Who's the best West Indian Test opener in West Indian Test history?

[Matt79]

Greenidge, then Fredricks for me. Then Hunte.

 

[gettingbetter]

Campbell's an irrelevant option, but seriously - name me a better opener than him not on that list, and DON'T say Chris Gayle!

X. Marshall duh.

 

[Richard]

Greenidge, then Fredricks for me. Then Hunte.

 

[The Sean]

??

 

[Richard]

I can see the case for Greenidge > Fredericks, though I do think it's debatable. Both of them > Hunte?

is my response.

 

[aussie]

'Cos Campbell > Gayle in Test cricket by a fair margin. I'll show why too if you want.

run it by me son..

 

[SJS]

Campbell's an irrelevant option, but seriously - name me a better opener than him not on that list, and DON'T say Chris Gayle!

Chris Gayle

 

[The Sean]

I can see the case for Greenidge > Fredericks, though I do think it's debatable. Both of them > Hunte?

is my response.

Well I'd swap Hunte and Roy around, but it's hardly the most outlandish suggestion. Not much between all three IMO.

 

[funnygirl]

Greenidge .

 

[Richard]

run it by me son..

OK "son" I will...

Gayle became established in the side in 2001 (out of 65 games against Test-standard sides since then he's played 58, all 7 missed through injury or punishment). Since then he's averaged 38.83, fairly impressive you might think. Well, no, not really. For starters, consider the effect the 317 (dropped on 80) has; had that catch been taken it'd be 36.52, still decent but less impressive.

Now actually look at the scores. As a short-term example, consider the recent England tour; 77 for once out at Lord's, when England's attack was a shambles; 11, 13, 23, 16, 28, 52 later on once Sidebottom joined the side and the attack improved. Then consider the Pakistan tour before that; did little at Lahore and Karachi when there was a bit in the surface, and scored 93 on the pancake at Multan.

This is symptomatic of a general pattern of Gayle's career; often pretty good against rubbish attacks, rarely showing-up when there's some decent seam and swing bowling around. I CBA with going through his entire career, but it's very obvious that his heaviest-scoring series (Zimbabwe 2001, New Zealand 2002, South Africa 2003\04, England 2004, New Zealand 2005\06) have come on pitches that have mostly offered little to the seamers or spinners and mostly against teams with wholly mediocre bowlers.

Sherwin Campbell on the other hand averaged 35.83 in his first 43 Tests when a weak attack was a rarity. Though he cashed-in big against the weakest bowling he faced (New Zealand in 1996) and also had more than one lean patch (going 14 innings without a half-century in 1996\97 and 1997, not always against strong attacks; and 10 - inclusive of being dropped - in 1998) he still scored any number of valuable innings against powerful bowling-attacks, from his debut in New Zealand in 1994\95 (51 and 88 against Morrison, Nash and Doull), to in England in 1995 (69, 2, 5, 93, 79, 10, 44, 47, 16, 89 against Fraser and Cork), to Sri Lanka in 1997, to (probably most of all) Pakistan in 1997\98, then finally Zimbabwe in 2000. He also played excellent innings against Australia in 1996\97 and 1999, New Zealand in 1999\2000 and England in 2000, while not managing to maintain consistency throughout the series.

The Barbadian right-hander was easily the better batsman in Tests than the Jamaican leftie.

 

[Goughy]

Sherwin Campbell on the other hand averaged 35.83 in his first 43 Tests when a weak attack was a rarity. Though he cashed-in big against the weakest bowling he faced (New Zealand in 1996) and also had more than one lean patch (going 14 innings without a half-century in 1996\97 and 1997, not always against strong attacks; and 10 - inclusive of being dropped - in 1998) he still scored any number of valuable innings against powerful bowling-attacks, from his debut in New Zealand in 1994\95 (51 and 88 against Morrison, Nash and Doull), to in England in 1995 (69, 2, 5, 93, 79, 10, 44, 47, 16, 89 against Fraser and Cork), to Sri Lanka in 1997, to (probably most of all) Pakistan in 1997\98, then finally Zimbabwe in 2000. He also played excellent innings against Australia in 1996\97 and 1999, New Zealand in 1999\2000 and England in 2000, while not managing to maintain consistency throughout the series.

Your opinion of cricket in the 90s is funny

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, how can an attack whose best bowlers are decidedly mediocre be considered powerful?

And Zimbabwe have never had anything like a powerful attack, even at their best.

In fact, the only bowler who I'd even consider good out of those you mentioned is Angus Fraser. If thats the best that Campbell has faced, then his average of 35.83 flatters him much more than Gayle's average.

 

[SJS]

I too dont think Campbell belongs in this list and also discount the strengths of the attacks named by Richard. But how good (or bad) was Campbell really.

1. Its not true that he scored runs only against mediocre attacks. Let me tell you why.

Australia was clearly the best attack of the times he played in (and much stronger than the Australian attack today). Sherwin played 15 tests against Australia. In four of them he played innings of significance.

1. 18 and 113 - Brisbane '96.

The 113 was out of 296 (no other batsman reached 50). Sherwin almost played through the innings being 9th out at 293.

The bowlers for Australia :

• McGrath
• Warne
• Reiffel
• Kasprowicz

2. 77 and 15 - Sydney '96

The 77 was the only score above 50 in Windies innings.

