Walcott vs Flower (better Test WK-batsman?)

[Johan]

I don't get why you don't trust me and PEWS on Flower being a underwhelming keeper tbh

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't get why you don't trust me and PEWS on Flower being a underwhelming keeper tbh

Everyone who saw Akmal agrees he was shite. Not so much on Flower. You, PEWS, OS and TJB don't rate his keeping at all. HB, DW, my father and a few rates his keeping to be perfectly fine. Journalists and cricket columnists hardly mentions it much, but in general in a positive light (ex: Jarrod Kimber). On the otherhand, I was looking up threads here before he retired/when he just retired, and his keeping was regarded perfectly fine, not of inferior breed, by almost every poster. In a comparison thread with Gilchrist, atleast 3 rated his keeping higher (and strangely, most rated Gilly's batting higher, though to be expected as he was averaging 55 back then). The first complaint regarding his keeping that I found was from 2009, and you guessed it, by PEWS. There just is no unanimity.

 

[kyear2]

See how many games they played as keepers and their batting record in those games

Again with nonsense.

What's the primary job of a wicketkeeper.

 

[kyear2]

To take an extreme example, Kamran Akmal kept wicket a lot of matches too, and his batting record was pretty decent. Doe that remotely make him a good Test WK batsman?

You can't just completely ignore one side of the role, is what I'm saying.

Exactly.

Some just rate everything based purely on batting.

I do concede that with the wicket keeper being an all rounder position, batting plays a fester role than it does for bowlers.

But it just can't be the primary consideration at the expense of a world class keeper.

Someone above referenced byes, someone should really take a look at how much he really gave up.

 

[kyear2]

Bruh. Kaneria would have had 50 more wickets had he not been struck with KAkmal

Yet you don't see the importance of keeping.

 

[kyear2]

I don't get why you don't trust me and PEWS on Flower being a underwhelming keeper tbh

Underwhelming is generous.

 

[ataraxia]

Again with nonsense.

What's the primary job of a wicketkeeper.

It's batting. It has been for years.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's batting. It has been for years.

Well let me tell you a totally accurate, and no nonsense story about the history of cricket.

By all rights, it should have always been a balance between batting and keeping, as it is trending towards today.

Thing is wicket-keeping was what the labor retinue of the landed batting gentry would do. Of course alongside them would be laboring the bowlers, serving up the balls for the posh gits to have their fun with, with the keepers being the necessary human backstops, all so the batsmen could "hone their craft". Batting was the means of production, and of course this wouldn't be shared with the wicketkeepers, even if their position lended towards a balanced skillset. Instead "specialist keepers" were emphasized, lest a good batting wicketkeeper moves beyond their station.

Don't believe that the wicketkeepers weren't being held down by the first and second estates of the bourgeoisie? Well think about it who has the best view of the action in the field for the most number of deliveries? Keeper right? But so rarely are keepers captains of the fielding side. QED, checkmate atheists.

Basically cricket was upper class batsmen spending their time ordering around the bowlers and keeper, smashing em about the head with the bat a bit if they ever got out of line, either that or kill one of the many other servants of their estate, followed by a relaxing evening of ***ual relations with the wall.

 

[Coronis]

Well let me tell you a totally accurate, and no nonsense story about the history of cricket.

By all rights, it should have always been a balance between batting and keeping, as it is trending towards today.

Thing is wicket-keeping was what the labor retinue of the landed batting gentry would do. Of course alongside them would be laboring the bowlers, serving up the balls for the posh gits to have their fun with, with the keepers being the necessary human backstops, all so the batsmen could "hone their craft". Batting was the means of production, and of course this wouldn't be shared with the wicketkeepers, even if their position lended towards a balanced skillset. Instead "specialist keepers" were emphasized, lest a good batting wicketkeeper moves beyond their station.

Don't believe that the wicketkeepers weren't being held down by the first and second estates of the bourgeoisie? Well think about it who has the best view of the action in the field for the most number of deliveries? Keeper right? But so rarely are keepers captains of the fielding side. QED, checkmate atheists.

Basically cricket was upper class batsmen spending their time ordering around the bowlers and keeper, smashing em about the head with the bat a bit if they ever got out of line, either that or kill one of the many other servants of their estate, followed by a relaxing evening of ***ual relations with the wall.

Did someone force shortpitched into keeping as a kid?

 

[Johan]

Well let me tell you a totally accurate, and no nonsense story about the history of cricket.

By all rights, it should have always been a balance between batting and keeping, as it is trending towards today.

Thing is wicket-keeping was what the labor retinue of the landed batting gentry would do. Of course alongside them would be laboring the bowlers, serving up the balls for the posh gits to have their fun with, with the keepers being the necessary human backstops, all so the batsmen could "hone their craft". Batting was the means of production, and of course this wouldn't be shared with the wicketkeepers, even if their position lended towards a balanced skillset. Instead "specialist keepers" were emphasized, lest a good batting wicketkeeper moves beyond their station.

Don't believe that the wicketkeepers weren't being held down by the first and second estates of the bourgeoisie? Well think about it who has the best view of the action in the field for the most number of deliveries? Keeper right? But so rarely are keepers captains of the fielding side. QED, checkmate atheists.

Basically cricket was upper class batsmen spending their time ordering around the bowlers and keeper, smashing em about the head with the bat a bit if they ever got out of line, either that or kill one of the many other servants of their estate, followed by a relaxing evening of ***ual relations with the wall.

that's enough internet for today.

