Who is The Greatest West Indies Batsman of All Time

[harsh.skm]

I always figured that this would be the most difficult question to answer with regards to the Windies. Personally, I think it is a toss up between Sobers and Viv. I never actually got to saw Sobers bat live, but the tales of his awesomeness were part of growing up for me. Everyone thought he was the best left hander ever. Even the emergence of Graeme Pollock and Brian Charles Lara didn't change the mind of any of my elders. Having watched some of his videos, I can see what they meant, but still I cannot understand the fascination as such. It seems to me that Lara was as good, and sometimes better. But I will defer to the opinion of others on Lara v Sobers. When it comes to Viv, so many intangibles apart from his batting come into play that sometimes it's almost a bias to think of him as a better batsman than say, George Headley. But having watched Viv, it would be nigh impossible for me to rank him below the Black Bradman. Opinions?

[Burgey]

Sobers or Headley IMO, followed closely by Viv and Lara.

[Dan]

Sir Frank Worrell

His record is slightly less awesome that some of the others on display (but still in ATG territory), but the intangibles he brought to the table were far more important than Viv's IMO.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Sir Frank Worrell

His record is slightly less awesome that some of the others on display (but still in ATG territory), but the intangibles he brought to the table were far more important than Viv's IMO.

To be honest, if you were going to pic from the 3Ws, Everton Weekes was a better batsman than Worrell. Sir Garry said so himself. Intangibles of leadership shouldn't really come into this discussion now, should it?

[Jager]

Felt like Worrell was missing from the list too.

[kyear2]

To me Walcott was the best of the three W's closely folled by Weekes then comes Worrell.

Back to the title post I think they are all equal. Honestly I was just watching some old Lara innings on Youtube and I find it hard to belive that any batsman was his superior when he was at his best. Sobers was Sobers and his record speaks for it self, but because of his heavy bowling load he batted at 6 for a lot of his career while the others spent more of their careers in the top 4. Viv at his peak in the late 70's- early '80's was the defination of dominance, but he played on too long after he had passed his best and his best was the shortest of all of the others listed, but what he accomplished in that time was enough for him to be named one of Wisdens cricketers of the Century. Lara's biggest problem was Lara and where his mind and motivation was at, and that is where Sachin was his better, consistency. When the war began in '39 Headley was on his was to becoming the best batsman in the World, bar none, he was becoming that dominant. He was also a quick learner, his worse tour also told us the most about the man, especially how he finished off againts Grimmett and Ironmonger. He played only 22 tests but the first 19 were spread over 10 years, it wasn't as if he was given the opportunity to consistently hone his skills againts the best, but at most one series a year and againts much stronger opposition. Unlike Bradman he didn't get to play againts minnows (they were one of the minnows), and only played againts the two strong teams of the time, He didn't have the support strong batting lineup, he was out batting lineup and he played with the pressure that if he got out, more than likely the team would crumble and they would loose. 10 hundreds in 19 tests before the war. He was more attractive than Bradman and supposedly better on sticky wickets. Headley was the first and the one who created the spark of West Indies cricket.
All of them are All Time top 10 batsmen, so hard to pick, but as a pure batsman, by the slimmest of margins Headley.

[smalishah84]

Would probably be a toss between Sobers and Richards.

I didn't see Sobers play but if there was ever a batsman who could annihilate the opposition it was Viv. He couldn't just score quickly, he could demoralize you.

[harsh.skm]

I didn't put any of the 3Ws on the poll for this reason only: They are too close to separate. And I honestly couldn't imagine anyone preferring them to the four listed. So, presumption on my part, I guess.

True the fact about Sobers batting lower down the order. Although he did score 3 centuries batting at number 3 (including the 365), 6 centuries at number 4, and 7 centuries at number 5.

Viv was literally a bowler's nightmare. Headley seems to be as great as anybody, and he apparently was a silky smooth batsman, and very attractive to watch. Lara was, well, Lara.

[Prince EWS]

Hard to split Sobers and Headley for me. Richards wouldn't make my top seven or so.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Hard to split Sobers and Headley for me. Richards wouldn't make my top seven or so.

Tad harsh towards Viv?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Hard to split Sobers and Headley for me. Richards wouldn't make my top seven or so.

Lol.

Great example of you feeling Viv is overrated and overcompensating in the reverse.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Jono

Lol.

Great example of you feeling Viv is overrated and overcompensating in the reverse.

Nah, bull****. There's seriously absolutely no reason why I can't claim that Headley, Sobers, Lara, Weekes and Walcott were better than him. Richards was a great batsman but yes I do find him over-rated and there's absolutely no shame in behind those guys; they were absolute legends of the highest order. I did exaggerate slightly (I don't think Kanhai or Worrell were better than him, but it is close) but that puts him 6th and I'm comfortable with that.

[kingkallis]

Brian Charles Lara

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Nah, bull****. There's seriously absolutely no reason why I can't claim that Headley, Sobers, Lara, Weekes and Walcott were better than him. Richards was a great batsman but yes I do find him over-rated and there's absolutely no shame in behind those guys; they were absolute legends of the highest order. I did exaggerate slightly (I don't think Kanhai or Worrell were better than him, but it is close) but that puts him 6th and I'm comfortable with that.

So you did overcompensate by having him 8th then? You agree?

In any case, why is Weekes better than him?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Jono

So you did overcompensate by having him 8th then? You agree?

In any case, why is Weekes better than him?

I didn't overcompensate; I exaggerated. There's a difference.

I actually said "top seven" because if I picked two openers in a batting lineup, he wouldn't make the batting lineup. But I do rate him higher than all the opening options.