The great 1980s all rounders

[a massive zebra]

On what basis are Walcott and Weekes, averaging 56-58, not seen to be as good as the others who average similar or less....or Headley whose average of 60 from a small number of matches always seems to have secured his place in the pantheon?

(I mean yeah I could do my own research but I'm a lazy ****)

In 1996 Sobers was asked by The Cricketer to select his all time West Indies XI and he said Headley and Weekes were locks at 3 and 4. He then seriously considered the merits of Walcott, Worrell, Kanhai, Kallicharan and Lloyd for number 5, and eventually went with Richards only after due consideration. So in other words, a few years after the conclusion of Richards career, Sobers didn't subscribe to the current consensus that Richards was in a league above the three Ws.

 

[a massive zebra]

There isn't a cricketer who has not deviated from his overall average against individual countries. Tendulkar averages 40 something against SA. Same for Viv against Aus and Pak. Lara averages 30 odd against a few countries. By Bradman standard, his average of less than 90 against Eng is 'below par'.

Garry Sobers is very much the supreme cricketer regardless of his average against one or 2 countries, Aus or NZ. Always will be.

Marshall averaged under 22.6 against every country and under 25 in every country.

I don't think Bradman's average of 89.78 against England is below par if you take into account the relative standard of the opposition. England were by far Australia's strongest opponents throughout his career.

 

[stephen]

Yeah but how did Marshall go against a baking lineup of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Smith, Tendulkar, Border and Gilchrist in India?

Such things are as improbable as the hypothetical scenarios that people rate batsmen on.

 

[h_hurricane]

Marshall averaged under 22.6 against every country and under 25 in every country.

I don't think Bradman's average of 89.78 against England is below par if you take into account the relative standard of the opposition. England were by far Australia's strongest opponents throughout his career.

Marshall did average 30 something in NZ (only a small sample size though). Bradman's 10% deviation from his average does explain why Eng was the strongest opponent in his era. I wouldn't hold it against them anyway

 

[trundler]

Marshall did average 30 something in NZ (only a small sample size though). Bradman's 10% deviation from his average does explain why Eng was the strongest opponent in his era. I wouldn't hold it against them anyway

TJB has severely blunted our optimism and faith in humanity.

 

[Slifer]

Basically this. Walcott had some great innings at home vs Lindwall and Miller but most of the pitches in the Caribbean in that era were not the liveliest. Weeks was better than his record, just getting hurt at the most inopportune moments. So the comment is fair. Worrell though was arguably the best of the 3 and pure class. He did miss out on the minnow tours which didn't help his average.

Also, worrell is one of the few cricketers whose average I believe never dipped below 45 (Javed and herbert sutcliffe the other 2). As a matter of fact, his average never dipped below 50 until his last test. What an amazing human being!!!

 

[Slifer]

Marshall did average 30 something in NZ (only a small sample size though). Bradman's 10% deviation from his average does explain why Eng was the strongest opponent in his era. I wouldn't hold it against them anyway

Really dude 3 tests?? Where he was literally injured. I hope that you're not a fan of Lillee then....?

 

[Chrish]

I remember watching a documentary where it was stated that in one of the games 3 Ws were playing, one of the umpire was Walcott’s uncle!

So, biased umpiring probably played some part in their beastly home record; at least that’s what they were implying.

 

[h_hurricane]

Really dude 3 tests?? Where he was literally injured. I hope that you're not a fan of Lillee then....��

As I mentioned earlier, I am not holding that against him, just a statistical anomaly. He is simply the best bowler in history

On the other hand, I am not a Lillee fan at all, rate him quite a bit below MM. An ATG neverthless.

 

[h_hurricane]

Isn't Walcott's wicket keeping considered while rating him as a cricketer ? He was an early Gilchrist wasn't he ?

 

[kyear2]

Isn't Walcott's wicket keeping considered while rating him as a cricketer ? He was an early Gilchrist wasn't he ?

He was actually quite good against spin biwling. His batting though didn't really get into gear though until he gave up the gloves.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall averaged under 22.6 against every country and under 25 in every country.

I don't think Bradman's average of 89.78 against England is below par if you take into account the relative standard of the opposition. England were by far Australia's strongest opponents throughout his career.

England wasn't his strongest opponent, they were his only strong opponent. By far the strongest attack in his day was his own and obviously can't hold that against him.

Was reading up on Bruce Mitchell a few weeks ago and he was telling a story re his religious nature. Long story short the guys at1st slip dropped Bradman on 0 and was cursing. Mitchell though there was never a good reason to do so. Next over Bruce dropped him as well. None of the other outfits back then besides England were that professional and we were quite weak as well, though we did give Bradman and Hammond some issues with the short ball.

 

[vcs]

Even the Pope would use a profanity or two if he dropped Bradman on zero.

 

[kyear2]

Indeed.

Considering he went in to score a double hundred.

 

[Red]

Even the Pope would use a profanity or two if he dropped Bradman on zero.

Ah yes, Catholics. The moral paragons.

 

[steve132]

I remember watching a documentary where it was stated that in one of the games 3 Ws were playing, one of the umpire was Walcott’s uncle!

So, biased umpiring probably played some part in their beastly home record; at least that’s what they were implying.

I don't think that this anecdote supports your case. Walcott's uncle gave him out LBW for 98 in a 1953 Test against India.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I remember watching a documentary where it was stated that in one of the games 3 Ws were playing, one of the umpire was Walcott’s uncle!

So, biased umpiring probably played some part in their beastly home record; at least that’s what they were implying.

That's a pretty big leap of logic

 

[Burgey]

As I mentioned earlier, I am not holding that against him, just a statistical anomaly. He is simply the best bowler in history

On the other hand, I am not a Lillee fan at all, rate him quite a bit below MM. An ATG neverthless.

Second.

 

[Coronis]

He was actually quite good against spin biwling. His batting though didn't really get into gear though until he gave up the gloves.

So, Sangakkara?

 

[Red]

Second.

You mean Lillee is second best?