West Indies all-time 5

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The one I have read was published after the WI Tour of New Zealand in 86/87, is that the same or a an updated edition?

The edition revised to 1994. There's another further revised edition I think.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Anyone saying Worrell wasn't all but a certainty clearly hasn't read-up on their stuff.
But for Worrell West Indies probably wouldn't have had any success.
As has been said, once, Worrell unified the islands and laid the foundations for the success (which had been seen fleetingly in the Goddard-Stollmeyer-Ramadhin-Valentine days) which followed for the next 30 years.
Add to this he was a very, very fine batsman even if not quite as good as Weekes, Walcott or Sobers.
I'd not say Viv Richards was a certainty, though, far from it - IMO there have been plenty of better West Indian batsmen.
In less important games, Viv didn't value his wicket enough, however well he played when it mattered most.

Keep in mind that these players were chosen more on influence/importance to the game than stats necessarily.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, what I meant is that surely the most influential batsmen are the best ones?
IMO Sir Vivian was nowhere near as good as Sir Everton or Sir Clyde.
Not even sure he was as good as Lara.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, what I meant is that surely the most influential batsmen are the best ones?
IMO Sir Vivian was nowhere near as good as Sir Everton or Sir Clyde.
Not even sure he was as good as Lara.

well for me, Viv is the best batsman I have ever seen

 

[superkingdave]

well for me, Viv is the best batsman I have ever seen

David Lloyd would agree!

 

[roseboy64]

You clearly need to revise your West Indian history. Ever read 'A History of West Indian Cricket' by Michael Manley? A fine book that. I've got two copies and have read it about 5 times.

No.Never have.Got a copy though.I never doubted how great Worrell was as a cricketer but that's not what I'm basing it on.There are a lot of other people who would have left him out of that top 5.Just going on influence yeah he would be there but a few years from now people won't be looking at that.They'll use stats.

 

[Richard]

well for me, Viv is the best batsman I have ever seen

Oh, he was exceptional when he wanted to be, no doubting that, but he didn't value his wicket enough all the time.
For me, batsmen who scored more runs per dismissal, in days when pitches were generally harder to score runs on, are very likely to have been better players.

 

[Craig]

Yeah, what I meant is that surely the most influential batsmen are the best ones?
IMO Sir Vivian was nowhere near as good as Sir Everton or Sir Clyde.
Not even sure he was as good as Lara.

Sobers claimed in his autobiography that Sir Clyde's brother Keith was just as good as him, but never made it because of the number of quality cricketers around in Barbados and it was hard to fit everybody in.

I always liked Weekes theory that if you hit the ball along the ground you can't be caught. Simple really.

 

[Adamc]

Sobers claimed in his autobiography that Sir Clyde's brother Keith was just as good as him, but never made it because of the number of quality cricketers around in Barbados and it was hard to fit everybody in.

I always liked Weekes theory that if you hit the ball along the ground you can't be caught. Simple really.

I think Bradman pioneered that one.

 

[Craig]

You didn't read my post didn't you?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, what I meant is that surely the most influential batsmen are the best ones?

Why?

 

[Richard]

Err, because they're most likely to have scored the runs that made the influence?

 

[Richard]

Sobers claimed in his autobiography that Sir Clyde's brother Keith was just as good as him, but never made it because of the number of quality cricketers around in Barbados and it was hard to fit everybody in.

Don Bradman claimed there were many (including Alan Kippax, the tragic Archie Jackson and Stan McCabe) who were as good as him.
The fact is, they might have been as good in some ways, but if they were as good in all ways he wouldn't have stood-out in the astonishing manner he did.

 

[Adamc]

You didn't read my post didn't you?

Ummm... yes I did. You said that you liked Weekes' theory of hitting the ball along the ground to reduce the chance of getting caught, I said Bradman pioneered that theory. Where is the problem?

 

[Richard]

Bradman pioneered the theory - Weekes perpetuated it.
Therefore it can fairly be called Weekes' theory, because not many others have executed it with anywhere near the success. No successful batsman has hit fewer Test sixes than Weekes, or indeed anywhere near as few.
Just because Bradman pioneered the theory doesn't mean Craig was wrong to dub it "Weekes' theory".

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Err, because they're most likely to have scored the runs that made the influence?

So Mike Brearley didn't have much influence on the England team then? He just happens to be one of the finest captains of all time...

 

[Adamc]

Bradman pioneered the theory - Weekes perpetuated it.
Therefore it can fairly be called Weekes' theory, because not many others have executed it with anywhere near the success. No successful batsman has hit fewer Test sixes than Weekes, or indeed anywhere near as few.
Just because Bradman pioneered the theory doesn't mean Craig was wrong to dub it "Weekes' theory".

I never said it was wrong, I merely stated that Bradman pioneered it. It was a harmless comment (as demonstrated by the ) and entirely true as well. I was not contradicting Craig's original post at all. I was, however, disputing that he said I didn't understand his post: more likely he didn't understand mine.

 

[Richard]

So Mike Brearley didn't have much influence on the England team then? He just happens to be one of the finest captains of all time...

And did I call Mike Brearley and influential batsman? No, not really, because he sadly underachieved at Test-level.
He was a hugely influential captain, yes, and to be fair you did say "influence to the game".
I just said surely the most influential batsmen are the ones that score the most runs for the least dismissals - Viv didn't have any real other claims to fame other than as a batsman.
Hence, purely as batsmen, surely Weekes was superior to Richards?
However, Worrell's influence on the game extended beyond merely being a superb batsman while not a superb as three of his peers.

 

[Richard]

I never said it was wrong, I merely stated that Bradman pioneered it. It was a harmless comment (as demonstrated by the ) and entirely true as well. I was not contradicting Craig's original post at all. I was, however, disputing that he said I didn't understand his post: more likely he didn't understand mine.

Well it seemed to me Craig was saying you didn't read his post in as light-hearted a manner as you were saying Bradman pioneered the theory.
But I do think Craig had a point, in that you did seem to be contradicting him by saying that Bradman pioneered a theory that he had dubbed as Weekes'.
But it doesn't really matter that much.

 

[Craig]

I will do a WI top 10 (in no order):

Sir Garry Sobers
George Headly
Brian Lara
Sir Viv Richards
Sir Frank Worrell
Malcolm Marshall
Lance Gibbs
Gerry Alexander
Michael Holding
Wes Hall

Top 5 are the same.