The stats do not do him justice!

[marc71178]

Firstly no contraction. Again the consistent notion that Stewart wasn't "good enough as keeper" really needs to laid to rest.

How can you say he's worthy of an All Time spot as a wicket-keeper when he wasn't even anywhere near the best keeper of his generation?

He wasn't good enough to be considered one of the best keeperes ever.

 

[The Sean]

Lots of people will agree with you, but I'm afraid I don't. The simple fact is, imho, that Not Outs don't "bloat" averages. As you point out, an average is simply runs divided by dismissals.

You could say that Lara scored more runs per innings than Tendulkar; but by the same token, the stats suggest that Lara was easier to dismiss than Tendulkar. So, in this case at least, the idea of runs per innings doesn't take us very much further.

Prince EWS actually posted a brilliant little argument recently on the idea that not-outs actually hindered rather than helped a batsman's average over time. I can't remember where it is but if anyone can find it it's well worth a read.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Firstly no contraction. Again the consistent notion that Stewart wasn't "good enough as keeper" really needs to laid to rest.

Good idea. Let's lay to rest everything you don't agree with, then we can shut the forum down and do charity work instead.

 

[JBH001]

Well i'd say it rights him off as an option as to bat @ 6. Since hypotetically you are basically saying he is 30-35 average bat @ 6 againts the high class fast bowling attacks he would face againts in hypotetical match-ups vs WI, PAK, SA, AUS. Which for a top 6 batsman for an All-Time XI level isn't good enough.

Plus you can also argue, that even if he wasn't captain for those intial 10 test vs WI, we can't presume he would have done better.Thats tells us something about Sir Ian's temperament. Since even Imran & Kapil as skippers scored hundreds vs WI (but i'm not suggesting Kapil is good enough to bat @ 6 for IND ATXI though).

Actually most batsmen would have trouble facing all time bowling attacks, and I dont see the problem in having an average of 30 - 35 at no. 6 if you are a class all-rounder and can also do the job with the ball. If, however, you want to go the way of more a batting all-rounder that is fair enough - but it seems to be entirely arbitrary that a no. 6 needs to average more in order to qualify while also counting as a genuine all-rounder. Certainly in this instance, neither Imran or Kapil qualify at no. 6, and if you dont like Rhodes or Wooley, then I would suggest Greig at no. 6 as his batting average was 40 + from recollection (and under 35 with the ball).

But this exposes Stewart too. Stewart finished with an average of close to 40, but his average as a wicket keeper batsman was under 35. His full record follows:

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s 
82 145 15 4540 173 34.92 9135 49.69 6 23 11 601 10

His average batting at 6 was 33.5 and his average when batting from 4 - 7 was just under 34 (all while wielding the gloves). And he wasnt that good with the gloves either.

I really dont understand this fascination you have with Stewart. He is simply not upto inclusion in an AT XI in terms of his keeping, he was after all never in the top tier in his own time, or his batting as a wicket keeper batsman - whether for the reasons themselves, or for reasons of balance.

Finally, dont get the comment regarding Botham's temperamental unfitness for captaincy. Since he is not going to captain the AT XI it is irrelevant.

 

[Ikki]

No, I'd prefer a batsman who tends to average 81 per test but gets dismissed less frequently to a batsman who adds 90 per test but also gets out more frequently.

Your reasons being?

Also what people forget is that Tendulkar came into International cricket extremely early, and did not have a spectacular record for the first 6-7 years of his career, and batted down the order.

That's true, but 7 years? More like 3. Why does batting down the order (5-6) hinder you?

 

[zaremba]

Prince EWS actually posted a brilliant little argument recently on the idea that not-outs actually hindered rather than helped a batsman's average over time. I can't remember where it is but if anyone can find it it's well worth a read.

Yeah I remember him doing so, and it's an argument I've put forward too. (But no-one called it brilliant when I put it forward )

In a nutshell, if you score 20 not out and 20, you've had to start your innings twice, which is when batting is at its hardest. Whereas if you score 40 you've only had to start once before scoring some easier runs when you've got your eye in. Because runs 21-40 are usually easier to come by than runs 1-20.

 

[zaremba]

I think there are only a few cases where not getting dismissed actually aids your team - batting for a draw, etc. Scoring more runs for your team is more important than having your average higher. So if you are easier to dismiss, yet make more runs, I think you are actually helping your team more. Just my opinion.

That's certainly true. Runs scored can be a good measure of your contribution to the team. But batting average is (imho) usually a better measure of your ability.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah I remember him doing so, and it's an argument I've put forward too. (But no-one called it brilliant when I put it forward )

That's because he's an Aussie legend and you're a pommy bastard. Nothing personal, obviously.

 

[zaremba]

That's because he's an Aussie legend and you're a pommy bastard. Nothing personal, obviously.