The bowlers for Australia :

• McGrath
• Warne
• Gillespie
• Kasprowicz

3. 105 and 33 - Kensington Oval '99
The 105 was scored as the Windies batting collapsed around him. The other six batsmen in the top seven (which cluded Lara, Hooper and Adams) scored a grand total of 59 runs between them as Windies plummetted to 98 for six.

The bowlers for Australia :

• McGrath
• Warne
• Gillespie
• MacGill

4. 79 and 54 - Sydney 2001 (his last test match)
The 79 was the top score. His wicket fell at 147 for 1 and Windies were all out for 272.

The bowlers for Australia :

• McGrath
• Gillespie
• MacGill

with Miller as the fourth bowler.​

NONE OF THESE CAN BE CALLED A MEDIOCRE ATTACK ! And he scored runs where most of his colleagues, some very illustrious, failed.

The problem is that while he scored 494 runs in these four tests against Australia, he scored another 187 runs ONLY in the other 11 he played against them. His problems are different from an inability to play the best.

continued......

 

[Richard]

Your opinion of cricket in the 90s is funny

Simon Doull was a fine bowler before his injury. Dion Nash was usually a fine bowler when not injured. Danny Morrison was a pretty decent bowler in New Zealand, certainly far better than the sorts of bowlers New Zealand played in the Caribbean in 1996.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, how can an attack whose best bowlers are decidedly mediocre be considered powerful?

And Zimbabwe have never had anything like a powerful attack, even at their best.

In fact, the only bowler who I'd even consider good out of those you mentioned is Angus Fraser. If thats the best that Campbell has faced, then his average of 35.83 flatters him much more than Gayle's average.

Dominic Cork wasn't a good bowler in 1995? Madness. Heath Streak was always a fair bet, as of times were Paul Strang and Henry Olonga and occasionally even Neil Johnson. Zimbabwe had a fine side in 2000, I don't see how anyone can deny that.

This in addition to the stuff SJS talks about below your post which I felt was so obvious I didn't even mention.

 

[SJS]

Campbell (continued....)

2. His runs against Kiwis are not to be scoffed at.

Its true that he scored heavily against Kiwis and that the Kiwis did not have as great an attack as, say Australia, Pakistan or SouthAfrica but justhave a look at his scores.

51, 88, 208, 29no, 13, 36 and 170 in his first 7 innings against them at an average of 99.2 is fantastic even if you dont think very highly of the Kiwi attack. His last three innings against them brought a total of 3 runs and he ends with a more reasonable 66.4 agaisnt them.

But look at these innings.

The 51 was scored in a disatstrous start as Morrison ran throughthe top order. When he got out at 98 for 5, Lara Arthurton and Adams had already preceded him with a combined total of 16 !

The 208 was in an innings where only one other batsman scored a fifty.

The 170 was scored in a first wicket partnership of 276 with Griffith. After he fell at 279, the next nine wickets fell for less than ninety. The batsmen included Lara, Chanderpaul, Adams and Ricardo Powell. Cairns and Vettori poished off the team. In the second innings Cairns took another seven wickets bundling Windies for 97. This should put his innings in better perspective than any comments on how good were Cairns, Vettori, Nash and Wiseman in the pantheon of bowling giants of the era.

Its not just these innings against Aussies and Kiwis, throughout his career Campbell kept scoring when othersweren't. Its interesting that of the 22 times that he crossed fifty in his career, as many as 13 times he was the top scorer in the side. Thats a very good record.

So why do I think he does not belong in that list.

1. Althoughhe was the best opener in the West Indies in his own time, this was also a reflection of the poor times Windies cricket had fallen to. He was good and certainly good enough to be the best opener of his time but he was not comparable to openers like Hunte, Greenidge and Haynes. The gap between them is very large.

2. The other deficiency in his batting was his inconsistency against top attacks as his figures against Australia show.

3. He clearly had a problem in carrying on from the many good starts he got. The 22 scores above fifty in 52 tests is notvery bad but converting only four of them to three figures shows a lack of application. Something absolutely a MUST for the best of opening batsmen.

He showed a lot of flair and treated most bowling, irresprctive of names, with contempt by his strokeplay but he showed very little intent to play the big innings. I have always been reminded of Ramesh the Indian batsman whenever I have seen Campbell and vice versa.

 

[Richard]

SJS, please recognise this: not once have I suggested Campbell is worthy of comparison to Haynes et al. But I challenge you to find a better Caribbean opener who I have not named on that list above.

 

[SJS]

SJS, please recognise this: not once have I suggested Campbell is worthy of comparison to Haynes et al. But I challenge you to find a better Caribbean opener who I have not named on that list above.

I agree but is there a minimum number of openers for there to be a poll ??

I had just said he did not 'belong' in that list not that someone else deserved to be there.

 

[SJS]

And as you can see from my two long posts I do not have a 'poor' oplnion of Campbell. I must tell you I have always enjoyed watching him bat and almost always been very disappointed at his getting out.

 

[Richard]

I agree but is there a minimum number of openers for there to be a poll ??

I had just said he did not 'belong' in that list not that someone else deserved to be there.

I put him there as an irrelevant option - "the best of the rest" if you like.