The stats do not do him justice!

[aussie]

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.

Yea he top class in the late 90s no doubt. Can't agree he was better than Murali, but definately on par based on his efforts vs IND 99 & his 6/46 @ Hobart.

But the MAIN reason he was better than Warne was coincidentally, it was Hollywoods worse period of his career.

Do you reckon Saqlain at his peak was better than Iqbal Qasim?

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.

Well technically when he did become a top-class alrounder from 2004 to now. He does average 36 with the bat & 28 with ball. See here

 

[aussie]

You disproved precisely nothing, you've disagreed and said you have a tape of one series.

Two series PAK & SRI 2000/01. You still haven't given any credible argument to say how/ when/where between 96-2003, when he kept consistently, was he a sub-standard keeper than ENG needed to replace. Other than blind ideology & crazy notions to why Read & Foster should have played

So we can continue whenever you wish to give are ready to take of the rose tinted shades.

Yipee.
I'm glad you're finished, just stick to that and everyone will be happy.

Nah, dealing with JBH0001 ATM..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Two series PAK & SRI 2000/01. You still haven't given any credible argument to say how/ when/where between 96-2003, when he kept consistently, was he a sub-standard keeper than ENG needed to replace. Other than blind ideology & crazy notions to why Read & Foster should have played

So we can continue whenever you wish to give are ready to take of the rose tinted shades.



Nah, dealing with JBH0001 ATM..

To you to prove a keeper was substandard you'd need Statsguru to tell you how many catches were dropped. Sadly for you there's much to more wicketkeeping that your best friend can tell you.

I noticed JBH joining the long list of people making you look like a chump, that was the only reason I bothered rejoining the thread.

 

[aussie]

To you to prove a keeper was substandard you'd need Statsguru to tell you how many catches were dropped. Sadly for you there's much to more wicketkeeping that your best friend can tell you.

No as i told you before my whole life of watching cricket, covered Stewart's career as a keeper. There was no test between 96-2003 where Stewart made any horrific mistakes, he was an assuring presence behind the stumps even at 40 years old.

If you remember any such instances, that he had a howler in a test. That would help your argument. But since you can't, its just continued baseless ideology on your part.

I have only used Statsguru to approve the notion why Stewart if the ENG ATXI wanted to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart becomes the best option to bat @ 6 for the sake of balance.

I noticed JBH joining the long list of people making you look like a chump, that was the only reason I bothered rejoining the thread.

Long list, haa. Those rose tinted shades getting darker i see..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No as i told you before my whole life of watching cricket, covered Stewart's career as a keeper. There was no test between 96-2003 where Stewart made any horrific mistakes, he was an assuring presence behind the stumps even at 40 years old.

If you remember any such instances, that he had a howler in a test. That would help your argument. But since you can't, its just continued baseless ideology on your part.

I have only used Statsguru to approve the notion why Stewart if the ENG ATXI wanted to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart becomes the best option to bat @ 6 for the sake of balance.



Long list, haa. Those rose tinted shades getting darker i see..

Substandard wicketkeeping isn't about making "howlers" or "horrific mistakes".

I'm afraid the list is long (I'm not talking about myself before you mention "rose tinted shades" for the 50th time.) I know you post, then sit back and bask in the supreme wisdom you're providing but that isn't quite how anyone else views your relentless rambling,

 

[aussie]

Substandard wicketkeeping isn't about making "howlers" or "horrific mistakes".

What?. If a keepr makes howlers & horrific mistakes. That automatically qualifies him as sub-standard i.e Prior (even though he doing ok ATM).

I am not comparing Stewart standard of glovework & footwork to the greats of Evans, Knott, Grout, Healy, Kirmani, Engineer, Blackham, Oldfield, Cameron, Bari, Hendriks, Ames, Murray, Dujon, Jennings, Bob Taylor, Marsh.