Booooooooo hiissssss to all you lot and your rotten record-breaking batsmen

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Graham Thorpe-For a significant period of time,he was the only batsmen averaging 40+ for England.Played in a relatively weak side,played many valuable innings & I do think deserved an average of 50.

Saqlain Mushtaq-In his last 4 or 5 tests,his averaged jumped from 26 to 29 but for a 4 or 5 year period,he was an evn better spinner tha Warne & Murali.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul-Deserved better stats considering the type of player he was.

Gordon Greenidge-Shoould've averaged 50+.

Imran Khan-Averaged 37 with the bat and 22 with the ball and is the most rounded allrounder ever and in my personal opinion,a fair bit ahead of all others.Its a shame he was not a good batsman at the start of his career and didn't bowl in some matches due to injury or for other reasons.Definitely deserved a batting average of 40+ and bowling average of 20 or less.

Andrew Flintoff-Shame he failed to show his real allround abilities until 2004 other wise could've average 35 with the bat & 25 with the ball.

 

[MrIncredible]

Brian Lara. I honestly think that had he been a little more selfish (only the 400* qualifies imo as a selfish inns) he could have ended up with a few more not outs and a 55+ average. There were many times in his career Lara would make a big hundred and be like the 9th or 10th man out and he could (on many occasions) have played for the not out but he didnt. Instead (i feel) he tried to smash as many runs as he could (to aid his team) b4 he ran out of partners, most times he himself in his effort to get runs quickly got out instead. (ex 226, 176, 221&130 etc)

 

[subshakerz]

Graham Thorpe-For a significant period of time,he was the only batsmen averaging 40+ for England.Played in a relatively weak side,played many valuable innings & I do think deserved an average of 50.

Saqlain Mushtaq-In his last 4 or 5 tests,his averaged jumped from 26 to 29 but for a 4 or 5 year period,he was an evn better spinner tha Warne & Murali.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul-Deserved better stats considering the type of player he was.

Gordon Greenidge-Shoould've averaged 50+.

Imran Khan-Averaged 37 with the bat and 22 with the ball and is the most rounded allrounder ever and in my personal opinion,a fair bit ahead of all others.Its a shame he was not a good batsman at the start of his career and didn't bowl in some matches due to injury or for other reasons.Definitely deserved a batting average of 40+ and bowling average of 20 or less.

Andrew Flintoff-Shame he failed to show his real allround abilities until 2004 other wise could've average 35 with the bat & 25 with the ball.

Interesting choices. I agree on Saqlain, 29 doesn't really reflect his quality, but then Kumble has an average of 29 and Qadir has an average of 32, so it seems that many spinners have had that problem. Greenidge was nearly an all-time great and better than pretty much any opener from this decade, so yeah he should have had a 50+ average.

I'm not so sure on Imran though, who is my favorite player. Given that his stats are among the best of any player in history, his records reflects him as an overall cricketer pretty well (a useful/good batsman and an all-time great bowler). I do think his greatness goes beyond stats, and the final package for me is up there after Sobers and Bradman. But as the stats are, they are darn impressive.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim Akram. For me, he was the most talented bowler I've ever seen bowl a delivery, and should have had around 100 more wickets than he ended up with. The problem was that towards the end of his career, he was so awkward a proposition that batsmen used to focus on playing him out and attacking others, but he should have had more.

 

[Ikki]

Wasim Akram. For me, he was the most talented bowler I've ever seen bowl a delivery, and should have had around 100 more wickets than he ended up with. The problem was that towards the end of his career, he was so awkward a proposition that batsmen used to focus on playing him out and attacking others, but he should have had more.

This. Watching Akram I thought it didn't get better watching fast bowling. He looked like getting a wicket every ball for me.

 

[Migara]

Interesting choices. I agree on Saqlain, 29 doesn't really reflect his quality, but then Kumble has an average of 29 and Qadir has an average of 32, so it seems that many spinners have had that problem.

Saqlain brought the novelty with the doosra. But when his doosra was found out (first person to do it, Kumar Dharmasena, he even demonstrated it), he did to had booming off breaks to fall back. He was taken apart by Indians and Lankans in the latter part of his career. But on other hand Kumble started as a one trick pony. i.e. to ball quick topspin and defeat batsman through the air and off the pitch by hurrying them. But he later added variety. He had n number of plans (n around 10) to fall back when plan A went wrong. Saqlain did not had a good alternative plans (n 0 or 1) to fall back when batsmen dictated to him.

 

[aussie]

Actually most batsmen would have trouble facing all time bowling attacks, and I dont see the problem in having an average of 30 - 35 at no. 6 if you are a class all-rounder and can also do the job with the ball. If, however, you want to go the way of more a batting all-rounder that is fair enough - but it seems to be entirely arbitrary that a no. 6 needs to average more in order to qualify while also counting as a genuine all-rounder.

