Is Everton Weekes close to George Headley?

[Johan]

I think we all agree that Headley was a greater Batsmen than Weekes, but would you say they're close or is Headley massively better?

 

[shortpitched713]

I think we all agree that Headley was a greater Batsmen than Weekes

No

 

[Johan]

No

your mind is too brilliant to be likened to us commoners in regards to West Indies batters.

 

[Line and Length]

Not close ... just casual acquaintances.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman rated Weekes higher from what I recall.

But knowing how petty he was supposed to be, that too may have had something to do with the Black Bradman nickname.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bradman rated Weekes higher from what I recall.

But knowing how petty he was supposed to be, that too may have had something to do with the Black Bradman nickname.

Yeah I'm actually pretty sure that's exactly what that was.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah I'm actually pretty sure that's exactly what that was.

This may be too harsh, but don't recall ever hearing a redeeming quality about his personality.

 

[BazBall21]

Bradman and Weekes had stylistic similarities. Short, compact, quick-footed, high scoring tempo without playing lots of shots in the air.

 

[Coronis]

I’ve voted yes because of Headley only playing as few tests as he did. I think in terms of talent/potential the gap is bigger.

If they had longer careers, they’d both definitely be top 15, Headley nudging at top 10 for sure, rather than closing out 19 and 20.

Weekes is somewhere in the mid 20’s for me I think. idk.

 

[Johan]

If they had longer careers, they’d both definitely be top 15, Headley nudging at top 10 for sure, rather than closing out 19 and 20.

You think Weekes would be successful in the big 2 (at the time) if he had a longer career?

 

[Coronis]

You think Weekes would be successful in the big 2 (at the time) if he had a longer career?

I was referring to Headley and Pollock.

Nah I have no faith in Weekes performing there.

 

[Prince EWS]

I’ve voted yes because of Headley only playing as few tests as he did. I think in terms of talent/potential the gap is bigger.

If they had longer careers, they’d both definitely be top 15, Headley nudging at top 10 for sure, rather than closing out 19 and 20.

Weekes is somewhere in the mid 20’s for me I think. idk.

Yeah I actually used to have Headley #2 because I gave him credit for a relatively long career, but when you look into it he only really played before the war, then came back after and played very poorly for a few token games when he was an old man.

Without the war I reckon he was a good chance of actually being #2, as it is he's probably just outside my top ten. Sometimes I actually forget about him when I'm doing lists tbh because I was used to thinking about him in a higher tier.

I definitely still have him well ahead of Weekes though.

 

[Johan]

Nah I have no faith in Weekes performing there.

I'm cautious about Australia as well.

He did prove himself in England in 1950 though.

 

[shortpitched713]

This may be too harsh, but don't recall ever hearing a redeeming quality about his personality.

Eh, some of that can be attributes to tall poppy mentality. And he was certainly the tallest poppy sport had probably ever seen.

 

[shortpitched713]

Weekes was a form player. His Test performances varied very wildly by year and by tour. And as Johan mentioned he had a very good tour in 1950 in England so it's not like he couldn't or didn't do it in tough conditions against high level opponents.

The biggest hindrance for him is that in those days overseas players couldn't play for a county. So yeah, he had to put up his Bradmanesque numbers in the Lancashire league for Bacup. Imagine, a player of his quality being relegated to that. Regardless, it payed better than Barbados, so he spent a lot of time there, but the quality I don't think was adequate to allow him to remain in as good of knick all the time. He was dependent on the ad-hoc exhibitions and really spotty tour schedules of the time to face quality opposition, and unfortunately I don't think those were reliable enough to develop the type of career that his ability could have supported.

 

[The Sean]

This may be too harsh, but don't recall ever hearing a redeeming quality about his personality.

It seemed to vary by generation. It's hard to find anyone who played with him in the 1930s who liked him, but a lot of the blokes whom he captained after the war were full of admiration for him, as were a number of his later opponents. Even post-playing career opinions seemed to vary - he seems a lot more popular as an administrator with the guys from the 1960s than those in the '70s

A lot of stories point to Bradman's single-mindedness and relative pettiness - it seems he could be a very loyal friend and advocate, but if you offended him or got on his bad side, you were there to stay.

 

[Coronis]

It seemed to vary by generation. It's hard to find anyone who played with him in the 1930s who liked him, but a lot of the blokes whom he captained after the war were full of admiration for him, as were a number of his later opponents. Even post-playing career opinions seemed to vary - he seems a lot more popular as an administrator with the guys from the 1960s than those in the '70s

A lot of stories point to Bradman's single-mindedness and relative pettiness - it seems he could be a very loyal friend and advocate, but if you offended him or got on his bad side, you were there to stay.

This very much seemed as more of a ruthless player/captain and great tactician rather than any sort of redeeming personality qualities.