Shane Warne vs Sachin Tendulkar

[kyear2]

The most basic one. A wicketkeeper as a batsman

The problem is that because wicket keeping isn't stat based it tends to be ignored by the spread sheet generation.

No one in their right mind would enter into a test series with Flower as their keeper if a Knott was available.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The problem is that because wicket keeping isn't stat based it tends to be ignored by the spread sheet generation.

No one in their right mind would enter into a test series with Flower as their keeper if a Knott was available.

I would given have to choose one almost every single time.

 

[kyear2]

I would given have to choose one almost every single time.

I know you would.

Thankfully most of the community wouldn't .

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know you would.

Thankfully most of the community wouldn't .

Hmm..... I believe most of the National teams would.

 

[Johan]

I'm of the belief that most international teams would take someone like Andy Flower over a Ben Foakes but they most probably, and almost certainly won't give the gloves to Flower. so it's like do you want a great keeper or a ATVG bat at that point?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm of the belief that most international teams would take someone like Andy Flower over a Ben Foakes but they most probably, and almost certainly won't give the gloves to Flower. so it's like do you want a great keeper or a ATVG bat at that point?

England played Bairstow over Foakes for YEARS and let him keep......

 

[Johan]

England played Bairstow over Foakes for YEARS and let him keep......

Bairstow was actually pretty bearable for the first few years

 

[capt_Luffy]

Bairstow was actually pretty bearable for the first few years

Most I read of Flower he seems to had been decent. The problem with rating Flower's keeping is practically no one here followed his career closely as a keeper. The opinion seems to oscillate from good (some even called better than Gilly) to outright terrible.

 

[kyear2]

Hmm..... I believe most of the National teams would.

And have you seen how most of them perform?

You just don't believe the keeper part of wicket keeper batsmen holds any weight, and no matter how they perform with the gloves, they can make it up with the bat.

And honestly that's belies comprehension.

 

[kyear2]

Most I read of Flower he seems to had been decent. The problem with rating Flower's keeping is practically no one here followed his career closely as a keeper. The opinion seems to oscillate from good (some even called better than Gilly) to outright terrible.

And as I've asked you, if he was that great, would the establishment, journalists and former players would have missed it.

No one would have come out by now and said, this guy was as good as Gilly? Or really good?

You didn't discover some hidden gem that all of cricket has missed.

Barry Richards, the player you most abhor me talking about, is seen as a greater opener than Flower will ever be seen as a great wicket keeper bat.

 

[DrWolverine]

The problem is that because wicket keeping isn't stat based it tends to be ignored by the spread sheet generation.

No one in their right mind would enter into a test series with Flower as their keeper if a Knott was available.

Alan Knott was chosen over Bob Taylor because he was a better batsman though not as good as him while keeping

 

[kyear2]

Alan Knott was chosen over Bob Taylor because he was a better batsman though not as good as him while keeping

I'm well aware.

But there still has to be a minimum standard for your keeping ability

 

[DrWolverine]

I saw Andy Flower keep and never felt he was a bad keeper tbh. But as @capt_Luffy said none of us actually saw him much to analyse his keeping.

Gilchrist himself was criticised when he started because he wasn’t a pure keeper like Healy but later his batting became too good to avoid.

Anyway my point was that he was the best ever wicket keeper batsman and considering his circumstances he wins by a fair margin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And as I've asked you, if he was that great, would the establishment, journalists and former players would have missed it.

No one would have come out by now and said, this guy was as good as Gilly? Or really good?

You didn't discover some hidden gem that all of cricket has missed.

Barry Richards, the player you most abhor me talking about, is seen as a greater opener than Flower will ever be seen as a great wicket keeper bat.

Your Barry point just proves my point really. And if you want to, I can point to some journalists calling Flower better keeper than Gilchrist. For instance, Jarrod Kimber.

And have you seen how most of them perform?

You just don't believe the keeper part of wicket keeper batsmen holds any weight, and no matter how they perform with the gloves, they can make it up with the bat.

And honestly that's belies comprehension.

Most of them performs adequately enough to not field a sub 25 bat at their expense. Pant, Rizwan, Smith, Carey, Blundell, Das, Verreyne, most are net positives at the end of the day.

 

[kyear2]

Your Barry point just proves my point really. And if you want to, I can point to some journalists calling Flower better keeper than Gilchrist. For instance, Jarrod Kimber.

Most of them performs adequately enough to not field a sub 25 bat at their expense. Pant, Rizwan, Smith, Carey, Blundell, Das, Verreyne, most are net positives at the end of the day.

Please point to them.

And I love how were comparing CMJ and the cricket / journalistic fraternity which rated Barry the best in the world for about half a decade to one journalist most people have never heard of.

Barry, despite what many in here would like to ignore, was seen by many from Bradman down to be one of the greatest batsmen ever and at worst in the company if Sunny and Hutton as post war openers and a contender for all time teams.

I've never seen Flower on a short list of one.

Re your last point. Dujon averaged in the 30's, so did Knott, Ames, Engineer, Cameron, they weren't amateurs with the bat. Pant since his return has not looked test standard, far less world class, but to say he is more than good enough because he scored some runs belies an understanding of the game in my humble opinion.

And saying that countries continue to pick substandard keepers so it must be working is like saying Americans elected Trump so he mustn't have been that bad. People have an amazing capacity to be stupid.

 

[Coronis]

Please point to them.

And I love how were comparing CMJ and the cricket / journalistic fraternity which rated Barry the best in the world for about half a decade to one journalist most people have never heard of.

Barry, despite what many in here would like to ignore, was seen by many from Bradman down to be one of the greatest batsmen ever and at worst in the company if Sunny and Hutton as post war openers and a contender for all time teams.