Stewart along with Lindsay, Gilly, Sangakkara, Parks, Waite, Boucher Haddin/McCullum/Dhoni (potentially since they have kept to the standard i know they can consistently). Would be the group of top batsman, who where solid glovesmen, but not technically just below the high standards set by the GREAT glovesmen.

Based on that, calling Stewart a sub-standard is utter nonsense on your part when as i've said before, when at 40 years old he was better than Gilchrist in his last series. That alone disapproves that notion, since Gilchrist was not sub-standard.

I'm afraid the list is long (I'm not talking about myself before you mention "rose tinted shades" for the 50th time.) I know you post, then sit back and bask in the supreme wisdom you're providing but that isn't quite how anyone else views your relentless rambling,

I dont hold my opinion on Stewart's keeping as supreme to anyone else. Just simply trying suggesting to anyone MAINLY you, that Stewart glovework was not sub-standard.

The only one basking in supreme wisdom one your so call knowledge "of what it is to be great keeper" is you.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The only one basking in supreme wisdom one your so call knowledge "of what it is to be great keeper" is you.

I'll pretend here for a minute that that actually makes sense.
All I've done is pass an opinion. What you've done several times is pass a different opinion and claimed it to be proof that you're right.

 

[JBH001]

Hey Aussie, will answer your post in total. I dislike the CW posting habit of breaking everything up into little bits, instread of addressing the substance of a post.

The main reason I queried the inclusion of Imran or Kapil at 6 ahead of Botham was that it seemed you were using Botham's poor record against the WI as an indicator that he was not good enough at no. 6. As I said, the one series at his peak he played against unburdened by the captaincy he did pretty well against them, especially considering that phenomenal SR. I do agree though that it is ambiguous - indeed I stated as much in my earlier post you quoted from the other thread. Hence while the argument that Botham was a weak batsman against the top team of his time can be taken with a grain of salt, its also not certain that he would have done consistently well against them, even at his peak. Reasonably speaking we can never know. My own judgement is that he would have, especially at his peak for he was a genuine middle order batsman - but I can understand why people might query that, and that is fair enough.

Returning to Imran and Kapil, its not their overall records I am interested in, but their records against the WI. This I thought was the issue. Hence even in that timeframe of Imran's you linked to, his batting average against them is 27 - certainly not good enough to bat at 6 against the best bowling attacks by your own criteria. Kapil's average is 30, although I dont know what it was during his peak, or even if he had a peak with his batting - he seems to have been a consistent performer all through.

I have to disagree if you dont think Greig is a good enough batting all-rounder. In such a team he (and Hammond) would be equivalent to 5th bowlers, so there is not as much demand on them as if they had been frontline bowlers. In this respect, Greig's average of 33 with his seamers and spinners is very good. But fair enough, if you want 6 pure batsmen, a keeper, and 4 pure bowlers. That is certainly one way to go, and there is an argument that 4 bowlers are often enough in any case. Although to my mind, a Botham at his peak should, and would, stroll in at no. 6 no questions asked.

With regard to Stewart, well, as I said, I disagree regarding his keeping. I certainly dont think he was that good behind the stumps, and I dont think he was as good as Gilly or a Sangakkara. Even if he had been as good as Sanga, let alone Gilly, for a series or two, he would need to exhibit that level over the long haul to really count. Similar to Sanga, keeping seems to have had an adverse effect on his batting. Even the stats you posted to his keeping and batting between 96 - 03 are a bit out of kilter. Here for example is his record as a keeper/batsmen between 96 - 03 batting at 6:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
20  	28  	2  	927  	123  	35.65  	1849  	50.13  	1  	7  	4  	122  	0

His record from 4 - 7 is marginally better, but only marginally better:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
53  	89  	11  	2860  	164  	36.66  	5735  	49.86  	4  	15  	10  	392  	4

But not by much, and his average against the best team of his time (Australia 96 - 03) is under 35. He was a much better top order batsman.

