Clyde Walcott vs Peter May

[Johan]

Surprisingly a match that hasn't been done. Both are fighting for the second best Batsman of the 1950s. Both were amazing at home, Clyde averaged 70 in the West Indies and May averaged 57 in England. Might give you the idea that Walcott is way better at home but May was batting on some of the toughest wickets ever (24.80) while Clyde was playing on relatively batter friendly wickets (37.60) though that average for Walcott might be a little inflated. Both were inferior away from home, May was great in Australia and Clyde only toured there once with a spinal disc injury, May had one decent series in West Indies but failed the next series due to being severely ill and being sent home mid tour while Walcott had one decent knock in England and the next series he had another injury, Walcott performed very well against the almighty Surrey team of the time, though. May never toured India though would've likely made heaps if he did. Both men performed in New Zealand, though one can argue May had better knocks in Kiwiland. May was completely stomped in South Africa but again, Walcott never played in or against South Africa for very, very unfortunate reasons.

Who is the better bat overall?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Despite the difference in Home conditions I think I will go with Walcott, just. Really Close

 

[sayon basak]

Despite the difference in Home conditions I think I will go with Walcott, just. Really Clode

You spelled Clyde wrong.

 

[BazBall21]

Walcott averages more than May overseas because he toured India whereas May toured South Africa which was a better attack in tougher conditions. May did better in Australia than Walcott did in Australia or England. Walcott was a monster at home but so was May on much more unpredictable surfaces.

Walcott has some serious volume v Australia & England at home though.