The stats do not do him justice!

[slippy]

Chris cairns

 

[JBH001]

I never felt that the captaincy can be used as an excuse for poor performance in the same way an injury can. Kapil and Imran shouldn't get any special points as players for performing as captains nor should Botham's failures be glossed over because he couldn't take the pressure. He had 9 tests as captain to show his stuff, you would think that he could have achieved something even with having to lead his team. But nada.

Captaincy isn't a physical handicap. We can dream of hypotheticals where Botham may have performed, but the fact is that he failed in pretty much every series he played against them, captaincy or no captaincy. It's a black mark on his record.

Fair enough. I disagree though in toto. Captaincy is a mental issue, and that can have as much of an impact on a player and his performances as a physical injury. But its not something I can be arsed arguing about at this time.

Aussie, will reply your post later. Have a busy couple of days ahead, and did not mean to get into a long CW post-athon anyway. You do seem to have misunderstood at least some of what I was saying though. Anyway, get back to you later.

 

[aussie]

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm hoping one day you might have enough respect for fellow posters to take a bit more care over what you write. You're either very lazy or a bit thick and that sentence is a perfect example.

I am. I rather type in the usual slangs i talk with TBH.

Look, we have been going at it for a 20 pages now. I made a few typos, Marc replied to this same post & just got straight to cricket point. But if it bothers you soooo much, I promise i shall take extra effort to try & prevent ALL typos & grammatical errors when debating with you, bullet?

I've never made any comment on Stewart as a batsman but for a laugh I'll say he was ordinary so as not to deprive the world of your argument about his greatness.

Sir L_T. Your position has been Stewart was a sub-standard keeper. I believe i have given enough credibile facts to disapprove this non-factual notion.

So when you referred to Stewart in that post as a "ordinary cricket", i presumed you where now attacking his batting. Is that inaccurate?

 

[Ikki]

Fair enough. I disagree though in toto. Captaincy is a mental issue, and that can have as much of an impact on a player and his performances as a physical injury. But its not something I can be arsed arguing about at this time.

Probably depends on the player though. And I think it's well-known that it affected Beefy negatively.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sir L_T. Your position has been Stewart was a sub-standard keeper. I believe i have given enough credibile facts to disapprove this non-factual notion.

So when you referred to Stewart in that post as a "ordinary cricket", i presumed you where now attacking his batting. Is that inaccurate?

You haven't given any facts "credibile" (your promise didn't last very long) or otherwise. It's merely your opinion. Fortunately I don't have such fragile an ego that I have to go around in circles until the other person dies of boredom so I can announce to the world that I've won an argument - so that's a dead duck.

As far as his batting goes, any argument would depend on what level you bestow on him. His right to be in the side during that era is not in question and he stands along side Atherton and Hussain as batsman who's eventual Test figures don't do justice to their contribution to that period. If you try to place him along side the best batsman in England's history that would be a different matter.

 

[The Sean]

Any chance at all that LT and aussie could shake hands and call this a draw? The 9th day's play of this Timeless (posting) Test has surely finished and the boat for England is about to sail...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Any chance at all that LT and aussie could shake hands and call this a draw? The 9th day's play of this Timeless (posting) Test has surely finished and the boat for England is about to sail...

Aussie has already stated that he goes around in circles until the other poster dies (whether it be me or anyone else) so I doubt he'll call any draws. It's of no consequence to me either way.

 

[Richard]

Any chance at all that LT and aussie could shake hands and call this a draw? The 9th day's play of this Timeless (posting) Test has surely finished and the boat for England is about to sail...

This thread's on a decent bet for biggest CC non-*Official*-tour\battle\game thread ever, so I hope not quite yet TBH.

 

[popepouri]

Jonty Rhodes, Brian MacMillan, Herchelle Gibbs, Steve Elworthy

Atherton, Andy Caddick.

 

[aussie]

You haven't given any facts "credibile" (your promise didn't last very long) or otherwise. It's merely your opinion. Fortunately I don't have such fragile an ego that I have to go around in circles until the other person dies of boredom so I can announce to the world that I've won an argument - so that's a dead duck.

Well let me list back the points i have used to defend Stewart's keeping & you tell me which ones are facts or opinions.

- Stewart was a solid presence while keeping for ENG generally non-stop from 96-2003. Made very few mistakes during this period. Fact or opinion?

- Stewart passed the acid test for any keeper, due to his glovework to Giles & Croft on difficult pitches. During the winter tests in 2000/01. Fact or opinion?

