Walcott vs Flower (better Test WK-batsman?)

[shortpitched713]

Who was the better Test WK batsman? People put Gilly first, then most likely one or both of Knott/Sanga, but after that I think it's kind of the wild west, with a lot of choices, and no clear one, (lol at AB de Villiers).

Walcott is interesting, as he's basically a post-War Sanga, in the proportion, and batting stats breakdown of his Test career when considering whether or not he kept wicket. Both played about a third of their career as WK, averaged low 40s, then switched to specialist bat, and averaged 60s, for an overall average ending up in the high/mid 50s.
Difference is, Sanga was a very good WK, whereas from what I have read Walcott "happened to be" a WK, and was competent enough at it. However, given the dearth of footage, I'm sure there are plenty who'd be willing to say he shot fireballs out of his eyes and lightning bolts out his arse.

Compare that to Flower, whose batting stats purely as a keeper were better than Walcott, and he played all but a handful of Tests as a wicketkeeper. However, it seems like no one rates his keeping at all. So which of the two would get the nod then in your eyes for the 4th(ish?) best WK bat?

 

[a massive zebra]

Flower because he kept wicket in a far higher proportion of his Tests and averaged much higher when keeping. His weakness as a wicket keeper is overstated on this forum. Sure, he was far from a great keeper, but he didn't drop a huge amount of catches or regularly let through a sheadload of byes. His keeping was tolerable enough for a 50+ averaging batsman and and no worse than the batting and bowling of most of his teammates (Streak and Houghton excepted).

 

[Coronis]

How was he compared to Bairstow?

 

[peterhrt]

Walcott took up wicket-keeping as a young man as insurance in case the runs dried up. He gave up the gloves due to back problems. Batting improved as a result.

Purely as a keeper he seems to have been pretty good. Godfrey Evans was impressed with his work standing up to the stumps to Ramadhin and Valentine. Ramadhin was not easy to pick and Valentine was a big spinner of the ball.

Personal view is that wicket-keeping is more important than batting for Test keeper-batsmen, although obviously harder to measure.

 

[BazBall21]

I voted for Walcott but only because I think he's the better player. Suppose on output strictly as a WK/Bat, it has to be Flower.

 

[BazBall21]

Walcott took up wicket-keeping as a young man as insurance in case the runs dried up. He gave up the gloves due to back problems. Batting improved as a result.

Purely as a keeper he seems to have been pretty good. Godfrey Evans was impressed with his work standing up to the stumps to Ramadhin and Valentine. Ramadhin was not easy to pick.

Personal view is that wicket-keeping is more important than batting for Test keeper-batsmen, although obviously harder to measure.

Even his bowling was handy on a few occasions.

 

[shortpitched713]

Personal view is that wicket-keeping is more important than batting for Test keeper-batsmen, although obviously harder to measure.

This is what I would definitely agree with, which is why I tend to avoid WK comparisons.

Thought this one in particular might be interesting, because of the vastly different eras, amount of WKing done, but overall superficially eye-popping stats for both.

 

[shortpitched713]

I voted for Walcott but only because I think he's the better player. Suppose on output strictly as a WK/Bat, it has to be Flower.

How much do you think Walcott's batting output could have improved from his earlier wicket-keeping days if he stayed in a condition to and chose to keep the gloves on?