'seat' of his palms.

When you see a keeper missing the balls which are not edged or not getting them bang in the middle of his hand you know that his chances of getting it if it had deviated after that sudden edge were much poorer.

I don't rightly agree, SJS. A bad keeper is obvious straight away, but a top-class one is notoriously hard to spot because keeping is more about consistency and concentration rather than style and panache. Keepers, like batsmen, can look fantastically classy but drop a lot more than one who appears to be merely solid. Brendon McCullum, for example, looks as good as any current international keeper both standing up and standing back. But he drops a number of straightforward catches completely out of proportion with how impressive he is behind the stumps.

 

[Richard]

I didn't think the Inzi stumping was that easy, he couldn't see the ball. But there's no excuse at all for his drop of Lara in Barbados in 1999, which also cost the series.

On the whole, though, Healy was a class ahead of Gilchrist, who was a fine keeper as well. Gilchrist was both athletic and safe and didn't really have any weaknesses until the end of his career. But he lacked Healy's finesse.

Watching Healy keeping to Warne was one of the great sights of the 90s. The two had almost a symbiotic relationship, I cant think of a better bowler-keeper combo.

Warne and Berry TBH. From memory Warne thought Berry better even than Healy.

 

[SJS]

I don't rightly agree, SJS. A bad keeper is obvious straight away, but a top-class one is notoriously hard to spot because keeping is more about consistency and concentration rather than style and panache. Keepers, like batsmen, can look fantastically classy but drop a lot more than one who appears to be merely solid. Brendon McCullum, for example, looks as good as any current international keeper both standing up and standing back. But he drops a number of straightforward catches completely out of proportion with how impressive he is behind the stumps.

I never said anything contrary to that.

 

[SJS]

I don't consider Gilchrist was much better than Stewart at all. If Stewart had kept wicket for the first time in Tests at the same age Gilchrist did I doubt these wicketkeeping purists would turn their noses up at him quite so.

Stewart suffers considerably, in my estimation, by those who judged him on his poor glovework of the early-1990s, and because they were so outraged that Russell (who was initially miles ahead - later only ahead) ever lost his place to him.

I haven't, unfortunately, seen all of Gilchrist's career - the only times I ever watched him ball-by-ball-ish over a lengthy spell was 2001-2001/02. He was certainly quite acceptable but no better than Stewart at a comparable time. Whenever I saw Gilchrist he looked perfectly decent but prone to a few more errors than you'd hope for (inevitable because he kept most when I was watching with fulsome attention in England, where almost all touring wicketkeepers make more errors than usual). I don't have all that much memory of Stewart's time as a poor wicketkeeper and have very full memory of his time as a pretty decent one. Why so many refuse so steadfastly to acknowledge Stewart's improvement is, in some cases, beyond me (in some the reasoning is clear, that being due to clear over-emphasis on natural talent).

To be honest Richard. I do not have any recollection of Stewart's keeping. That he was not a great keeper I can say only from recalling the discussions we used to have (cricketing friends) amongst ourselves. It would be difficult to put him alongside Gilchrist for me to say with honesty which was better for my recollection of Gilly is still vivid.

Its strange, as I write this, to accept how little we can (at least I can) recall of different wicket keepers over time the way we can for batsmen and bowlers. The strokes of the batsmen the tussles between great batsmen and bowlers stay imprinted in your mind's eye and even great work in the field and catches.

Normal everyday keeping goes un-noticed.

As I look back I can 'see' the great keepers like Knott, Kirmani, Engineer, Bari etc. I can even recall Deryck Murray and Jeff Dujon which I suppose is due also to the fact that they kept to some great fast bowlers and one has a recollection of ball after ball thudding into those gloves. Its uncanny. I never thought of this before.

I wonder if I would recall more of Stewart if he was keeping to great bowlers?

 

[The Sean]

Always thought Kirmani was very good too, but as with Russell I didn't see as much of him as the other three.

Agree with this - Kirmani rates in the top bracked of 'keepers I've seen, though I was only young when I saw him in action. From that era I'd also rate Wasim Bari very highly, though probably a notch below Kirmani.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Agree with this - Kirmani rates in the top bracked of 'keepers I've seen, though I was only young when I saw him in action. From that era I'd also rate Wasim Bari very highly, though probably a notch below Kirmani.

Wasim Bari was of the highest class. In fact Alan Knott rated him as the best of their era. He also dispells the myth (admittedly not a widely held myth) that Test nations have always thrown the gloves to the best batsman who could also keep. Bari was chosen purely for his keeping and was nothing more than an occasionally useful late order batsman.

 

[The Sean]

Wasim Bari was of the highest class. In fact Alan Knott rated him as the best of their era. He also dispells the myth (admittedly not a widely held myth) that Test nations have always thrown the gloves to the best batsman who could also keep. Bari was chosen purely for his keeping and was nothing more than an occasionally useful late order batsman.

I didn't know that about Knott - high praise indeed. You're right about Bari's batting though, he was a genuine tailender (Test average about 15 OTTOMH) picked purely on keeping ability whereas Kirmani was a great keeper who was also a high class bat. Bari the Taylor to Kirmani's Knott, if you will.

 

[Richard]

To be honest Richard. I do not have any recollection of Stewart's keeping. That he was not a great keeper I can say only from recalling the discussions we used to have (cricketing friends) amongst ourselves. It would be difficult to put him alongside Gilchrist for me to say with honesty which was better for my recollection of Gilly is still vivid.

Its strange, as I write this, to accept how little we can (at least I can) recall of different wicket keepers over time the way we can for batsmen and bowlers. The strokes of the batsmen the tussles between great batsmen and bowlers stay imprinted in your mind's eye and even great work in the field and catches.

Normal everyday keeping goes un-noticed.