- Stewart as a batsman/keeper in the context of cricket history. Would along with Gilchrist, Lindsay, Sangakkara, Waite, Parks & potentially Dhoni, Haddin & McCullum.

Be considered the solid glovesman, who where just below the technically great standards set by Evans, Knott, Grout, Kirmani, Healy, Cameron, Oldfied, Ames, etc etc. Fact or opinion?

As far as his batting goes, any argument would depend on what level you bestow on him. His right to be in the side during that era is not in question and he stands along side Atherton and Hussain as batsman who's eventual Test figures don't do justice to their contribution to that period. If you try to place him along side the best batsman in England's history that would be a different matter.

Well i haven't. Jus that as i've continously said. If ENG ATXI wanted to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart qualifies as the best option for the position to bat @ 6, due to balance.

 

[sledger]

I am. I rather type in the usual slangs i talk with TBH.

Look, we have been going at it for a 20 pages now. I made a few typos, Marc replied to this same post & just got straight to cricket point. But if it bothers you soooo much, I promise i shall take extra effort to try & prevent ALL typos & grammatical errors when debating with you, bullet?



Sir L_T. Your position has been Stewart was a sub-standard keeper. I believe i have given enough credibile facts to disapprove this non-factual notion.

So when you referred to Stewart in that post as a "ordinary cricket", i presumed you where now attacking his batting. Is that inaccurate?

Blimey, wish you were this courteous in the football thread, then we wouldn't have half the trouble we do

 

[aussie]

In the middle order with the gloves I'd say he was.

Between 96-2003 Stewart his batting in the middle-order was not ordinary. He has alot of superb innings during this period. That average during that period of 37/38 certainy doesn't reflect fully his contributions with the bat.

Had he been left to open and not keep, I'd reckon he'd be up there with the best of his generation.

Thats very possible indeed.

But looking looking at the circumstances with Stewart between 1990-96. Where he was rotated around as opener/middle-order batsman/occassional keeper, just to aid ENG in getting the right balance. The fact the he managed to do these roles fairly competently without it affecting him, to me is a testament to his versatility. Such things could have genuienly crippled a players career.

If ENG had Flintoff in the 90s, there is a strong possibilty that Russell may not have played much & Stewart would have gotten the gloves & could have played as batsman/keeper for his entire career.

 

[JBH001]

Probably depends on the player though. And I think it's well-known that it affected Beefy negatively.

Yes, exactly. But that is what I meant.

 

[Richard]

Jonty Rhodes, Brian MacMillan, Herchelle Gibbs, Steve Elworthy

Reckon McMillan and Elworthy got about all they could be hoped from their potential TBH - Elworthy was just one of those remarkably late developers and McMillan only had the chance of a relatively short international career due to the fact that most of his playing days coincided with isolation. Rhodes for me did about as well as could've been expected, and pretty decently at that. Gibbs, well, I don't know - he's always been one of those who I think some people expect too much of. Yes, he could play some sublime shots, but he never struck me as one who could tone down his strokeplay to cope with top-quality bowling and it doesn't surprise me that he almost never managed to do such a thing.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but how about Barry Richards? The stats don't do him justice because there is not enough of them.

In the WSC he averaged almost 80 in 5 matches in what is remembered as the fiercest and most highly skilled tournament most of those players played. He also averaged 72 against Australia in the few official matches he did get to play. His FC record is formidable and even Bradman said that he was the best-ever right handed opener of all-time. He is universally lauded by everyone and is constantly talked about being as good as Sir Viv if not better.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but how about Barry Richards? The stats don't do him justice because there is not enough of them.

In the WSC he averaged almost 80 in 5 matches in what is remembered as the fiercest and most highly skilled tournament most of those players played. He also averaged 72 against Australia in the few official matches he did get to play. His FC record is formidable and even Bradman said that he was the best-ever right handed opener of all-time. He is universally lauded by everyone and is constantly talked about being as good as Sir Viv if not better.

Would have been the best opening batsman in Test history. If you start getting into South Africans there's quite a long list of them who were deprived over a 22 year period. Not all would have been greats but many would have had impressive stats that don't exist.

 

[Ikki]

Let's not forget the teeth either:

 

[whoami]

why does he deserve a test average of 60? he has batted on flat pitches all his life. he has the average he deserves.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

why does he deserve a test average of 60? he has batted on flat pitches all his life. he has the average he deserves.

Anyone particular in mind?

 

[whoami]

Tendulkar