Hence I dont agree that if England want 5 bowlers they have to pick Stewart. To my mind, Botham fits in neatly, or if his batting is not enough even at peak, then anyone of Greig, Rhodes, Wooley (in that order) who along with Hammond would be good enough to take on 5th bowler duties. Knott certainly was good enough with the bat to hold 7, and if further batting strength is required then Les Ames should be a shoo-in. With respect though, I really dont think Stewart was good enough with the gloves for an AT XI, or as a middle order bat (by your criteria) for an AT XI with the gloves.

 

[aussie]

I'll pretend here for a minute that that actually makes sense.

Ha, i love you like to make a big deal of out obvious typos. But refuse to actually debate the cricketening aspects of this discussion.

What?. If a keepr makes howlers & horrific mistakes. That automatically qualifies him as sub-standard i.e Prior (even though he doing ok ATM).

I am not comparing Stewart standard of glovework & footwork to the greats of Evans, Knott, Grout, Healy, Kirmani, Engineer, Blackham, Oldfield, Cameron, Bari, Hendriks, Ames, Murray, Dujon, Jennings, Bob Taylor, Marsh.

Stewart along with Lindsay, Gilly, Sangakkara, Parks, Waite, Boucher Haddin/McCullum/Dhoni (potentially since they have kept to the standard i know they can consistently). Would be the group of top batsman, who where solid glovesmen, but not technically just below the high standards set by the GREAT glovesmen.

Based on that, calling Stewart a sub-standard is utter nonsense on your part when as i've said before, when at 40 years old he was better than Gilchrist in his last series. That alone disapproves that notion, since Gilchrist was not sub-standard.

Do you agree or disagree with this?. I would like a nice point by point rebuttal. Not no lame lazy comments like "i dont need to respond since its all garbage" etc..

All I've done is pass an opinion. What you've done several times is pass a different opinion and claimed it to be proof that you're right.

No i have passed on my opinion as well, thus we are having a cricket argument. Theirfore the one who gives more creditable reasoning & facts to counters the others points, wins the argument. Simple dynamics of a cricket debate.

BUTTTT unless one party has a strong ideological premise towards his position. As the case is with you. The argument just goes around in circles.

I don't mind though, since thats what i come on CW to do - talk cricket. Regardless if its one topic all the time.

 

[Richard]

That said, its fair enough to have Botham bat at 7, and Knott at 8, with three other bowlers. I dont know that I agree with it, but I think it a valid point of view - unlike that of the inclusion of Stewart as a wicket-keeper in an AT England XI. Frankly, here I think Richard and Aussie (with all due respect) are dead wrong.

TBF, I've never said Stewart would be an easy pick in an all-time England team. I think he was probably a better batsman than anyone else who ever kept wicket to an acceptable standard for England, but I do not consider him a better batsman-wicketkeeper (or wicketkeeper-batsman) than Les Ames.

 

[Richard]

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.

Hmm, personally I think his record from the Second Test in 1990 onwards is pretty damn good. It's only in his first 6 months or so that Tendulkar was just too young to truly come to terms with Test cricket. Even at 17-18 he was better than most batsmen have ever been.

 

[Richard]

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

Cribb's been branded an honourary Englishman at least once recently. He's also of course been branded an honourary Kiwi and an honourary Zimbabwean (though there's less of the honourary-ness there than elsewhere).

 

[The Sean]

Cribb's been branded an honourary Englishman at least once recently. He's also of course been branded an honourary Kiwi and an honourary Zimbabwean (though there's less of the honourary-ness there than elsewhere).

I choose to overlook such insults to his character.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ha, i love you like to make a big deal of out obvious typos. But refuse to actually debate the cricketening aspects of this discussion.



Do you agree or disagree with this?. I would like a nice point by point rebuttal. Not no lame lazy comments like "i dont need to respond since its all garbage" etc..



No i have passed on my opinion as well, thus we are having a cricket argument. Theirfore the one who gives more creditable reasoning & facts to counters the others points, wins the argument. Simple dynamics of a cricket debate.

BUTTTT unless one party has a strong ideological premise towards his position. As the case is with you. The argument just goes around in circles.

