Do you actually want to talk seriously about it? Read back through the last few pages. And look at the old discussions I linked. It's widely accepted that he was not a good keeper, pretty much everyone is disagreeing with you, it's not just me.
A better question is why you are so intent to insist that he was a good keeper, for apparently no reason. Did you even see him play much? I don't get your motivation behind challenging the widely-held view other than an combating an imaginary anti-Zimbabwe bias.
I didn't call him a good keeper... or a bad keeper. just wanted a reasoned argument to understand why he should be called a terrible keeper. I am never insistent on anything. not my food, my drink, or in my *** life... why would I insist on Andy ****ing Flower's keeping credentials?
my point about the stat, which I downplayed myself, was to underline the fact that for a **** all Zimbabwe bowling attack his record was better than Knotty's record with a good bowling attack. it begs the obvious question. why would he be called a terrible keeper? Calling someone terrible is significantly different from merely pegging below the accomplished champions league (which I can understand in this case).
I wanted to hear cricketing arguments from an observer of the game, like you, rather than an excuse like "everyone says so". thats not good enough for me.
// one thing that sticks with me was his movement to the ball was especially bad, wouldn't even get to some edges that would be standard for most keepers. I don't think he was challenged much with Zimbabwe's bowlers either, it's not like he had to keep to a lot of pace or quality spin bowling. His keeping deficiencies would have likely stood out even more if he had more challenging bowlers.//
probably this kind of a take is what I wanted to hear. we can agree or disagree. but it is a take. and that is why I come to this forum.
now, on your take... Yes, I saw him play. Obviously he wasn't no Healy. But he wasn't Dravid either.
I don't remember him like that. he never looked graceful behind the wickets, for sure. but he didn't drop much. with that **** bowling his team had, most of whatever came his way, he grabbed. poor guy doest deserve a "terrible" tag after pouching three victims every game. more than full time keepers who looked better than him behind the wickets. but this is my take. and it is as valid or invalid as yours.
