Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Err, what? No, none of those 3 could bat at all, could they?!There were many who did during Alec Stewart's era. Nayan Mongia, Ian Healy Rashid Latif immediately come to mind.
Healy was for a long time another top-notch wicketkeeper-batsman - but some might just look at a career-average of 27 and think "not that good", which is patently false.
Latif was kind of a Russell to Moin's Stewart. But it didn't change the fact both Latif and Russell certainly could bat, just not as well as their superiors.
Nonsense. Russell was selected in 1989 ahead of players who were at the time considered superior glovemen but inferior batsmen. Going further back, Keith Andrew - widely acknowledged as one of the best wicketkeepers ever but who was nothing more than a tailender - played just 2 Tests thanks to the reasonable batting and perfectly-good-enough wicketkeeping of first the aforementioned Evans and later Jim Parks.That's just an assumption and you have no way to prove that. and no repeating it 200 times wont make it true. It will remain an assumption.
Nonsense. Healy was damn good, certainly, but he was not in Stewart's class as a batsman and no-one, least of all Healy himself, would deny that.Umm No - He wasn't the best, There was a guy named Ian Healy was the best during that period.
It won't stop being true. Gilchrist was superior, but not "far" as the average-difference of 30 would suggest.Keep repeating, it wont change the fact that Gilchrist was far superior to Alec Stewart as a wk-batsman.