Who's the greatest left handed batsman of alltime?

[Perm]

You have a point, to which I agree with to a very large extent, but what about Headley? The Black Bradman? Pollock played 1 more test than he did.

What about him? Really he can only be judged on his FC feats, just like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. He could well have been the second best batsman (after Bradman) to grace this world, but sadly didn't have enough opportunity to prove himself at Test level (IMO of course), but he did score three more centuries than Pollock in 1 less innings in an incredibly weak side. Headley>Pollock I feel, but neither had enough Tests to prove themselves (although I admit, I didn't think they had played 22 and 23 respectively, thought it was more like 10-15)

 

[Ikki]

What about him? Really he can only be judged on his FC feats, just like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. He could well have been the second best batsman (after Bradman) to grace this world, but sadly didn't have enough opportunity to prove himself at Test level (IMO of course), but he did score three more centuries than Pollock in 1 less innings in an incredibly weak side. Headley>Pollock I feel, but neither had enough Tests to prove themselves (although I admit, I didn't think they had played 22 and 23 respectively, thought it was more like 10-15)

Fair enough, just wanted your insights. I see a lot of people say what you said in the previous post yet back someone like Headley as if it's a golden exception.

 

[Perm]

Fair enough, just wanted your insights. I see a lot of people say what you said in the previous post yet back someone like Headley as if it's a golden exception.

Could possibly be because Headley averages 15 more than Pollock in FC cricket. As I say though, hard to justify who is greater based on Test performances.

 

[pasag]

Not sure how much you can hold Headley's lack of Tests against him seeing how many Tests they played in those days, it's not like he had a 2 year career either. Bill O'Reilly only played in 5 more Tests and many would put him in the top 3 spinners of all time quite easily. Doesn't factor in too much for mine at all.

 

[SJS]

No, I don't think so. While he was regarded as the best batsman in the world for several years of his career when South Africa were banished from Test cricket I find it hard to rank players who never had enough of a chance to prove themselves at Test level. For all we know he could've played another handful of Tests and performed absolutely woefully, in which case he may have been labelled as a choker who couldn't perform at the highest level. Therefore, since he didn't put enough performances in at Test level, you will be hard pressed to convince me he was better than a proven Test batsman.

In any event Pollock's international career wasn't short in time span. He played his first test in 1963 and his last in 1970. To average above sixty over more than seven years is fabulous by any standards. And he was consistent. Here is his record after 1963 when he made his debut and scored 25 runs in a solitary innings.

YEAR.....TESTS.........AVG
1964..........7.............41.6
1965..........6.............67.8
1966..........2.............77.0
1967..........3.............76.3
1970..........4.............73.9

That is absolutely brilliant and consistent. 2256 runs in 37 completed innings over 8 seasons. 7 hundreds PLUS 11 fifties in just 23 test matches. This is something only Bradman seems to have bettered.

2256 runs at 61 over 8 seasons. No. I dont think his record can be belittled for not having played enough.

Ponsford, Hazare, Nourse scored fewer runs in complete careers and mostare candidates for their own countries all time teams. No one questions their lack of international cricket. Woodfull scored just 44 more.

No. He played for long enough and scored enough runs to be qualified and his performance in these games shows he was an all time great. In those 8 seasons todays cricketers would have played 80 test matches. His consistent record over time indicates what kind of figures he would have had if he had done the sam.

 

[SJS]

Not sure how much you can hold Headley's lack of Tests against him seeing how many Tests they played in those days, it's not like he had a 2 year career either. Bill O'Reilly only played in 5 more Tests and many would put him in the top 3 spinners of all time quite easily. Doesn't factor in too much for mine at all.

Absolutely spot on.

Headley had scored 2135 runs in 19 test matches over ten seasons (1930 to 1939) when WW2 broke out.

He shoulkd have never played after the war. He was in his 40th year when he played in the first postwar game and the solitary test in India and in his 45th year when he played the next and his last game.

He was not the athlete he had been and was put in the side more for sentimental reasons than anything else. Afterall the "white Headley" only one year senior to him had played till 40 the year George played the first of his three postwartests.

If he had played just 19 instead of 22 test matches he wouldnt have become a lesser player because of 'fewer games' nor a greater one for an average of 66.3 he would have had if he hadn't.

Ten years is not a short time in international cricket its just that fewer games were played particularly for countries other than the big two. His yearwise averages during the pre WW2 years make as impressive a reading if not better than even Pollocks.

1930 : 71.4
1931 : 46.4
1933 : 55.4
1935 : 97.0
1939 : 66.8

He was well entitled to be called "Black Bradman" even if we concede that Barbadians were a bit over-the-top calling Sir Donals as the "white Headley"

 

[Matt79]

And its not like his form in FC cricket suggests he would have not kept up his level of performance in Tests had he been able to play 5-8 tests each year in the 9 years 1930-1939.

 

[The Sean]

Have to agree with Pasag, Matt and SJS - it's not as though in those days you could fit in 20-odd Tests into two years. I prefer to say that Headley averaged 60 over a decade plus of Test cricket, rather than over 22 Tests. I don't think there's much to say that had Headley played another 10-15-20 Tests in his peak years in the 1930s then his average would be any lower.

Pollock is a similar story - his 23 Tests were spread out over a number of years, although it's true he still had plenty of cricket ahead of him when the ban came. The one question mark over Pollock as I've noted before on here, is if the RoW series in the early 1970s were counted as Tests (and the England v RoW series in 1970 WAS in fact counted as official at the time and nullified retrospectively) then his Test averages diminishes from 60.97 to 54.30. Would he have actually been able to maintain a near-61 average through the 1970s had his career been allowed to play out fully? And given the increased quality particularly of fast bowling in the 1970s, perhaps he would be just as highly regarded for the quality of batsmanship against Lillee/Thommo/Holding/Roberts et al even if his pure numbers had declined? We'll never know, sadly.

 

[neville cardus]

Could possibly be because Headley averages 15 more than Pollock in FC cricket.

The massive difference between the standards of the West Indian and South African cricket of their respective times accounts easily for that.

 

[Ikki]

Well, good points guys. I am ashamed I didn't look at it like that. Especially from Pollock's view, considering those tests are spanned so many years. But I guess, if I were to pick between to great batsmen with similar records, I'd still be biased towards the one who played more tests.

 

[Richard]

No, I don't think so. While he was regarded as the best batsman in the world for several years of his career when South Africa were banished from Test cricket I find it hard to rank players who never had enough of a chance to prove themselves at Test level. For all we know he could've played another handful of Tests and performed absolutely woefully, in which case he may have been labelled as a choker who couldn't perform at the highest level. Therefore, since he didn't put enough performances in at Test level, you will be hard pressed to convince me he was better than a proven Test batsman.

You have a point, to which I agree with to a very large extent, but what about Headley? The Black Bradman? Pollock played 1 more test than he did.

With Headley, though, it was just the way things were back then, nothing to do with a career being sawn-off (by SA being kicked-out) prematurely.

Headley's Tests would be treble had his career spanned the same time today.

EDIT: as Gelman said.

 

[Richard]

I was born in the Nineteenth Century; it is difficult.

 

[sps]

ganguly ... i haven't seen many of the top class left hand batsmen bat for long periods I love the way he guides the ball throught slips time and time again.