• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who is The Greatest West Indies Batsman of All Time

Who is The Greatest West Indies Batsman of All Time?


  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Viv or Sobers for me.

EDIT: voted Viv thinking that he'd be behind, didn't realise he'd be so far in front of Gus.
 

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
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?
I quoted the para from Wiki. There is a whole chapter devoted to Headley on the book "Beyond A Boundary" by C.L.R. James. It would be great if someone could provide a link or more insight on the chapter. Looking forward.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Since the Sobers fans seem awfully quiet, let me make a case for him. Sir Garry was the the "only 360 degree batsman" in the game according to Barry Richards, i.e. his follow-through ended where his pick-up began, swinging “right through every degree on the compass”. His first test century was the record shattering 365. His batting style was more about balance, quick thinking, and lightning reflexes than about textbook techniques or violence.

Sir Garry averaged 71.57 in 53 tests in an 11 year period from 1958-69 scoring 5511 runs. Perhaps his best innings was the 254 scored in a WSC test against an Australian side featuring a young, rampaging Dennis Lillee. Sobers could bat anywhere, and he did, scoring a century as an opener, 3 centuries at number 3, 6 at number 4, 7 at 5, and 9 at 6. All this after he had actually been picked up in the side as a bowler first and batted at number 8 and 9 for his first few matches. Not to mention that reliable people claim that he was a walker throughout his life. The spirit of the man was indomitable.

Sir Garry was picked in Sir Don's All Time XI as a specialist bat over all the other West Indian, not to mention non-West Indian, batsmen (That XI was weird, though).
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Headley's difficulty is that more than half his Test runs were scored against England attacks shorn of their top bowlers so I ruled him out.

I voted for Sobers because I was fortunate enough to see him bat and he was quite outstanding - he lived life to the full, and generally burned the candle at both ends and played more cricket than he should have - had he had the mindset of Bradman, and played the same amount of cricket and bowled as often as The Don, then I think he'd have had the same batting average as the great man.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Have to admit I was waiting for fertang to come on and vote to see if I was right.

Did Headley perform notably worse against the top bowlers he faced, either in the minority of his Tests or in FC cricket, or is it just a case of saying he just doesn't have the runs behind him that the others have?
 

watson

Banned
I quoted the para from Wiki. There is a whole chapter devoted to Headley on the book "Beyond A Boundary" by C.L.R. James. It would be great if someone could provide a link or more insight on the chapter. Looking forward.
Here is an extract from 'Beyond a Boundary' (1963) :) It is cited from another book, 'The Joy Cricket' which I have on my shelf;

Headley: Nascitur Non Fit

By CLR James

.....What I want to draw special attention to here is George’s play on wet or uncertain wickets. Here are his scores on such wickets in England;

1933
V Northhamptonshire: 52 out of 129 (Other high scores: 32 and 15)
V Yorkshire: 25 out of 115 (Other high scores: 25 and 16)
V Nottinghamshire: 66 out of 314 (Other high scores: 54 and 51)
V Lancashire: 66 out of 174 (Other high scores: 29 and 18)
V Leistershire: 60 out of 156 (Other high scores: 22 and 19)
V Leveson-Gower’s XI: 35 out of 251 (Other high scores: 70 and 44)

1939
V Surrey: 52 out of 224 (Other high scores: 58 and 52)
V Yorkshire: 61 out of 234 (Other high scores: 72 and 28)
V England: 51 out of 133 & 5 out of 4/43 (Other high scores: 47 and 16 & 13 and 11)
V Somerset: 0 out of 84 (Other high scores: 45 and 17)
V Gloustershire: 40 out of 220 & 5 out of 162 (Other high scores: 50 and 28 & 43 and 26)


In those 13 innings George passed 50 seven times. Three times only he scored less than double figures, and in his other three innings his scores of were 25, 35 and 40. I believe those figures would be hard to beat. Look at a similar list made for Bradman by Ray Robinson in his fascinating book 'Between Wickets';

1928
Brisbane Test: 1 out of 66 (Top scorer: Woodfull 30 n.o)

1929
Sydney: 15 out of 128 (Top scorer: Fairfax 40)

1930
Notts Test: 8 out of 144 (Top scorer: Kippax 64 n.o)
Northants: 22 out of 93 (Top scorer: Bradman 22)
Glouster: 42 out of 157 (Top scorer: Ponsford 51)

1932
Perth: 3 out of 159 (Top scorer: McCabe 43)
Melbourne: 13 out of 19/2

1933
Sydney: 1 out of 180 (Top scorer: Rowe 70)

1934
Lords Test: 13 out of 118 (Top scorer: Woodfull 43)

1936
Brisbane Test: 0 out of 58 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Sydney Test: 0 out of 80 (Top scorer: O’Reilly 37 n.o)

1938
Middlesex: 5 out of 132 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Yorkshire: 42 out of 132 (Top scorer: Bradman 42)


In fifteen innings Bradman passed 50 only once, 40 only twice, and 15 only four times. His average is 16.66. George’s average is 39.85. You need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them.