I don't mind though, since thats what i come on CW to do - talk cricket. Regardless if its one topic all the time.

Your constant obvious typos and appalling grammar make your posts difficult to read and often give them a different meaning than the intended one.

I can see no points to rebut. If you're claiming that Stewart was a Test class keeper because he was better in middle-age than Gilchrist then it's just another opinion and a very flimsy argument.

Again attempting to say that your opiinion is creditable reasoning and facts.

My stance on my opinion is no different to yours. In fact when it comes to "rose tinted glasses" there can be no better example than someone heroworshipping ordinary cricketers like Alec Stewart.

 

[aussie]

Your constant obvious typos and appalling grammar make your posts difficult to read and often give them a different meaning than the intended one.

blah blah, you are just making a mouting out a molehill over obvious typos & using it quite eruditedly to avoid arguemt the the cricket matters. FINALLY after about 10 attempts i ahve gotten to respond to ONE point.

I can see no points to rebut. If you're claiming that Stewart was a Test class keeper because he was better in middle-age than Gilchrist then it's just another opinion and a very flimsy argument.

It took you long enough.

No. Stewart keeping better than Gilchrist @ 40 years old & generally being a more solid keeper than Gilly from Ashes 05 - IND 07/08. Surely gives more credibility to the arguemt that he could not have been a sub-standard keeper, since if he mainted a solid standard at 40 years of age, he should be given some credit. Especially given that Gilchrist's regularly acknowledge to be not sub-standard declined at the back end of his career.

Again attempting to say that your opiinion is creditable reasoning and facts.

My stance on my opinion is no different to yours. In fact when it comes to "rose tinted glasses" there can be no better example than someone heroworshipping ordinary cricketers like Alec Stewart.

. Oh dear. Before i argue, just to make sure, you are saying now that Stewart as a batsman as well was ordinary?

 

[Manee]

Would it be fair to say that the statistics do not do justice to the batsmen in the 1990s, for whom the pitches were more bowler friendly than the following decade and the pace bowlers of exponentially greater quality?

 

[marc71178]

. Oh dear. Before i argue, just to make sure, you are saying now that Stewart as a batsman as well was ordinary?

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

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

 

[subshakerz]

The main reason I queried the inclusion of Imran or Kapil at 6 ahead of Botham was that it seemed you were using Botham's poor record against the WI as an indicator that he was not good enough at no. 6. As I said, the one series at his peak he played against unburdened by the captaincy he did pretty well against them, especially considering that phenomenal SR. I do agree though that it is ambiguous - indeed I stated as much in my earlier post you quoted from the other thread. Hence while the argument that Botham was a weak batsman against the top team of his time can be taken with a grain of salt, its also not certain that he would have done consistently well against them, even at his peak. Reasonably speaking we can never know. My own judgement is that he would have, especially at his peak for he was a genuine middle order batsman - but I can understand why people might query that, and that is fair enough.

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.

 

[aussie]

Hey Aussie, will answer your post in total. I dislike the CW posting habit of breaking everything up into little bits, instread of addressing the substance of a post.

Well it depends on the post i guess. Your post here for example i agree with most. But a few things i would want to explain my position much clearer on.

The main reason I queried the inclusion of Imran or Kapil at 6 ahead of Botham was that it seemed you were using Botham's poor record against the WI as an indicator that he was not good enough at no. 6. As I said, the one series at his peak he played against unburdened by the captaincy he did pretty well against them, especially considering that phenomenal SR. I do agree though that it is ambiguous - indeed I stated as much in my earlier post you quoted from the other thread. Hence while the argument that Botham was a weak batsman against the top team of his time can be taken with a grain of salt, its also not certain that he would have done consistently well against them, even at his peak. Reasonably speaking we can never know. My own judgement is that he would have, especially at his peak for he was a genuine middle order batsman - but I can understand why people might query that, and that is fair enough.

