Frank Worrell vs Everton Weekes vs Clyde Walcott

[peterhrt]

Days at Number One in the retrospective ICC Test Batting Rankings:

Walcott 343
Weekes 250
Worrell 0

All between March 1955 and June 1957.

 

[Johan]

how is Walcott the one losing here? as it stands, Weekes has 7 votes, Worrell 6 and Walcott 3

 

[Coronis]

how is Walcott the one losing here? as it stands, Weekes has 7 votes, Worrell 6 and Walcott 3

Some people really love Weekes. Also some probably just voted automatically based on batting ability, without reading OP.

 

[Johan]

Some people really love Weekes. Also some probably just voted automatically based on batting ability, without reading OP.

First is understandable but the second pisses me off.

 

[kyear2]

First is understandable but the second pisses me off.

Weekes was an elite slip and throughout his career.

 

[Prince EWS]

First is understandable but the second pisses me off.

Probably should have put the word cricketer in the poll question. I actually voted for Walcott initially because I thought it was batting and then changed my vote once I read the post. The poll comes up before the post.

 

[Coronis]

Probably should have put the word cricketer in the poll question. I actually voted for Walcott initially because I thought it was batting and then changed my vote once I read the post. The poll comes up before the post.

Ah, another man of culture

 

[shortpitched713]

Voting Walcott based on keeping is not really different than voting Sanga in some comparison, based on keeping. Sometimes folks do it, but other times they don't consider him to have played the position quite enough to rate him on that, especially given the lower batting performance while keeping.

I personally find it difficult to rate, especially as Walcott was considered more towards the "serviceable" end in keeping ability rather than genuinely "very good" like Sanga. Still I'd bump him up almost to the level of Weekes when you consider keeping utility. I absolutely love Weekes the batsman, so yeah.

 

[Johan]

I personally find it difficult to rate, especially as Walcott was considered more towards the "serviceable" end in keeping ability rather than genuinely "very good" like Sanga. Still I'd bump him up almost to the level of Weekes when you consider keeping utility.

I think Walcott was considered very good to spin, serviceable to pace. Nothing on Frank?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Voting Walcott based on keeping is not really different than voting Sanga in some comparison, based on keeping. Sometimes folks do it, but other times they don't consider him to have played the position quite enough to rate him on that, especially given the lower batting performance while keeping.

I personally find it difficult to rate, especially as Walcott was considered more towards the "serviceable" end in keeping ability rather than genuinely "very good" like Sanga. Still I'd bump him up almost to the level of Weekes when you consider keeping utility. I absolutely love Weekes the batsman, so yeah.

Walcott was definitely on the more "Good" side of things than "serviceable"

 

[shortpitched713]

I think Walcott was considered very good to spin, serviceable to pace. Nothing on Frank?

His bowling throughout career seems definitely part timer quality, not genuine batting all-rounder. And read nothing about his captaincy which would make me want to bump him up for that. Seems a poor man's Steve Waugh, which is a bit harsh, but hey.

 

[kyear2]

Voting Walcott based on keeping is not really different than voting Sanga in some comparison, based on keeping. Sometimes folks do it, but other times they don't consider him to have played the position quite enough to rate him on that, especially given the lower batting performance while keeping.

I personally find it difficult to rate, especially as Walcott was considered more towards the "serviceable" end in keeping ability rather than genuinely "very good" like Sanga. Still I'd bump him up almost to the level of Weekes when you consider keeping utility. I absolutely love Weekes the batsman, so yeah.

From everything I've read and from the first hand account of @JBMAC I would have to deduce that Walcott was well above serviceable as a keeper and at least as good as Sanga if not better. I would say he was very good if not world class as a keeper, and leaning towards the latter.

I'll defer to @JBMAC

 

[kyear2]

His bowling throughout career seems definitely part timer quality, not genuine batting all-rounder. And read nothing about his captaincy which would make me want to bump him up for that. Seems a poor man's Steve Waugh, which is a bit harsh, but hey.

But seriously, he was a legitimate batting all rounder, not a great one, but definitely above part time quality.

Captaincy wise, the only one who really move the needle for me, at least post war is Taylor.

 

[Johan]

I think Allan Border is a better analogy than Waugh due to their contribution to their respective country's cricket, Worrell miles above Waugh with the ball imo, 68 in 51 vs 92 in 168.

 

[Coronis]

I’m presuming one can be a good part time bowler, lets say averages 35 but takes say, 0.5 wickets per test, vs a poor (at bowling) allrounder who averages 40 and takes 1-2 wpm.