As I look back I can 'see' the great keepers like Knott, Kirmani, Engineer, Bari etc. I can even recall Deryck Murray and Jeff Dujon which I suppose is due also to the fact that they kept to some great fast bowlers and one has a recollection of ball after ball thudding into those gloves. Its uncanny. I never thought of this before.

I wonder if I would recall more of Stewart if he was keeping to great bowlers?

Stewart certainly wasn't a great 'keeper, far from it - a clear notch below the likes of Bari, Engineer etc. If he was keeping to more outstanding bowlers than he (usually) did then undoubtedly, it is possible that he may lend to recall more readily. However, Stewart, from 1996/97 onwards, did a more than acceptable job, and when standing back (which was the vast majority of the time) missed precious little. He was certainly better than "moderate", "very ordinary" or "average". Gilchrist was, in my view, far from a great wicketkeeper either. A pretty good one, sure, but certainly not a great one.

TBH, great wicketkeepers to spinners will always lend to recall more than great ones to seam bowlers. The likes of Murray and Dujon, well though they did the job asked of them, simply weren't tested by the wicketkeeper's acid test, which is keeping to high-quality spin with the ball turning (though Murray did keep, very briefly, to Gibbs in his Indian-summer period).

But yes, it's been said any number of times that the best wicketkeepers as a rule tend to be the ones you (or, at least, the casual eye) notices least - totally contrary to batsmen, bowlers and outfielders. Perhaps that's the reason some prefer Andrew to Evans, Taylor to Knott, and similar. Even if in reality there was little to nothing between them.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, great wicketkeepers to spinners will always lend to recall more than great ones to seam bowlers.

Quite right too, because it's far, far more difficult.

 

[morgieb]

Agree with that. I think Gilchrist's batting was so good it made people underrate how good of a keeper he was. I think Gilchrist's keeping is really up there with anyone bar the very few best.

Yeah, this.

In fact, Gilly > Healy as a pure keeper, IMO.

 

[morgieb]

Warne and Berry TBH. From memory Warne thought Berry better even than Healy.

Indeed. His batting was **** though.

For me, I'd want an even balance. I'd like a really good keeper, but he needs to have some form of batting ability. For example, I'd take Gilly over Healy, because his keeping was very good, and his batting (well, for most of his career) was awesome. However, I'd take Read/Foster over Prior, because even though Prior's a good bat, his keeping isn't great, and you can easily use him as a specialist bat.

 

[Pigeon]

I didn't know that about Knott - high praise indeed. You're right about Bari's batting though, he was a genuine tailender (Test average about 15 OTTOMH) picked purely on keeping ability whereas Kirmani was a great keeper who was also a high class bat. Bari the Taylor to Kirmani's Knott, if you will.

 

[Uppercut]

However, I'd take Read/Foster over Prior, because even though Prior's a good bat, his keeping isn't great, and you can easily use him as a specialist bat.

Don't know if I'd agree with that once Freddie's gone. All depends on the balance of the team, and England may have to live with Prior for a while yet.

 

[aussie]

I didn't think the Inzi stumping was that easy, he couldn't see the ball. But there's no excuse at all for his drop of Lara in Barbados in 1999, which also cost the series..

My mistake on the Inzi stumping, i meant to say "it wasn't easy", typo again...

Yes but that was his ONLY drop or miss that series. He generally as his batting began to fade rapidy in 99, his keeping still remainded solid. Unlike Gilchrist whose keeping standard faded noticeably after Ashes 05.

Watching Healy keeping to Warne was one of the great sights of the 90s. The two had almost a symbiotic relationship, I cant think of a better bowler-keeper combo.

Lillee & Marsh. But yes Healy/Warne where terrific to watch..

 

[aussie]

Stewart certainly wasn't a great 'keeper, far from it - a clear notch below the likes of Bari, Engineer etc. If he was keeping to more outstanding bowlers than he (usually) did then undoubtedly, it is possible that he may lend to recall more readily. However, Stewart, from 1996/97 onwards, did a more than acceptable job, and when standing back (which was the vast majority of the time) missed precious little. He was certainly better than "moderate", "very ordinary" or "average". Gilchrist was, in my view, far from a great wicketkeeper either. A pretty good one, sure, but certainly not a great one.

Well having seeing ALL of Gilchrist's test except NZ 2000 on TV, as well Stewart in ALL test since SA 98 to SA 03. They where very comparable.

In fact Stewart at 40 in 2003 didn't was declining like how Gilchrist's was in the last 3 years.

 

[aussie]

You keep on repeating this but it's not actually based on anything. I saw Knott at the peak of his career, and the whole of Stewart's career and judge them accordingly based on watching them keep wicket. Stewart simply isn't good enough, that's all there is to it.

We are not debating who is the better keeper LT. Come on stay focused.

But rather who suits the balance of England ATXI better & i've given solid reasons why Stewart is the better option, & i repeat:

Because Botham @6 in an ATXI is too high & risky, given his failures vs WI even during his peak. Thus hypotetically given he would be facing that standard of bowling againts ever ATXI except for IND, NZ & PAK. He is better suited to batting @ 7 & given a free role to attack like Gilchrist did for AUS.

Theirfore given that situation. Stewart easily becomes the best option bat @ 6. Given his performances when he was played as a keeper batsman from 96-2003, consistently. Instead of 1990-96 when he was juggled around as opener, # 3, keeper/bat to aid in balancing England's team.

 

[Richard]

Quite right too, because it's far, far more difficult.

That was kiiiiiinda what I meant TBH.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. His batting was **** though.

Not really - it was just moderate rather than outstanding.

 

[Richard]

In fact, Gilly > Healy as a pure keeper, IMO.

That O based on what? The fact you watched Gilchrist and never watched Healy? (You'd have been about 6 when he retired, IIRR).