Greatest West Indian Batsman

[NUFAN]

And Australia:

Bradman
-----------------
-----------------
Chappell
Ponting
Waugh (S)
Border
---------------
Hayden
Hussey
Harvey
Walters
McCabe
Ponsford
Lawry
Langer
Simpson
Hasset
Morris
D Jones
----------------
Clarke (M) (for now)
Gilchrist
Martyn
Boon
Slater
Taylor
Ian Chappell
-----------
Waugh M

Left/missed out a few because of lack of knowledge (ex Trumper) or just forgot.

I can't see how Dean Jones is ahead of someone like Adam Gilchrist.

Also feel that Mark Waugh is a little hard done by being a level below David Boon and Mark Taylor.

 

[Fusion]

King Viv. He's my favorite batsman of all-time and also my favorite non-Pakistani player of all time. Therefore I acknowledge my bias when I state that I consider him to be the second greatest batsman of all time. I know I don't have the stats to back up that claim. I only have my opinion which I developed after watching King Viv bat. I've never seen anyone more dominant or devastating.

 

[Athlai]

Sobers without a doubt in my mind. Second greatest batsman of all-time.

 

[bagapath]

GA Headley 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 10 5 2
Richards after 22 tests 38 2 2305 291 64.02 8 7 2

CL Walcott 44 74 7 3798 220 56.68 15 14 1
Richards after 44 tests 68 4 3969 291 62.01 13 16 3

ED Weekes 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61 15 19 6
Richards after 48 tests 76 4 4219 291 58.59 13 18 4

FMM Worrell 51 87 9 3860 261 49.48 9 22 11
Richards after 51 tests 79 4 4409 291 58.78 14 19 4

GS Sobers 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 26 30 12
Richards after 93 tests 139 9 6939 291 53.37 22 30 7

BC Lara final stats 130 230 6 11912 400* 53.17 34 48 17
Richards final stats 121 182 12 8540 291 50.23 24 45 10
Lara after 121 matches 214 6 11204 400* 53.86 31 46 14

The top 4 should be (in chronological order) headley, sobers, richards and lara with one of the three Ws (worrell???) completing the top 5.

each one had his own strength. headley for being the only great player in a "minnow", sobers for being the most stylish, versatile and consistent batter of his times, richards for dominating great bowlers around the world and creating winning situations for his all conquering teams with his aggressive batting and lara for standing firm in a crumbling old giant of a team never losing his princely touch with the bat.

i have voted for richards because, as you can see above, he matches (and sometimes even betters) the other champs in stats despite batting at a much faster clip. could easily have been sobers or lara, too.

 

[shivfan]

There are a lot of great batsmen there, but to me Headley edges it....

 

[subshakerz]

Let's be realistic, each of these guys has as much a claim to be the best as the other. I cant seem to find any criteria to put one above the rest...

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I can't see how Dean Jones is ahead of someone like Adam Gilchrist.

Also feel that Mark Waugh is a little hard done by being a level below David Boon and Mark Taylor.

Dean Jones is very underrated, IMO.

Best West Indies batsman...

Sir Viv Richards > Brian Lara > George Headley > Gary Sobers

 

[fredfertang]

Headley did exceptionally well against a pretty average England side in 29/30 that was at best,IMO, a third XI

Likewise in 34/35 when England sent out a stronger side although I would still suggest the bowling was third XI - it was the batting that was much stronger

In his only series against Australia in 30/31 he was average against a full strength attack although he did extremely well against England in England in 33 and 39

Even ignoring his three post war tests, which he should have resisted the temptation to play, I still believe he's a little way behind Sobers in particular, but Lara and Richards as well

 

[aussie]

Really can't see how you could put Headley over Sobers, Richards or Lara. They scored runs againts much stronger attacks than him.

 

[SJS]

Headley did exceptionally well against a pretty average England side in 29/30 that was at best,IMO, a third XI

Likewise in 34/35 when England sent out a stronger side although I would still suggest the bowling was third XI - it was the batting that was much stronger

In his only series against Australia in 30/31 he was average against a full strength attack although he did extremely well against England in England in 33 and 39

Even ignoring his three post war tests, which he should have resisted the temptation to play, I still believe he's a little way behind Sobers in particular, but Lara and Richards as well

It is true that he played against average sides, particularly at home. I too feel his record needs to be tempered a bit with that in mind. That said, one can only play against the sides one is faced with. He may not have scored that heavily against a full strength England side but then again he may still have scored heavily.

I have tried to look at his record in different ways.

He toured England twice - 1933 and 1939.

In 1933,

• Headley scored 2320 runs at 66.3 in 23 matches.
• Only Hammond (3323 in 34 games at 67.8) and
• Phil Mead (2576 runs in 44 games at 67.8) were above him in aggregate and average.
• Hobbs Wyatt, Hendren and Sutcliffe were below him.

In 1939...

• Headley scored 1745 runs in just 20 matches at 72.7
• No in England one had a better average.
• Hammond (63.6), Hutton (62.7), Compton (56.1), Hardstaff (54.6), Sutcliffe (54.5), Edrich (49.7), Paynter (42.5) were an impressive list of English batsmen below him.

He played four other matches over the years (3 of them in the 1950's) and averaged 65.8 in them.

• Over the years (21 in all) in all first class matches (including the Tests) he scored 4460 runs at 68.6!
• In just 47 games he scored a remarkable 14 centuries and 22 fifties.
• He made six scores over 200 and a highest of 344 not out.

He was clearly a very special talent.

So while we keep in mind that England did not send their best sides to West Indies, this man had a fantastic record in the company of cricketers the likes of whom he never got to face at home.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Headley's record against full-strength England sides in England has always fairly well convinced me that he could easily have put in exactly the sort of performances in the Caribbean that he did even if England had picked proper teams to tour. Equally, if he'd played more against Australia I don't doubt he could've performed up with the Ponsfords etc. and very possibly better. It's such a shame he only got one series, early in his career, against Australia. Imagine what might have happened had we judged Richard Hadlee (to name one of copious examples) only on his first 3-4 years.

Whether he'd have done better or worse with a stronger batting unit around him obviously can never be known. But that he'd have a far stronger legacy had West Indies had a decent schedule in the 1930s, as England and Australia did, is for me beyond dispute. His relative anonymity is a result of their lack of activity.

 

[SJS]

His relative anonymity is a result of their lack of activity.

... and the break out of the second world war when he was at his absolute peak. If he had played for those five six years, we could have been looking at 4000 plus Test runs at an average in the sixties.

 

[Uppercut]

Without a great deal of thought, I've gone for Headley. After several generations of world-class batsmen, it's tempting to go for the man who started the whole thing.

Second for me is Viv, then Sobers, then Lara.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was a toss-up for me between Headley and Viv.

 

[Blackjane]

I vote for Brian Lara, If we see the average of Brian Lara with respect to the matches won its around 60 and for Viv Richards its around 50...

 

[Ikki]

Richards>Lara=Sobers>Headley

 

[roseboy64]

Floyd Reifer

 

[morgieb]

Hard to split them up, so I'll abstain. Went with Sobers, mainly because he had to bowl as well.

 

[sparkey]

Floyd Reifer

good of a guess as any

I'm going to go with Sir Garry Sobers

 

[chaminda_00]

Weekes easierly for mine