Darren Lehmann and Graeme Hick - who is better?

[Richard]

Gilchrist, Sanga, Tilekratne just to name a few. Besides I would take guys like Healy (on combined Batting/Keeping Skills) ahead of Stewart any day, throw in Healy there in that list as well.

You really don't have a clue about Alec Stewart's wicketkeeping skills, do you?

 

[Sanz]

You really don't have a clue about Alec Stewart's wicketkeeping skills, do you?

I know all about it, You are the one who is over-rating it. Why not answer this -

Would he have made into the English Side on his WK skills alone ? Would he have made it to his county side on his WK skills alone ?

 

[Richard]

Yes. If, that is, anyone ever made it into any side on wicketkeeping skills alone any more.

And if you think otherwise, you don't really know much about his wicketkeeping.

 

[Sanz]

Anyone but anyone will tell you that the likes of Cork wasn't nearly the bowler he looked like being at one point.

What do you mean by 'at one point' ? One Ball, One over, One Spell, One Innings, One series, One Season.

 

[Sanz]

Yes. If, that is, anyone ever made it into any side on wicketkeeping skills alone any more.

Is that the reason why he didn't keep in close to 50 tests he played in ? He really was a better WK than Russel, wasn't he ?
And please spare me with the BS that Stewart faced better bowlers and how Gilly and Sanga are facing weaker bowlers. That's really BS because in the common seasons (1999-2003) Gilly averaged 57.and Stewart averaged in 36. That's 21 run diff per inning. No. of centuries scored by Gilly - 9, Stewart 3. No. of inning played by Gilly 68, Stewart - 81.

It's like comparing an Elephant trunk to a monkey's tail.

And if you think otherwise, you don't really know much about his wicketkeeping.

Anyone who thinks that Stewart was a better keeper than the likes of Russel knows a lot about WicketKeeping. Wow.

 

[Richard]

What do you mean by 'at one point' ? One Ball, One over, One Spell, One Innings, One series, One Season.

11 games.

A long enough period.

 

[Richard]

Is that the reason why he didn't keep in close to 50 tests he played in ? He really was a better WK than Russel, wasn't he ?

He kept for 66 of his last 76 Tests.

So that'd suggest that there weren't any better options - though Russell was still playing throughout that time.

And please spare me with the BS that Stewart faced better bowlers and how Gilly and Sanga are facing weaker bowlers. That's really BS because in the common seasons (1999-2003) Gilly averaged 57.and Stewart averaged in 36. That's 21 run diff per inning. No. of centuries scored by Gilly - 9, Stewart 3. No. of inning played by Gilly 68, Stewart - 81.

It's like comparing an Elephant trunk to a monkey's tail.

And in those seasons they faced the same bowlers...? No. They were also at totally different stages of their careers.

Simple fact is, it doesn't take rocket-science to work-out that most of Gilchrist's batting has been done against bowling inferior to that which Stewart faced for the majority of his career.

Anyone who thinks that Stewart was a better keeper than the likes of Russel knows a lot about WicketKeeping. Wow.

And there are those out there who do think such a thing.

And they've got a case, too. Stewart from 1996 onwards made fewer errors than Russell.

 

[Sanz]

Simple fact is, it doesn't take rocket-science to work-out that most of Gilchrist's batting has been done against bowling inferior to that which Stewart faced for the majority of his career..

All of above could be replaced with one word 'rubbish'.

 

[Sanz]

He kept for 66 of his last 76 Tests.

Once again selective Criteria. who cares if he kept in 66 of 76 or 90 or last 100, Fact remains is he wasn't the best wicketkeeper for close 50 tests.

So that'd suggest that there weren't any better options - though Russell was still playing throughout that time.

Oh really ?? If jack was available all the time then it must have been Jack Russell's Ghost that retired in early 1998, after which Stewart played 53 ( out of 76) Test matches as WK. So much for your facts ?

And they've got a case, too. Stewart from 1996 onwards made fewer errors than Russell.

Yeah Right !!

 

[Goughy]

Once again selective Criteria. who cares if he kept in 66 of 76 or 90 or last 100, Fact remains is he wasn't the best wicketkeeper for close 50 tests.



Oh really ?? If jack was available all the time then it must have been Jack Russell's Ghost that retired in early 1998, after which Stewart played 53 ( out of 76) Test matches as WK. So much for your facts ?



Yeah Right !!

Must have been Russells Ghost that retired in 1998 as he was playing FC cricket until 2004

And also regarding Richards claim on errors. The 97-98 tour of WI, Russell made a number of errors and generally had a very poor tour with the gloves. It is not wrong or extreme to suggest that Stewarts glovework was as good if not better than Russells during and after that period.

 

[Richard]

All of above could be replaced with one word 'rubbish'.

No, just "the bowling that Gilchrist faced".

 

[God Jayasuria]

No, just "the bowling that Gilchrist faced".

Simple fact is, it doesn't take rocket-science to work-out that Gilchrist is a better batsman than Ming.

 

[Richard]

Once again selective Criteria. who cares if he kept in 66 of 76 or 90 or last 100, Fact remains is he wasn't the best wicketkeeper for close 50 tests.

Every criteria is selective. Fact is, he kept wicket for 66 out of his last 76 Tests. Nothing changes that. Once Stewart became established as a wicketkeeper-batsman, he became one of the best there's ever been.

