Specialist v Multitaskers - who is more valuable?

[Goughy]

Yes, drop the far superior keeper for someone who when keeping averaged about the same with the bat but was worse behind the sticks - good call (!)

Then replace both with a player who wasn't even a part-time keeper.

I guess that when Flintoff returns you want Read to drop out and give Trescothick the gloves then?

I honestly believe Crawley could have been a good keeper if he had been pushed to work on that area of his game.

As for the second point, Tresco keeps? Fantastic give him the gloves now, there is no need to wait until Freddie gets back

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

AA
RC
DM

Dave Mohammed is a spinner. Not a bits and pieces player. His batting is bits, but his bowling is better than pieces.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, drop the far superior keeper for someone who when keeping averaged about the same with the bat but was worse behind the sticks - good call (!)

But Marc that not true is it? Stewart averaged 35 when keeping compared to Russells 27. 8 is a pretty big difference.

Also when keeping Stewart averaged a 50 every 3.56 games compared to Russells a fifty every 9 games.

Stewart when keeping averaged a century every 13.66 games whereas Russell averaged a century every 27 games

Stewart when keeping averaged 55.37 runs per game whereas Russell averaged 35.13

Stewart, when keeping, and Russell are not comparable in terms of batting and contibuting to the strength and depth of team batting. It is inaccurate to suggest that they gave similar performances with the bat when keeping.

 

[grecian]

Stewart made very few mistakes behind the stumps, he was as good a wicket-keeper as Russel IMO. Russell made many mistakes standing up, as did Stewart, its an utter myth we lost out in this era wicket-keeping wise. Stewart was more then adequate, just the purists whinged on whenever Alec missed one, and diverted there eyes if Jack did.

 

[tooextracool]

I think for the majority of his career stewart was a very good keeper and made very few mistakes with the gloves. I can rarely remember have an awful day or lose a match for England with the gloves and he did perform some spectacular dismissals, such as his stumping of Brian Lara in Sharjah in 97/98.

 

[Craig]

Agreed. Handy batsman and more than simply average with the ball.

I don't think either is better than the other. There are situations and spots where either shines through and bears more importance than the other. Generally I would trust a specialist to take more wickets or score more runs than an allrounder though, regardless of the quality of the allrounder. This is simply because the specialist is picked for a sole purpose and should be able to carry through with that purpose in an outstanding fashion.

Tis why the likes of Mohammad Sami (in Test cricket) continue to baffle me.

Haven't seen him play in quite a while ,but definatly when he started his career but would Dwayne Smith have counted as a bits-and-pieces player?

 

[Craig]

Don't try and get of the Inzi

Personally for Test Matches, I think they should pick the best Keeper, regardless of his batting skills

Well I had to win it sometime. Been a good week for me, potentially this and my best ever shot at the Skull.

 

[Craig]

I don't know too much about the depth of Aussie cricket. Would Gilchrist have been the best pure gloveman in Australia throughout his career?

Wade Seccombe, Darren Berry I guess And then there was Ian Healy.

 

[Clarence]

Berry wasn't that great. Many experts seemed to think Seccombe was better than Gilchrist with the gloves though, his batting was "handy number 8" at best though.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know too much about the depth of Aussie cricket. Would Gilchrist have been the best pure gloveman in Australia throughout his career?

Probably not quite. Against pace, he's as good as anyone in the Aussie FC set-up (with Wade Seccombe shading him a bit) but against spin, Darren Berry and Wade Seccombe were probably both better. In the initial stages anyway.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Haven't seen him play in quite a while ,but definatly when he started his career but would Dwayne Smith have counted as a bits-and-pieces player?

Dwayne Smith was, for all intents and purposes, more of a batsman when he started his career. Now he's a better bowler who bats extremely frustratingly. So much potential...

 

[Slats4ever]

Mark Ealham was hardly a failure. He wasnt brilliant but an ER of 4.08 over a lot of the other tripe that was going around at the time.

quite contrary logic there dont you think? if a bits and pieces player was an all time great, you'd call him an all rounder. Bits and pieces is exactly what it says, a player who can do bits of all disciplines without being substantially good at any of them.

