• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Weekes, Walcott or Worrell: Who was the best batsman?

Best of them as batsmen?


  • Total voters
    16

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Have been reading about these 3 guys recently.

Always assumed Worrell must have been the worst pure bat of the 3 due to the lower average and less centuries per test, but funnily enough when he batted in the top 5, he averaged 59 from 62 digs. This included batting a fair bit at 3, 4 and 5, as well as opening a few times

For some reason, possibly due to playing as an AR sometimes he batted quite a bit from 6-9(including 13 times @ 7) and averaged only 26 down there from 25 digs. Maybe he was happy to bat completely different down there? Threw his wicket away a bit perhaps.

Another cool thing about him, when he did ton up he went pretty big. 5 of his 9 tons were 150+ scores, including 2 unbeaten knocks in the 190s to go with 2 doubles. Also, his 4 best scores(261, 237, 197* and 191*) were all scored at different positions, opening, 3 4 and 5. He also had a decent record both in and against England



Weekes has the tremendous away average(and overall average), but did do far better against India, Pakistan and New Zealand's minnow bowling attacks than against Australia and England. He did get the 5 tons in consecutive innings though in his first year of test cricket, an amazing feat. He was shuffled around a bit too but far less than Worrell, mainly getting to bat at 4.


Walcott had an average nearly as good as Weekes, had a crazy peak of 11 tons in 16 matches during the 50s, and was also shuffled around the batting order a bit - no doubt due to being a keeper initially. He also managed 5 tons in 8 matches against Australia, but was a bit of a hometrack bully.


It's a hard one to call!
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Its not like you can definitively say who was better when you have never watched them.. But just going by records and what I have read, I tend to put Walcott above the other two. Also seems to be the batsman I would have most enjoyed watching out of the 3. So there is that.
 

Jack1

International Debutant
Worrell probably has to be 3rd considering his test average. He was a very strong top 5 batter, but don’t really think he has an excuse for being so bad comparatively at 6 down. However I thought this was interesting…

The three Ws in the Tests they all played (together)
BatsmanTestsRunsAverage100s/ 50s
Frank Worrell29244351.977/ 10
Clyde Walcott29229049.789/ 8
Everton Weekes29231447.226/ 12

Source: Cricinfo

Walcott only averaged 40.46 away. He played 6 more times at home than away, the others played more at away.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I've seen quite a few greatest player lists and rankings which place Worrell first among the three, though to be fair I've always assumed that was at least as much to do with his all-round ability, captaincy and most of all his immense status as a cricketer as it was purely his batting.

From what I've seen and read, Weekes was considered to be the best all-round batsman of the three, as well as the most brilliant strokeplayer, though by the mid-1950s Walcott had taken pre-eminence. His home vs away record has been noted quite a bit, but I reckon he was also quite unlucky in that his peak years as a batsman coincided with West Indies playing all their matches at home.

Walcott was also unlucky with the vagaries of international cricket scheduling back in the day. In a 12-Test run from 1953-1955 he made ten centuries and averaged nearly 90 - and then didn't play another Test until 1957! Imagine being at the height of your powers, on a run of form that stands comparison with almost any in the history of the game, and then being told you have to wait two years for your next match. Needless to say, by the time the tour to England in 1957 rolled around Walcott, while still a fine player, was no longer at his peak.
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
In "Spinning Round the World" (written before the 1957 series), Jim Laker ranked them as follows:
1948: Worrell, Weekes, Walcott
1950: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1953: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell

Other comments include:
- "All three merit the ranking of 'great' ... even though all of them have not been at their top at the same time"
- In 1948, Worrell "was the perfect batsman, so effortless yet so efficient. Possibly he looked even better than he was, because of our shortage of fast bowlers, for in 1953 he did not like the 'quicks' one little bit."
- "Weekes was never coached, and, like Bradman before him, he aroused predictions that he would fail on English wickets. Yet in the summer of 1950 - a wet one, too - he came over, and by mid-July he had scored five centuries. Moreover, he was not satisfied with a mere hundred runs per innings. Each time he had a double helping, and against Cambridge it was a triple helping... I'll never forget the power of his cutting against Surrey at the Oval."
- "By 1953 ... Clyde Walcott held the scene. He allied the sureness of timing with the power of a giant, and I often expected to see the leather cover fly from the ball when he 'middled' his drives. Clyde was a little slower that the other two 'W's to show us his best, probably because in 1948 and 1950 he was also the West Indies' number one 'keeper. When he gave up wicket-keeping his batting surged ahead."
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
5 double centuries in a season has only been done by Bradman (6 in 1930) and Ranji otherwise (I assume no-one else has done so in the last few years).
 

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
Honestly very difficult to choose one from them. Walcott would have taken ODIs/T20s by storm had he played today. Don’t think it’ll be wrong to say he was Gilly before Gilly. Worrell was Steve Waugh before Steve Waugh. Weekes is my most favorite regardless whether he’s best among these three or not. His pulls looks awesome.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Have been reading about these 3 guys recently.

Always assumed Worrell must have been the worst pure bat of the 3 due to the lower average and less centuries per test, but funnily enough when he batted in the top 5, he averaged 59 from 62 digs. This included batting a fair bit at 3, 4 and 5, as well as opening a few times

For some reason, possibly due to playing as an AR sometimes he batted quite a bit from 6-9(including 13 times @ 7) and averaged only 26 down there from 25 digs. Maybe he was happy to bat completely different down there? Threw his wicket away a bit perhaps.

Another cool thing about him, when he did ton up he went pretty big. 5 of his 9 tons were 150+ scores, including 2 unbeaten knocks in the 190s to go with 2 doubles. Also, his 4 best scores(261, 237, 197* and 191*) were all scored at different positions, opening, 3 4 and 5. He also had a decent record both in and against England



Weekes has the tremendous away average(and overall average), but did do far better against India, Pakistan and New Zealand's minnow bowling attacks than against Australia and England. He did get the 5 tons in consecutive innings though in his first year of test cricket, an amazing feat. He was shuffled around a bit too but far less than Worrell, mainly getting to bat at 4.


Walcott had an average nearly as good as Weekes, had a crazy peak of 11 tons in 16 matches during the 50s, and was also shuffled around the batting order a bit - no doubt due to being a keeper initially. He also managed 5 tons in 8 matches against Australia, but was a bit of a hometrack bully.


It's a hard one to call!
Also of note is that Worrell averaged 50 + his entire career up until his very last test....
 

Coronis

International Coach
Its quite insane to think about but a reasonable case can be made that only one (due to keeping) or none of these 3 belong in the ATG Windies side.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Its quite insane to think about but a reasonable case can be made that only one (due to keeping) or none of these 3 belong in the ATG Windies side.
That's what we decided actually:

West Indies XI
1. GC Greenidge
2. CC Hunte
3. GA Headley
4. BC Lara
5. IVA Richards
6. GSA Sobers *
7. PJ Dujon +
8. MD Marshall
9. J Garner
10. CEL Ambrose
11. LR Gibbs
West Indies A XI
1. DL Haynes
2. RC Fredericks
3. CL Walcott
4. ED Weekes
5. FMM Worrell *
6. RB Kanhai
7. DL Murray +
8. MA Holding
9. AME Roberts
10. S Ramadhin
11. CA Walsh
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
completely reasonable too, unless Headley gets shafted for 'muh longevity' they are they clear cut 5th, 6th and 7th best WI batsmen
 

Top