One can inversely argue, that even if he wasn't captain in 1980/81, facing the MIGHT of the 4-prong for 1st time he could still failed. But later on in 1984 when he faced them again done better, as he actually did.

If you are going to qualify as an all-rounder in the top 6 for ATXI level. It reckon as a batsman you need to be average or capable of averaging 40+ consistently. Thats why i saw only Sobers, Miller, Procter, Rice, Faulkner & Imran (depening on the balance of the PAK ATXI) qualifies.

Botham even at his 77-84 peak. Only averaged 36 with the bat. I feel more secure with him @ 7 to be fair.

Returning to Imran and Kapil, its not their overall records I am interested in, but their records against the WI. This I thought was the issue. Hence even in that timeframe of Imran's you linked to, his batting average against them is 27 - certainly not good enough to bat at 6 against the best bowling attacks by your own criteria.

Its overall record & vs WI. With Imran although he averaged only 27 vs WI overall. He still managed to average 40 with the bat during his peak all-rounder days.

But this is where interpretening of stats comes into play. Since even though Imran averaged 40+ compared to Botham's 36, i think its Botham was to more PURE batsman at their respective peaks as all-rounders. Imran batting base on what i've read was just solid but not really attacking. His batting got expansive like Botham after he stopped bowling @ 90 mph after the famous tour to WI 88.

So theirfore due to that solidity thats why i say Imran in more circustances in hypotetical match-ups againts other ATXIs i could bat @ 6 over Botham at their respective all-rounder peaks. But generally both Botham & Imran would bat @ 7.

I have to disagree if you dont think Greig is a good enough batting all-rounder. In such a team he (and Hammond) would be equivalent to 5th bowlers, so there is not as much demand on them as if they had been frontline bowlers. In this respect, Greig's average of 33 with his seamers and spinners is very good.

I dont disagree that Greig would be a quality all-rounder in an ENG ATXI. Just that i dont think his medium pace bowling would be needed given Hammond is there. Using the line-up you chose earlier.

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
Compton
Barrington
?
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Snow
Laker

? - The idea that you suggested in picking a # 6 all-rounder was that the individual can give a top-class spin bowling option to back-up Laker, thus to give you a 5-man attack of variety right?. Greig spin bowling was basically limited to that one performance @ QPR 73/74 & in the sub-continent in the early 70s. It was his medium pace that took the majority of his wickets. Thats why i wont pick him @ 6.



With regard to Stewart, well, as I said, I disagree regarding his keeping. I certainly dont think he was that good behind the stumps, and I dont think he was as good as Gilly or a Sangakkara.

Even if he had been as good as Sanga, let alone Gilly, for a series or two, he would need to exhibit that level over the long haul to really count.

Based on what i saw of Stewart keeping consistently from 96-2003 i would say he was on par with Gilly & Sanga keeping to fast-bowling. The edge i give to Gilly/Sanga over Stewart was their ability to keep to spin, given their work againts Warne & Murali. But the only time in Stewart career he got to keep againts spin on difficult pitches (the acid test for any keeper) in the famous winter tours of 2000/2001 in PAK & SRI. Stewart was very solid.

Similar to Sanga, keeping seems to have had an adverse effect on his batting.

I dont think it has. In test cricket based on my following of SRI cricket, the only reason why he doesn't keep regularly is due to balance of SRI team. They want him to concentrate more on his batting rather than it affecting his batting.

In ODIs he keeps all the time & still bats brilliantly. Now that SRI have that talented all-rounder in Matthews, IF Jayawardene was still skipper. I think Sanga could keep full-time. But now thats he is skipper, the workload of that, plus batting @ 3 would definately be too much. Thats why the current merry-go round with Dilshan keeping is going on.

Even the stats you posted to his keeping and batting between 96 - 03 are a bit out of kilter. Here for example is his record as a keeper/batsmen between 96 - 03 batting at 6:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
20  	28  	2  	927  	123  	35.65  	1849  	50.13  	1  	7  	4  	122  	0

His record from 4 - 7 is marginally better, but only marginally better:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
53  	89  	11  	2860  	164  	36.66  	5735  	49.86  	4  	15  	10  	392  	4

But not by much, and his average against the best team of his time (Australia 96 - 03) is under 35. He was a much better top order batsman.

