The best test match wicket-keeper batsman of alltime

[sifter132]

Never understood the "if you've already got six batsmen, you don't need a seventh" mentality. Ultimately it's about winning matches. All things being equal, a deeper batting lineup improves your chances - think of all the Tests that have gone right down to the wire in just the last 12 months.

If you focus on the numbers, it's a trade-off between extra runs conceded by poor keeping (not just byes - a good WK increases the rate at which you take wickets) and extra runs scored by superior batting.

Hence, Gilly over Flower.

Of course the deeper lineup is always better, but there is always a downside to getting that extra batting depth and you still have to weigh up which you want more. Example, do you want Ashley Giles' extra batting at #8? Or do want a guy who can actually threaten batsmen? Duncan Fletcher liked the batting, while I thought he was stupid Didn't lose them the 2005 Ashes though

If you wanted a really awesome batting keeper you can always go for Sir Clyde Walcott. He kept in about half of the Tests he played from memory. No idea how good he looked with the gloves on, but having him at #7 would be an absolute luxury for you and a nightmare for the team you faced.

 

[piriyanth]

Gilly for me.

 

[jordox]

Gilchrist is winning by an unfair margin.

Sorry, I know it's probably just me being bias but there is no way on Earth Gilchrist is 90% better than Flower.

I'm guessing most of the people who have voted have seen very little of Flower, because he was without a doubt a better batsman than Gilchrist ever was. Gilchrist is more explosive, a bigger and cleaner hitter but he doesn't have the class Flower has. People are voting for Gilchrist because he is a icon of the game and everyone knows him.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I'll even it up by voting for Andy. Great player.

 

[angryangy]

I think it's actually a bad comparison; about the only thing in common is keeping, which is what we're being asked to ignore. You wouldn't be all that likely to look for this comparison, otherwise. One batted mostly at 5, playing with a slightly defensive style, but one that had enough little quirks, the other batted at 7 with uncommon attacking flair.

It's not the least of all facts that they played in vastly different teams. For Australia, Gilchrist was top gear; even if they stalled in the middle, Gilchrist would try to catch them up and ensure the tally of runs was immense. Often, however, he was building on a total of 5/200 or more. His runs would have had vastly different effects batting at 7 for Zimbabwe, building on totals of 5/100. His batting would be lambasted as reckless and irresponsible whenever he failed, something that he probably only got from Darren Berry in his career. Worst of all, at best it would scarcely be described as anything more than a face saving effort when effective.

And of course, what Flower did for Zimbabwe would not be nearly as notable from Australia's 99-07 middle order. He would also have played a lot more cricket annually, thus being more exposed to fatigue and form slumps. I remember Steve Waugh's later years being quite heavily scrutinised by the media on the back of a 5 month form slump. At times like that, it certainly seems to be a different game being played by the top teams than the lower ones.

 

[mrtwisties]

If you can't compare two WKB who played in the same era then who can you compare? I hear what you're saying, angryangry, but there's a limit, surely.

 

[jordox]

If you can't compare two WKB who played in the same era then who can you compare? I hear what you're saying, angryangry, but there's a limit, surely.

Flower vs Gilchrist is an unfair comparison because:

A: Most people have no clue about Flower, and have seen very little of him, whilst Gilchrist is an ambassador for the game and is known globally. (this is the reason everyone is voting for Gilchrist, because they all have memories of him, because he played for the most dominant team for years and was on a pedal stool)

B: They are completely different players. You can't possibly be justified in saying that Gilchrist is better than Flower. Stats wise, Flower is better but the main point is that Flower was a brilliant stroke maker and Gilchrist was a brilliant attacking player. They are nearly two polar opposites - one had to play for Zimbabwe, the other Australia. One was defensive, the other attacking. The only thing they share in common is that they are wicket keepers. Gilchrist was better with the gloves than Flower - this you can be justified in saying, but you can't back up saying that Gilly is better than Flower batting wise.

It's almost like comparing McGrath to Warne.

 

[Aoun13]

Moin khan is the best Wicket Keeper on the bases of his intelligence behind the wicket.

 

[Raj_Aryan]

Gilly is more attacking batsman compared to Flower, Flower was no doubt a good batsman, he was the key member from their side, i will go with Gilly.

 

[Shoaib87]

Andy Flower is the best wicket keeper batsman ever.He has an amazing record playing for a minnow.Personaly,I think If Gilly was a Zimbabwian player,his record wouldn't have been as good looking as it is.Both were averages glovesmen,though.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Moin khan is the best Wicket Keeper on the bases of his intelligence behind the wicket.

Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.

 

[Master Khan]

Adam Gilchrist is the best Wicket Keeper of all time and his records proves it
I think he should be in ESPN Leagends of cricket top 25 atleast.
He is a legend and I think he still got it in him after the way he played in the IPL.

 

[King Cricket]

They are completely different players

But still, if I ask you who's the best wicket-keeping batsman of alltime, what's your take? And yeah, I've seen both of these greats. Although I saw Flower only in his last days, in the 03 WC, and immedaitely before it.

 

[Precambrian]

Gilchrist till the second coming.