Who is The Greatest West Indies Batsman of All Time

[benchmark00]

Nah; I think everyone else just gets confused between 'who is a better batsman' and 'who looked like a better batsman while they were making runs' or 'who achieved the highest level of skill'.

Thank you for proving my point. It has been nice playing with you.

 

[Burgey]

Cribbeh, I think you're really under selling Viv's longevity.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cribbeh, I think you're really under selling Viv's longevity.

I'll pay that one.

Even my statistical ranking system thing that loves longevity only has him at fifth though, and he's not far ahead of Walcott either.

 

[Spikey]

it's because he's a strong, individual, black man who ain't no-one's bitch, isn't it

 

[Burgey]

It's because he's cool on the outside, but burrrrrnnnnnsss for Antigua on the inside.

 

[Spikey]

doesn't like Curtly Ambrose for much the same reason ftr

 

[Prince EWS]

it's because he's a strong, individual, black man who ain't no-one's bitch, isn't it

Yeah you've got me; I'm a sucker for submissive white cricketers like Garry Sobers and Clyde Walcott.

 

[Spikey]

sobers in particular was a wuss

 

[Eloquentia]

It's pretty hard to compare players of different generations and really - in order to rate most on this list I (along with most) are essentially relying on scorecards, heresay and the odd bit of footage (oh, and world series classics :3 ) - but it's pretty clear that players become better with time - by that I mean that history increases how good a player really was. There seem to be a plethora of ATG players from each decade up until the 70s or so, but very few from the recent generations. Cricket hasn't 'deproved' as such, reputations have just increased with time. For that - I find it hard to go past Lara... but from the other three listed, Headley.

 

[Flametree]

Eight people have voted so far, and it's two for each. Pretty much sums up the dilemma.

I went for Headley, but I'm a sucker for the unknown. In addition to his test stats (if he'd resisted coming back to play after the war when well past his best he'd have finished with an average over 66) he also scored phenomenal amounts of runs in other "international" cricket. In two series against Tennyson's tourists to Jamaica, for instance, he scored over 1000 runs at an average of 140. Now these weren't the strongest of opponents, and who knows how seriously they took their cricket. But they were mostly test bowlers (the 1932 side included Nichols, Geary, Astill and Stevens, all pretty decent test match performers), and I'd guess the opposition was certainly no worse than some Bangladesh or Zimbabwe sides that various modern greats have got to play against...

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

George Headley for me.

# W.I. relied heavily on him as at that time the batting line up was not that strong. He carried heavy burden and scored tons of runs.

In the years before the war, Headley scored 25.61% of the runs scored in Tests by West Indies, more than twice as many as the next best batsman, and two-thirds of the team's centuries, scoring ten of the team's first fourteen centuries in Test cricket

# He was consistent and it's unfortunate that his career was interrupted by war otherwise the world could see more of his brilliance.

# He scored runs on difficult/ sticky wickets.

Headley was particularly effective on bad batting wickets. C. L. R. James calculated that Headley averaged 39.85 and passed fifty on seven occasions in thirteen innings on difficult wickets. According to James's reckoning, Bradman in similar conditions passed fifty once, and averaged 16.66 in fifteen innings. Headley himself preferred batting when the odds favoured the bowlers as he had to go for his shots and play his natural attacking game

Although I never watched Headley's batting, but from all accounts, I tend to believe he's the best among all W.I. batsmen. Out of three Ws, Walcott was most consistent; I can't split between Sobers and Lara and I think Rohan Kanhai and Viv were most naturally gifted among them all.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Did any of them face the quality of spin Lara did and took apart on occasions? Not that Lara was a slouch against pace either, so all things considered, I'd go for Lara.

 

[Burgey]

Well Sobers had the likes of Benaud, Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Underwood & Venkat in his era, and Headley presumably had O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity in his time.

 

[harsh.ag]

Loving the Headley love on here. Given that I was expecting Viv's praises, it surprises me the plodding he is getting. I knew Headley was a marvelous bat on sticky wicket, but could you specify what type of pitches is CLR James referring to in his analysis of the Don and Headley there?

And it is true that reputations grow over time. It will be interesting to see how highly Lara is rated, say, two decades from now.

 

[Arachnodouche]

^Right up there, the stuff of legend. He was a force of nature while playing those crazy knocks, the only batsman I've seen who truly evoked the power of the game (Tendulkar did for some time also). I don't think there's been a better batsman than Lara in full flow. Completely subjective of course and keeping numbers out of the frame, much like saying I find it hard to imagine anyone has bowled faster than Akhtar or Lee in their pomp.

 

[Satyanash89]

Watched Lara way more than the others and i dont know how anyone can properly judge players whom youve never really watched play.
Sobers seems to be the greatest based on his mindblowing stats ( averaged 72 over 11 years ) and opinions of his peers, but i choose Lara simply because i watched him bat for a long time and he was just magical. Easily the best player of spin ive seen and he used to have these bursts in the middle of some of his big innings when he used to go crazy and look to hit every ball for four, like the 28 run over against peterson and the 80 ball hundred in that 99 series against australia.


Gonna stick my head out and mention Chanderpaul too... no, he's probably not as good as the guys in the poll, but he's been pretty much the only stable rock of a pathetic batting lineup for 7 years now, averages over 50 in a massive 19 year career, and has done well pretty much everywhere in the world. He's right on the heels of this top 6 along with kanhai, lloyd etc.

 

[harsh.ag]

^Right up there, the stuff of legend. He was a force of nature while playing those crazy knocks, the only batsman I've seen who truly evoked the power of the game (Tendulkar did for some time also). I don't think there's been a better batsman than Lara in full flow. Completely subjective of course and keeping numbers out of the frame, much like saying I find it hard to imagine anyone has bowled faster than Akhtar or Lee in their pomp.

You just gave a slight knock-down to your whole argument with the last example

 

[watson]

Rohan Kanhai held down the No.3 spot for the West Indies from the 1950s to the 1970s, and therefore should have been part of the poll.

However having said that, George Headley wins it for me for reasons already listed by Andy.

But my heart still says Kanhai or Lara.

 

[watson]

You just gave a slight knock-down to your whole argument with the last example

It's not an argument per se. Rather, it's a plea to emotion - Lara's batting touches my soul, ergo it must have been great.

 

[smash84]

Viv scared the living **** out of the faster men. Totally demoralized the opposition. These are definitely intangibles that would make me rank him above some of the batsmen with higher averages.