I dont think you need to necessarily divide up the runs he made @ 6 & 4-7. Stewart was a very versatile batsman. His better record as a top-order batsman to me doesn't say he was DEFINATELY a better top-order batsman TBH (although he had a weakness againts spin which would have affected his middle-order play as it did).

If England had Flintoff in the 90s, i think its very possible that Stewart would have kept more regularly instead of beign rotated around with Jack Russell & averaged close to 40 with the bat.

Hence I dont agree that if England want 5 bowlers they have to pick Stewart. To my mind, Botham fits in neatly, or if his batting is not enough even at peak, then anyone of Greig, Rhodes, Wooley (in that order) who along with Hammond would be good enough to take on 5th bowler duties. Knott certainly was good enough with the bat to hold 7, and if further batting strength is required then Les Ames should be a shoo-in. With respect though, I really dont think Stewart was good enough with the gloves for an AT XI, or as a middle order bat (by your criteria) for an AT XI with the gloves.

I have issues with these 3 for a few reasons.

Firstly, I dont think Rhodes & Wooley qualified as all-rounders to bat @ 6 in the Eng ATXI for reasons i said before.

If you check the stats plus read cricinfo reports, plus if you have any old books, dvd (i would suggest Story of the Ashes). Woolley before the first world-war never transformed that all-rounder performace that he did for Kent at test level consistently.

His one major bowling performance Oval 1912. Based on reading match reports, seems to be another one of those typical early 1990s uncovered wickets, where spin bowlers ran riot. Such wickets he wont get in hypotetical ATXI matches, so that sort of reduces the effect of his bowling.

Rhodes as i said before. His career had two parts. From 1899-1910 where he was just a top-class spinner. But then from 1911-1914 up until the war he opened & stop bowling. But its confusing, this quote:

During the period in which Rhodes and Hobbs opened every England innings by prescriptive right, Rhodes put aside his bowling. In the Australian rubber of 1911-12 he contributed only 18 overs. But then the war came, reducing the Yorkshire attack. In 1919 Yorkshire needed again the spin and flight of Rhodes, so he picked up his bowling arts exactly where years before he had laid them down, picked them up as though he had not lost touch for a moment.

So although technically he never was truly an "all-rounder" at test level. I'm not sure if Sir Wilfred giving up his bowling, was a situation where he did it because it COULD have affected his batting or as the biography say he jus put aside his bowling just like that.

But Looking at the bowlers that where in the England attack during home/away Ashes series in that 1911/12 period.

Barnes
Frank Foster
Harry Dean
Jack Hearne
Johnny Douglas

You would think Sir Wilfred's bowling would have made it better. But based these details, it certainy doesn't qualify him to bat @ 6 in the ENG ATXI as an all-rounder.


On Les Ames. He clearly was a great keeping, but i have issues with his batting like most 1930s batsmen. In that he failed againts the best bowling attack of his time in O'Reilly/Grimmett, more times that he did well againts them. Plus unlike Knott & Stewart he never faced the quality of fast-bowling they faced. So to me batting him @ 6, leaves a too much of question mark. Thats why i have him 3rd in the keeping options pecking order behind Knott & Stewart.


The reasoning i have given for Stewart although controversial. Is more solid that the reasons for Greig, Woolley, Rhodes & Ames to bat @ 6 in the ENG ATXI.

But all are too controversial. Thats why i've been saying its clear ENG ATXI cant afford the luxury of 5 bowlers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

blah blah, you are just making a mouting out a molehill over obvious typos & using it quite eruditedly to avoid arguemt the the cricket matters.

. Oh dear. Before i argue, just to make sure, you are saying now that Stewart as a batsman as well was ordinary?

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'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.