Andy Flower vs Adam Gilchrist vs Les Ames

[capt_Luffy]

The best Wicketkeeper test batsman ever. Batsmen keepers like Kumar Sangakkara, Clyde Walcott and A B de Villiers excluded

 

[Coronis]

Is this as pure batsmen?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Is this as pure batsmen?

Yes, as pure batsman

 

[trundler]

Flower easily.

 

[Migara]

The best Wicketkeeper test batsman ever. Batsmen keepers like Kumar Sangakkara, Clyde Walcott and A B de Villiers excluded

Flower is more in Sangakkara mould than Gilchrist mould.

I would say a flawed comparison.

It has to be Sangakkara vs ABDV vs Flower vs Stewart . . . .

or Gilschrist vs Pant vs DeKoch vs . . . .

 

[capt_Luffy]

Flower is more in Sangakkara mould than Gilchrist mould

I know, but he kept wickets long enough for Zimbabwe; and on including Sangakkara here, it wouldn't had been so much so contest anymore.

 

[Migara]

Quinton de Koch would have been a better option than Flower. Flower was a top class bat to start with.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Quinton de Koch would have been a better option than Flower. Flower was a top class bat to start with.

Kinda, but Gilchrist is probably better than de Kock as a bat. It would again had been one sided. Flower being a middle order batsman in a quite low quality team and Gilchrist being a late order bat in basically one of world's best teams; is I thought made the comparison interesting.

 

[a massive zebra]

Purely as a bat, its Flower. But Gilchrist definitely the better cricketer as he was a quality keeper as well.

 

[sayon basak]

The best Wicketkeeper test batsman ever. Batsmen keepers like Kumar Sangakkara, Clyde Walcott and A B de Villiers excluded

Wow look at yourself @capt_Luffy.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wow look at yourself @capt_Luffy.

Yeah..... I don't know why the **** I added Ames as an option.

 

[ataraxia]

The answer is clearly Billy Wade.

 

[DrWolverine]

Pure batsman : Andy Flower

 

[reyrey]

Kinda, but Gilchrist is probably better than de Kock as a bat. It would again had been one sided. Flower being a middle order batsman in a quite low quality team and Gilchrist being a late order bat in basically one of world's best teams; is I thought made the comparison interesting.

A small case can be made for deKock. When batting at 7, deKock has a higher average than Gilly (49 vs 46.44)

 

[capt_Luffy]

A small case can be made for deKock. When batting at 7, deKock has a higher average than Gilly (49 vs 46.44)

Very position specific. Overall averages a good 9 runs less. Don't think they are particularly close a batsmen.

 

[reyrey]

Very position specific. Overall averages a good 9 runs less. Don't think they are particularly close a batsmen.

Gilly was an attacking batter down at 7 for all his Test career. He had a very position specific role he carved out for himself. It would seem de kock was pretty damn good when doing that position specific role too.

 

[Coronis]

Gilly was an attacking batter down at 7 for all his Test career. He had a very position specific role. It would seem de kock was pretty damn good when doing that position specific role too.

lol

 

[shortpitched713]

I get what you're doing @capt_Luffy , and it makes sense. You're isolating long career spans for wicketkeepers of any keeping quality, and determining how well we think they batted as wicketkeepers. In such a consideration I think many would go Flower over Gilchrist due to superior average.

But they would be wrong. Gilchrist is a better batsman. Zimbabwe had a big skew towards playing less than top tier sides, for one. Plus Gilchrist was more destructive, and hence had greater impact on match results with batting, imo.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

I get what you're doing @capt_Luffy , and it makes sense. You're isolating long career spans for wicketkeepers of any keeping quality, and determining how well we think they batted as wicketkeepers. In such a consideration I think many would go Flower over Gilchrist due to superior average.

But they would be wrong. Gilchrist is a better batsman. Zimbabwe had a big skew towards playing less than top tier sides, for one. Plus Gilchrist was more destructive, and hence had greater impact on match results with batting, imo.

I've been saying this for some time, and someone has finally agreed with me!.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I get what you're doing @capt_Luffy , and it makes sense. You're isolating long career spans for wicketkeepers of any keeping quality, and determining how well we think they batted as wicketkeepers. In such a consideration I think many would go Flower over Gilchrist due to superior average.

But they would be wrong. Gilchrist is a better batsman. Zimbabwe had a big skew towards playing less than top tier sides, for one. Plus Gilchrist was more destructive, and hence had greater impact on match results with batting, imo.

Gilchrist having more impact on his team than Flower is a very poorly thought out joke. He batted at 7 behind one of the strongest sides Ever, unlike Flower who carried his team on his back.