I've never seen Flower on a short list of one.

Re your last point. Dujon averaged in the 30's, so did Knott, Ames, Engineer, Cameron, they weren't amateurs with the bat. Pant since his return has not looked test standard, far less world class, but to say he is more than good enough because he scored some runs belies an understanding of the game in my humble opinion.

And saying that countries continue to pick substandard keepers so it must be working is like saying Americans elected Trump so he mustn't have been that bad. People have an amazing capacity to be stupid.

Agree.

Nobody denies the talent Barry had.

Your problem is you know people are picking test teams and are rating test players based on test performance unless stated otherwise and you continue to bring up a bloke who only played 4 tests every single time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Please point to them.

And I love how were comparing CMJ and the cricket / journalistic fraternity which rated Barry the best in the world for about half a decade to one journalist most people have never heard of.

Barry, despite what many in here would like to ignore, was seen by many from Bradman down to be one of the greatest batsmen ever and at worst in the company if Sunny and Hutton as post war openers and a contender for all time teams.

I've never seen Flower on a short list of one.

Re your last point. Dujon averaged in the 30's, so did Knott, Ames, Engineer, Cameron, they weren't amateurs with the bat. Pant since his return has not looked test standard, far less world class, but to say he is more than good enough because he scored some runs belies an understanding of the game in my humble opinion.

And saying that countries continue to pick substandard keepers so it must be working is like saying Americans elected Trump so he mustn't have been that bad. People have an amazing capacity to be stupid.

I am so sorry man, if you think the selectors of every national team in the world is an idiot; but you, dear friend, only know about the sport. Pant looked bad for 1 game, and among all the people (mostly Indian fans) I have talked with, you are the only one wanting to field Jurel right now. And that's when he is close to the team as a batsman, literally no one would had fielded Knott for India. I never denied Barry was talented, just that you gas him up like a balloon; and you really never heard of Kimber?? Fwiw, I would be tempted to know how many shortlists you have looked at. I haven't found one with McGrath above Lillee. And CMJ himself ranked Marshall in the periphery of 50 I believe. Not so fired up anymore, are we??

But then again, you also believe Sobers to be ahead of Bradman while simultaneously gassing up specialists.

 

[kyear2]

Agree.

Nobody denies the talent Barry had.

Your problem is you know people are picking test teams and are rating test players based on test performance unless stated otherwise and you continue to bring up a bloke who only played 4 tests every single time.

Who proved himself in any and everyother capacity and outlet he had.

Whether it's his record in WSC and ROW matches which you helpfully highlighted or his record against the best bowlers in the world in county cricket, he name dwarves to be referenced in these conversations.

His situation was unique and while the scenarios under which we can judge him are not ideal, they do prove his pedigree. And more importantly they're all we have to judge him by. And everytime he was tested, in brief excursions or seasons, he rose to said challenges.

In 2002 in other exercises I was reading about, as many "experts / writers" voted for Barry for an all world opening slot as they did Sunny, and more than Hutton. I'm not saying that's definitive, I'm saying it's all credit to the ability that he had, damn even Bradman selected him at some point. It wasn't like he got injured, he played his trade around the world and met ever challenge offered.

There more than enough numbers that's been provided by you and @peterhrt that shows who he was.

 

[kyear2]

I am so sorry man, if you think the selectors of every national team in the world is an idiot; but you, dear friend, only know about the sport. Pant looked bad for 1 game, and among all the people (mostly Indian fans) I have talked with, you are the only one wanting to field Jurel right now. And that's when he is close to the team as a batsman, literally no one would had fielded Knott for India. I never denied Barry was talented, just that you gas him up like a balloon; and you really never heard of Kimber?? Fwiw, I would be tempted to know how many shortlists you have looked at.

But then again, you also believe Sobers to be ahead of Bradman while simultaneously gassing up specialists.

The fact that you speak to people who wouldn't see the merit of fielding Knott if offered the opportunity speaks volumes more that you realise.

And never said that it's me alone that knows the sport, most of this forum about the age of just born and only know one way of doing things because its the only thing they're seen, not to mention forged by the t20 era, would select a Knott in a heart beat over Pant.

I said that most people haven't, and yes Barry deserves to be in any conversation about post war openers.

And none of this detracts from the fact that Flower was not a good wicketkeeper and no about of batting prowess makes him one, far less the greatest.

And as I said, kindly forward up to where these journalists (plural I assume) said he was the best, and their rationales for doing so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The fact that you speak to people who wouldn't see the merit if fielding Knott if offered the opportunity speaks volumes more that you realise.

And never said that it's me alone that knows the sport, most of this forum about the age of just born and only know one way of doing things because its the only thing they're seen, not to mention forged by the t20 era, would select a Knott in a heart beat over Pant.

I said that most people haven't, and yes Barry deserves to be in any conversation about post war openers.

And none of this detracts from the fact that Flower was not a good wicketkeeper and no about of batting prowess makes him one, far less the greatest.

And as I said, kindly forward up to where these journalists (plural I assume) said he was the best, and their rationales for doing so.

Simply put, the game has moved beyond where Knott's keeping will keep Pant outside of team. In practicality, you will be a full to think that Saha and Knott had some huge skill differences, with both the gloves and bat. Saha kept Pant out initially, but the moment his gloves became serviceable, he was discarded and for good reasons. And for Flower to play, him being serviceable would be enough given his batting. Re Barry, he doesn't belongs in a convo for best Test openers simply because he played 4 matches. That's all. Belongs with the company of Vijay Merchant and Sid Barnes. And I love how quickly you discard these journalists when they talk about Marshall. And for the last point, cbf right now. Kimber's vid was posted in the Knott vs Flower Thread by Thala, will have to look the rest later.