Oh really ?? If jack was available all the time then it must have been Jack Russell's Ghost that retired in early 1998, after which Stewart played 53 ( out of 76) Test matches as WK. So much for your facts ?

Why d'you think he retired, now? Could it possibly have been because Stewart was patently the better option and he knew full well that he had no chance whatsoever of getting back in? He played on, incidentally, until the season after Stewart.

Yeah Right !!

Yeah, right.

And if you think otherwise then, as per usual with English players, you don't really have a clue what you're on about.

This is, after all, the person that claimed Ian Botham was a better ODI batsman than Nick Knight.

 

[Sanz]

Must have been Russells Ghost that retired in 1998 as he was playing FC cricket until 2004

Oh so now Mr. 'know-all' jumps in with his 'I-know-it-all' 2 cents to defend the half baked theories of his friend.

Well Mr. Know-it-all, If you had cared to read, you would have noticed that we were talking about Test Cricket and not FC.

"....after retiring from internationals in 1998, Russell reinvented himself as the hub of Gloucestershire's one-day successes."

http://www.icc-cricket.com/ci/content/player/19500.html

And also regarding Richards claim on errors. The 97-98 tour of WI, Russell made a number of errors and generally had a very poor tour with the gloves. It is not wrong or extreme to suggest that Stewarts glovework was as good if not better than Russells during and after that period.

Err..didn't Jack retire after that series and there goes your above claim...

 

[Richard]

No, he retired after this game here having been ignored throughout the summer and again for the Ashes tour.

In addition to having been ignored for all international cricket bar that Caribbean series for the last 2 years... because Stewart was better.

 

[Sanz]

In addition to having been ignored for all international cricket bar that Caribbean series for the last 2 years... because Stewart was better.

That's right Stewart was better..or may be not...


"Jack was very unlucky. When he came into the England side he was far and away the best keeper. For him then to be subsequently dropped and replaced by a part-timer in Alec Stewart must have been a terrible sleight.

"He was discarded not because of anything he'd done but because Alec was a better bat and they were trying to cover for the lack of a proper all-rounder.

"There was a terrible irony about all this: we were the worst Test team in the world and our one player of undeniable world class couldn't get into the side." Godfrey Evans - Who knows a thing or two about wicket keeping, If you knew who he is.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/ci/content/story/77245.html

 

[Richard]

Rodney Marsh knows a thing or two about wicketkeeping, too, but it didn't stop him calling Chris Read one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen in The World.

Just because someone is an acknowledged expert on something, doesn't mean they cannot be wrong.

I'd personally disagree with all three, and it'd be interesting to hear precisely when he said each one.

If it was in 1991 or 1993, it means precisely nothing because such a thing was out of date in 1996.

 

[Sanz]

Okay Russell was Crap after 96, so ? It doesn't mean Stewart was World Class or the best WK in England. It just means that Alec was better than 'Crap'. Oh and I never said Alec was not a decent WK, just that he wasn't the best WK in Eng and wouldn't have made it to Eng team if not for his batting skills.

Even if we accept that Alec was a decent WK betwen 1996-till his retirement, he still was no match for Gilly as batsman, so the whole claim that he was one of the best in the modern era or whatever is incorrect and basically overstating his talents.

But wait..you already have an answer for this..Gilly faced Crap bowlers as oppsoed to world class bowlers Stewart faced.

 

[Richard]

Okay Russell was Crap after 96, so ? It doesn't mean Stewart was World Class or the best WK in England. It just means that Alec was better than 'Crap'. Oh and I never said Alec was not a decent WK, just that he wasn't the best WK in Eng and wouldn't have made it to Eng team if not for his batting skills.

No-one is disputing that. No wicketkeeper ever makes a team based on wicketkeeping any more. Jack Russell wouldn't have got anywhere near the team ITFP if he couldn't bat, either.

Stewart, however, was a World-class batsman-wicketkeeper after 1996 and between 1996 and 1999 was comfortably the best in The World at what he did.

Even if we accept that Alec was a decent WK betwen 1996-till his retirement, he still was no match for Gilly as batsman, so the whole claim that he was one of the best in the modern era or whatever is incorrect and basically overstating his talents.

But wait..you already have an answer for this..Gilly faced Crap bowlers as oppsoed to world class bowlers Stewart faced.

He wasn't as good as Gilchrist, no, but the gap in averages is not reprisentative of the difference between their abilities because Gilchrist faced considerably lesser bowlers.

 

[Sanz]

No-one is disputing that. No wicketkeeper ever makes a team based on wicketkeeping any more.

There were many who did during Alec Stewart's era. Nayan Mongia, Ian Healy Rashid Latif immediately come to mind.

Jack Russell wouldn't have got anywhere near the team ITFP if he couldn't bat, either.

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.

Stewart, however, was a World-class batsman-wicketkeeper after 1996 and between 1996 and 1999 was comfortably the best in The World at what he did.

Umm No - He wasn't the best, There was a guy named Ian Healy was the best during that period.

He wasn't as good as Gilchrist, no, but the gap in averages is not reprisentative of the difference between their abilities because Gilchrist faced considerably lesser bowlers.

Keep repeating, it wont change the fact that Gilchrist was far superior to Alec Stewart as a wk-batsman.