Well if are averaging 30-35 with the bat as an all-rounder thats not # 6 quality for All Time XI's, but rather # 7. The only all-rounders who qualify to bat in the top 6 for their respective ATXIs are Sobers, Miller, Procter, Rice, Faulkner & Imran (depending on the balance of the PAK All Time XI).

Certainly in this instance, neither Imran or Kapil qualify at no.

Kapil no. But Imran yes depending on circumstance & balance of the PAK All Time XI. Since Imran as an "all-rounder" combining solid batting & superb bowling @ 90 mph fromWI 80 - WI 88 he averaged 40.

and if you dont like Rhodes or Wooley, then I would suggest Greig at no. 6 as his batting average was 40 + from recollection (and under 35 with the ball).

Its not that i dont like Rhodes or Wooley, they just dont qualify as # 6 option all-rounder for the ENG ATXI. Greig could definately, but you already have Hammond bowling similar standard medium pace.

Since the idea of picking a # 6 batsman is one who can give quality overs of spin right?. Greig although he could bowl spin, doesn't give a Vinoo Mankad type quality spin. So that disqualifies him.

But this exposes Stewart too. Stewart finished with an average of close to 40, but his average as a wicket keeper batsman was under 35. His full record follows:

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s 
82 145 15 4540 173 34.92 9135 49.69 6 23 11 601 10

His average batting at 6 was 33.5 and his average when batting from 4 - 7 was just under 34 (all while wielding the gloves). And he wasnt that good with the gloves either.

You have narrow Stewart stats as a keeper batsman from 96-2003 where he kept consistently. Unlike 90-96 where he was rotated around from an opener, # 3 batsman & keeper. During this period he averaged 38. If you want to get even more specific & take out the couple of tests vs NZ & WI that Russell kept that average is just under 37. Thats qualifies him as the BEST option to bat @ 6, if the ENG ATXI wants to pick 5 bowlers. .

But its clearly is a contentious position. Thus the fact ENG ATXI cant afford the luxury of 5 bowlers.

I really dont understand this fascination you have with Stewart. He is simply not upto inclusion in an AT XI in terms of his keeping, he was after all never in the top tier in his own time, or his batting as a wicket keeper batsman - whether for the reasons themselves, or for reasons of balance.

His keeping was of the Gilchrist/Sangakkara standard during this period as well, his by no means sub-standard.

Finally, dont get the comment regarding Botham's temperamental unfitness for captaincy. Since he is not going to captain the AT XI it is irrelevant.

Well when i referred to the captaincy affecting his temperament during those 10 tests i was more using it as comparison to Imran & Kapil who scored hundreds vs WI while as captain. So although it clearly affecting Botham, it dont believe it should be THE underlying factor when judging his record vs WI, since his others compatirots did it & we can't say for sure if he didn't have the captaincy whether he would have done better in 80/81.

Its a bit of statistical oddity. But given that it makes too much of a hit & miss option for the # 6 spot. For hypotetical match-ups againts the pace bowling attacks of WI, AUS, SA, PAK.

 

[aussie]

Good idea. Let's lay to rest everything you don't agree with, then we can shut the forum down and do charity work instead.

No need for lame sarcasm. Your notion that Stewart was a sub-standard keeper i have in detailed disapproved it. Unless you can give instances between 96-2003 where his keeping was AWFUL, i believe i am finished with you for now.

 

[aussie]

Yeah I remember him doing so, and it's an argument I've put forward too. (But no-one called it brilliant when I put it forward )

In a nutshell, if you score 20 not out and 20, you've had to start your innings twice, which is when batting is at its hardest. Whereas if you score 40 you've only had to start once before scoring some easier runs when you've got your eye in. Because runs 21-40 are usually easier to come by than runs 1-20.

Well this is true. But im struggling to see how more not-outs hinderes a batsman in the long run though, i think of Bevan in ODIs immediately. His amount of not-outs didn't hinder him.

 

[aussie]

How can you say he's worthy of an All Time spot as a wicket-keeper when he wasn't even anywhere near the best keeper of his generation?

He was of the standard of Gilchrist & Sangakkara. Although they would obviously have a slight advantage againts spin given their work to Warne & Murali. But the ONLY time Stewart had to keep to spin over a long period of time in the winter of 2000/01, he was very solid.

All 3 where pretty even standing back to pace.

He wasn't good enough to be considered one of the best keeperes ever.

He didn't need to be, but he wasn't sub-standard either.

As i keep saying if the ENG ATXI wants to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart becomes the best option. But its a contentious position, so thats why ENG ATXI can't afford the luxury of 5 bowlers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No need for lame sarcasm. Your notion that Stewart was a sub-standard keeper i have in detailed disapproved it. Unless you can give instances between 96-2003 where his keeping was AWFUL, i believe i am finished with you for now.

You disproved precisely nothing, you've disagreed and said you have a tape of one series. Yipee.
I'm glad you're finished, just stick to that and everyone will be happy.