 

[Prince EWS]

Everyone who saw Akmal agrees he was shite. Not so much on Flower. You, PEWS, OS and TJB don't rate his keeping at all. HB, DW, my father and a few rates his keeping to be perfectly fine. Journalists and cricket columnists hardly mentions it much, but in general in a positive light (ex: Jarrod Kimber). On the otherhand, I was looking up threads here before he retired/when he just retired, and his keeping was regarded perfectly fine, not of inferior breed, by almost every poster. In a comparison thread with Gilchrist, atleast 3 rated his keeping higher (and strangely, most rated Gilly's batting higher, though to be expected as he was averaging 55 back then). The first complaint regarding his keeping that I found was from 2009, and you guessed it, by PEWS. There just is no unanimity.

Hey at least I'm consistent.

 

[Coronis]

Hey at least I'm consistent.

Celebrating 20 years of consistency this year

Batsman - Flower
Keeper - Gilchrist

Keeper/Batsman - Gilchrist

 

[capt_Luffy]

Celebrating 20 years of consistency this year

That thread is a Goldmine for my Flower agenda

 

[honestbharani]

Celebrating 20 years of consistency this year

Well, yeah, but I have him beat by a year on Lara > Sachin.

 

[Coronis]

That thread is a Goldmine for my Flower agenda

iirc most people are saying the same there, they didn’t actually watch him keep, people trying to measure it by byes, people who did watch not rating it highly.

I’ve said it a lot, but peer rating I don’t really hold with. Unfortunately, for keepers, the stats have never drawn any sort of clear picture until recently where some people have started keeping track of missed chances I believe.

It is extremely telling for me that Flower is not often mentioned as a contender against Gilly. Its also extremely telling that you can barely find a single word written about his wicketkeeping anywhere. To me, this indicates that he was passable behind the stumps. He wasn’t Kamran Akmal, but his keeping not being noteworthy to even describe?

 

[capt_Luffy]

iirc most people are saying the same there, they didn’t actually watch him keep, people trying to measure it by byes, people who did watch not rating it highly.

I’ve said it a lot, but peer rating I don’t really hold with. Unfortunately, for keepers, the stats have never drawn any sort of clear picture until recently where some people have started keeping track of missed chances I believe.

It is extremely telling for me that Flower is not often mentioned as a contender against Gilly. Its also extremely telling that you can barely find a single word written about his wicketkeeping anywhere. To me, this indicates that he was passable behind the stumps. He wasn’t Kamran Akmal, but his keeping not being noteworthy to even describe?

I actually think if his keeping was bad, it would generate enough faction among journalists and commentators and fans when he actually played. Akmal certainly did, almost every bad keeper does that. You have to remember Flower played at a time when keeping was considered a keeper's primary job, when all teams used to take specialists glovesman. Who would write about his keeping rather than Healy?? Another huge factor was the team he played for, Zimbabwe. He wasn't even considered for things like Cricinfo XI just for that. The notion regarding his keeping in that thread is anything but negative. Ofcourse Gilchrist was a superior glovesman and the batting advantage of Flower isn't close to enough there, but see that almost no one said he was a below par keeper. By everything, average seems to be the norm.

 

[Coronis]

I actually think if his keeping was bad, it would generate enough faction among journalists and commentators and fans when he actually played. Akmal certainly did, almost every bad keeper does that. You have to remember Flower played at a time when keeping was considered a keeper's primary job, when all teams used to take specialists glovesman. Who would write about his keeping rather than Healy?? Another huge factor was the team he played for, Zimbabwe. He wasn't even considered for things like Cricinfo XI just for that. The notion regarding his keeping in that thread is anything but negative. Ofcourse Gilchrist was a superior glovesman and the batting advantage of Flower isn't close to enough there, but see that almost no one said he was a below par keeper. By everything, average seems to be the norm.

Yes well that’s the whole point. From what I can tell he was a bog average keeper at best.

Everything’s written about his batting because there was nothing to write about his keeping.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes well that’s the whole point. From what I can tell he was a bog average keeper at best.

Everything’s written about his batting because there was nothing to write about his keeping.

I mean, I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. I think he was an average keeper, neither good enough nor bad enough to write articles on. With less work load, I expect him to improve somewhat, but that's beside the point.

 

[kyear2]

It's batting. It has been for years.

So toy believe that you should at least hit a certain standard as a keeper though?

That's the problem with where we are now, a lot of sincerely average to poor keepers being selected and boosted as great players where they're not.

There's the argument here on CW where fast bowlers in particular are the slightly more important players because they're match winners.

But then we devalue the wicket taking, match winning aspect of the game when we have some who would select Imran over McGrath, and in this instance Flower over Evans, or for some Pant over Knott or Healy, with all two being non starters for me.

Can't have it both ways, if wicket taking is more important, you can't then keep devaluing the persons who complete the process.

The very minimum standard for calling someone a great wicketkeeper batsman has to be at least world class with the gloves. Not test standard, not decent, world class to great.

 

[kyear2]

iirc most people are saying the same there, they didn’t actually watch him keep, people trying to measure it by byes, people who did watch not rating it highly.

I’ve said it a lot, but peer rating I don’t really hold with. Unfortunately, for keepers, the stats have never drawn any sort of clear picture until recently where some people have started keeping track of missed chances I believe.

It is extremely telling for me that Flower is not often mentioned as a contender against Gilly. Its also extremely telling that you can barely find a single word written about his wicketkeeping anywhere. To me, this indicates that he was passable behind the stumps. He wasn’t Kamran Akmal, but his keeping not being noteworthy to even describe?

Extremely telling.