Greatest West Indian Batsman

[archie mac]

As a side-note - this page is a delight imo. SJS and Archie Mac both back with a bang..

Long may it be so

Ah thanks mate, not often I am mentioned in the same post as SJS, for obvious reasons

 

[honestbharani]

As a side-note - this page is a delight imo. SJS and Archie Mac both back with a bang..

Long may it be so

Amen

 

[GotSpin]

EDIT: Steve Waugh also had a very strong bottom hand throughout, which is why he tended to play those punch-drives off the back foot, rather than the long flowing drives of Sobers where the bat would end up touching him on the back.

Got me in trouble when I used to play. Tried to copy that driving style (left handed)

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

1.sobers/lara
3.richards/headly

 

[kyear2]

All four are ATGs and all among the top 10 batsmen of All Time, but Headley deserves credit for being the first, for being a West Indian Great when it was widely believed that Whites bat and Blacks bowl. For being a minnow and going to Lords and being the first to score hundreds in both innings. Of all of the batsmen of his era he faced the best bowling as he was the only one who had to face the attacks of both England and Australia and for all of the talk of second string bowlers, the only first string bolwer he never faced was Larwood. He was reputedly better on sticky wickets than Hammond and Bradman and from accounts better to watch than either. Grimmett said he was the best onside player he ever saw and all of this for a player who played 17 tests over a span of over ten years. When the war broke out he was now aproaching his peak and would never know what he was fully capable of. Additionally his first class average is behind only Sir Don and Merchant. A final mention for all four players, When Cricinfo named their all time 11, two were named in the first 11 and the other two were the highest voted middle order batsmen in the second.

 

[hang on]

was pretty sure that headley played the second and third string england teams more often than not since those were the days (at the risk of being simplistic) that multiple england/mcc teams would tour at the same time and full strength teams were rarely sent to the non established cricketing outposts.

 

[Slifer]

True but i do think there were a few tours where he faced full strenght English attacks.

 

[hang on]

from those i have seen, lara pips richards. have seen sobers when too young to truly appreciate his genius but from what i have heard and read and seen (on tapes) leads me to have him up there with richards and possibly even lara.

no idea about headley though, again, from conversations and reading, it seems that he certainly belongs in the creme de la creme of west indian batting.

 

[fredfertang]

was pretty sure that headley played the second and third string england teams more often than not since those were the days (at the risk of being simplistic) that multiple england/mcc teams would tour at the same time and full strength teams were rarely sent to the non established cricketing outposts.

This is true. In 1929/30 MCC were at best a 3rd XI - only Hendren and Wyatt, both batsmen of course, appeared in 1930 against Australia

The 1934/35 were stronger as the presence of Hammond, Ames and Leyland, together with Wyatt and Hendren again, meant that only Sutcliffe of England's frontline batsmen was missing. That said of the bowlers who played in the 1934 Ashes only amateur pace bowler Ken Farnes made the trip so again Headley was not playing against England's best by any means.

He averaged 87 and 97 in those two series, but then again in England in 1933 and 1939, against the full England side, he still averaged 55 and 66

But at the end of the day he could only do his best against whatever was put up against him and its also worth bearing in mind that he wasn't the player after the war he had been before, and if he his Test career had ended in 1939 he'd have averaged 67 - in a relatively weak batting side 'tis a remarkable record and I think he deserves all the plaudits he gets .

 

[Furball]

This is true. In 1929/30 MCC were at best a 3rd XI - only Hendren and Wyatt, both batsmen of course, appeared in 1930 against Australia

The 1934/35 were stronger as the presence of Hammond, Ames and Leyland, together with Wyatt and Hendren again, meant that only Sutcliffe of England's frontline batsmen was missing. That said of the bowlers who played in the 1934 Ashes only amateur pace bowler Ken Farnes made the trip so again Headley was not playing against England's best by any means.

He averaged 87 and 97 in those two series, but then again in England in 1933 and 1939, against the full England side, he still averaged 55 and 66

But at the end of the day he could only do his best against whatever was put up against him and its also worth bearing in mind that he wasn't the player after the war he had been before, and if he his Test career had ended in 1939 he'd have averaged 67 - in a relatively weak batting side 'tis a remarkable record and I think he deserves all the plaudits he gets .

He'd surely have faced some good attacks in First Class cricket though, wouldn't he?

 

[fredfertang]

He'd surely have faced some good attacks in First Class cricket though, wouldn't he?

Absolutely - he faced all the best bowlers of his era at one time or another - I'm certainly not knocking him

 

[kyear2]

1st Test: West Indies v England at Bridgetown, Jan 11-16, 1930 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
2nd Test: England v West Indies at Manchester, Jul 22-25, 1933 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
He did face a couple of very good bowlers in Voce, Verity, Farnes, Rhodes and even the under rated and sometime quite quick Hammond.

 

[hang on]

Absolutely - he faced all the best bowlers of his era at one time or another - I'm certainly not knocking him

agree.

am not, even remotely, knocking him either. was just pointing out in my earlier message that he should not be at the very top of that list of astonishingly great batsmen simply because he played the weakest lot of bowlers of the 4 for the largest proportion of his matches.

 

[weldone]

Sobers>Headley>Richards>Lara, for me.

But Lara had the talent to achieve more than the other 3 IMO.

 

[Beleg]

Sobers>Headley>Richards>Lara, for me.

But Lara had the talent to achieve more than the other 3 IMO.

are you saying lara didn't achieve as much as headley or richards?

how do you define achievement?

 

[smash84]

Richards was probably more dominant against the best bowlers of his time so I would take Richards over the others

 

[hang on]

was he really?

i have my doubts about that.

richards

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

his record against 2 of the best bowling teams of his time (the other one would be england, against whom he did very well) does not bear this out. yes, he did take on lillee and co. in 76 but then, lara took on warne and mcgrath in 99 and dominated them.

sobers

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

his record against the best team, and 'best' bowling team, of his time is quite something. better than that of richards.

 

[Ikki]

I'd tend to agree with Smali. Lara, bar Australia, was pretty crappy against the best attacks of his time. Sobers has a very good record but I'd say his era really had a marked difference between teams; Aus, WI and Eng in one group and NZ, Ind and Pak in the other.

 

[hang on]

so, who exactly - in terms of best bowlers of his era - was richards dominating?

note so that people do not get the idea that i am bagging him: i think of richards as one of the greatest batsmen ever.

 

[sachin200]

so, who exactly - in terms of best bowlers of his era - was richards dominating?

note so that people do not get the idea that i am bagging him: i think of richards as one of the greatest batsmen ever.

This is the where bowlers opinion comes in and they unanimously speak Richards as the most intimidating they have ever bowled to...

Dennis Lillee
Imran Khan
Indian spinners...
Richard Hadlee

Thats a fair number of great bowlers..........