Ames was most probably a better keeper than Walcott, who hardly kept for 15 matches. His average while keeping was also 40, which while good, is the same as Ames. Will say though, he kept purely early career and when he became an automatic choice, gave up the gloves. So it's entirely pre batting peak/early career for him.
It depends how we rate Bradman since the post 70s team has batting advantage in middle and lower order.
Too valuable a cricketer to leave out of a team of this era IMO. But Headley is a good shout you're right.
Truthfully, I made it up for the 50s and 60s.
He is. Walcott was nothing special with the bat while keeping, and Ames is definitely the better keeper.
Stone Age was better. Late 60s to mid 70s I think.
en.wikipedia.org
So the Golden Age was 1890-1914, what were the 20’s and 30’s?
I mean, you made the point, it's a bit of a sangakkara case, once he got good he threw away the gloves, but he was definitely a better Batsmen and his keeping probably isn't far off
Walcott Kept for 15 matches. Ames is arguably the 3rd greatest WK batter.
absolutely tweaking
Ftfy.
a downhill skier and a decent keeper is not number 3, I'm sorry.
Who are your top 5 wicket keeper bats?
haven't really made a list but Ames would be hardpressed to be the best WK batter currently.