First time I whole heartedly agree with TEC.... ever

 

[honestbharani]

Generally, I agree with what Goughy said in the first page, but I would rather pick the 4 best batters and 4 best bowlers and the best keeper, and the remaining two would be the ones I would look at for the multitasking. 3 best bowlers means a little too less in these flat track dominated days, IMHO.

 

[Craig]

Ok so if you have a pitch that will favour the seamers, you have the option between a specialist spinner to give you some variety (and a good one, not some random token selection pick) or one who can bat well but is handy/quality spinner, and you have four seamers all ready? (If they are all right arm bowlers, or you have who is left armer)?

 

[archie mac]

I don't know too much about the depth of Aussie cricket. Would Gilchrist have been the best pure gloveman in Australia throughout his career?

I think Darren Berry was the best WK in Aust. for quite awile, but just did not score enough runs.

Consider this:

Lara is dropped by the batsman/WK at Zero and goes on to make 165*

The batsman WK scores 70 & 24 in is two bats.

The WK/batsman takes the catch Lara is out for a duck

He makes 12* & 23 with the bat.

That is why I think they should pick the best keeper

Does anyone know what Stewart ave as just a batsman compared to when he kept wickets?

 

[Goughy]

I think Darren Berry was the best WK in Aust. for quite awile, but just did not score enough runs.

That is why I think they should pick the best keeper

Does anyone know what Stewart ave as just a batsman compared to when he kept wickets?

So you would not have picked Gilchrist and had Berry or Seccombe behind the stumps?

As for Stewart, is that a rhetorical question Archie? as Im sure you probably know the answer . If its not, the answer is he averaged a lot higher when he was not keeper. 47 compared to 35. I think a lot of that may be down to the fact he batted lower when he was keeper and never had as much opportunity to convert 50s into 100s and build a higher average. I have no doubt that having Stewart average 35 with the bat and opening up an extra batting position in the lineup strengthened Englands batting.

Obviously the benefits of Stewarts role is arguable, however as I said I think it really helped the batting line-up. Consider when he was NOT keeper England won 11 of 51 games (21.5%) and when he WAS keeper England won 28 of 82 (34%). I think it did make a difference.

 

[greg]

I think Darren Berry was the best WK in Aust. for quite awile, but just did not score enough runs.

Consider this:

Lara is dropped by the batsman/WK at Zero and goes on to make 165*

The batsman WK scores 70 & 24 in is two bats.

The WK/batsman takes the catch Lara is out for a duck

He makes 12* & 23 with the bat.

That is why I think they should pick the best keeper

Does anyone know what Stewart ave as just a batsman compared to when he kept wickets?

We can have lengthy and complicated about this using statistics, but needless to say it isn't nearly that simple, not least because more often than not the catch will be taken anyway and a good keeper batsmen will also improve the averages of all the other middle order batsmen (just as someone like Giles, even though his figures aren't that impressive, will probably improve the averages of the other four bowlers).

And what do you do with the keeper who makes more "errors" but is capable of taking brilliant catches that the better keeper might not (I have heard one argument, have no idea if it is justified, that Read effectively improves his "catching percentage" by not going for really wide catches that Jones, for example, might)

 

[marc71178]

But Marc that not true is it? Stewart averaged 35 when keeping compared to Russells 27. 8 is a pretty big difference.

Yes, but when Russell retired, the averages were pretty much the same.

Yet Stewart at that point without the gloves averaged nigh on 50 in a time when we needed class batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

Consider when he was NOT keeper England won 11 of 51 games (21.5%) and when he WAS keeper England won 28 of 82 (34%). I think it did make a difference.

Yes and consider that when he was not keeper England's side was at it's lowest ebb, and pretty much useless - those figures mean squat.

 

[Goughy]

Yes and consider that when he was not keeper England's side was at it's lowest ebb, and pretty much useless - those figures mean squat.

You have a point but I could certainly argue that they were at their lowest ebb because the best side was not selected for example with Stewart as keeper. We could go round in circles. It just comes down to differences in opinion.

I obviously think England were a stronger and better team with Stewart as keeper, but I'm not saying selecting Russell did not have its merits. He was a great keeper and I've still not seen anything better than his leg-side stumping of Dean Jones off Gladstone Small. (anyone know of a youtube clip?).

Also I can recognise that Russell was not flawless. For example he had a horrible tour of the West Indies with the gloves.