Bradman’s curious deficiency on wet wickets has been the subject of much searching comment. George’s superior record has been noticed before, and one critic, I think it was Neville Cardus, has stated that Headley has good claims to be considered an all wickets the finest of the inter-war batsman. I would not go that far. It is easy to give figures and make comparisons and draw rational conclusions. The fact remains that the odds were 10 to 1 that in any Test Bradman would make 150 or 200 runs, and the more runs were needed the more certain he was to make them. Yet if Bradman never failed in a Test series, neither did George. I believe Bradman and Headley are the only two between the wars of whom that can be said. Hammond failed terribly in 1930 in England and almost as badly in the West Indies in 1934-35.

But there is another point I wish to bring out. Between 1930 and 1938 Bradman had with him in England Ponsford, Woodfull, McCabe, Kippax, Brown, and Hassett. All scored heavily. In 1933 and 1939 West Indian batsan scored runs at various times, but George had nobody he could depend on. In 1933 his average in the Tests was 55.40. Among those who played regularly the next average was 23.83. In 1939 his average in Tests was 66.80. The next best batsman averaged 57.66, but of his total of 173 he made in 137 in one innings. Next was 27.50. It can be argued that this stiffened his resistance. I do not think so. And George most certainly does not. ‘I would be putting on my pads and sometimes before I has finished I would hear that the first wicket had gone.’ This is what he carried on his shoulders for nearly 10 years. None, not a single one of the great batsman, has ever been burdened for so long......
 
Last edited:

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I wanted to ask a question here about Viv. Given that he performed so extraordinarily at the number 3 position (Viv played 45 of his 121 tests there, averaging 61.54 and scoring 12 of his total 24 centuries), why did they feel the need to drop down the order later? Viv was always better suited for a number 3 slot, as he was an attacking batsman who loved to tear apart the front-line pacers. Was it because with age, his reflexes weren't as good and so he preferred coming in late, or was it because he wanted to come in late to put some order in the innings when he became the captain or what else?

By the way, Lara too has a fantastic number 3 record, very similar to Viv's (45 tests, avg. 60)
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I wanted to ask a question here about Viv. Given that he performed so extraordinarily at the number 3 position (Viv played 45 of his 121 tests there, averaging 61.54 and scoring 12 of his total 24 centuries), why did they feel the need to drop down the order later? Viv was always better suited for a number 3 slot, as he was an attacking batsman who loved to tear apart the front-line pacers. Was it because with age, his reflexes weren't as good and so he preferred coming in late, or was it because he wanted to come in late to put some order in the innings when he became the captain or what else?

By the way, Lara too has a fantastic number 4 record, very similar to Viv's (45 test, avg. 60)
Similar to the Ponting situation now, perhaps? I'm sure Ponting will finish with a worse average at four than his average at three and people will look back in years to come and ask why he made the change when it statistically seemed to affect his batting, but that ignores the real truth of the matter: that Ponting's decline has made him more susceptible to genuine pace than he was earlier in his career so he's less suited to bat three than before. Ponting will end up with a much better record at three than four not because he was so much better suited to the position, but because he was a better batsman when he batted there.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Here is an extract from 'Beyond a Boundary' (1963). It is cited from another book, 'The Joy Cricket' which I have on my shelf;
This is an awesome post. Thank you. Definitely pumped up my regard for Headley. Although I am still not sure how much faith to put in those lists.
 

watson

Banned
This is an awesome post. Thank you. Definitely pumped up my regard for Headley. Although I am still not sure how much faith to put in those lists.
Yes, how did CLR James ascertain that the wickets were 'wet or uncertain'? After all, how 'uncertain' is 'uncertain'? I guess we have to take it on faith that he and Ray Robinson did their research properly.
 
Last edited:

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Similar to the Ponting situation now, perhaps? I'm sure Ponting will finish with a worse average at four than his average at three and people will look back in years to come and ask why he made the change when it statistically seemed to affect his batting, but that ignores the real truth of the matter: that Ponting's decline has made him more susceptible to genuine pace than he was earlier in his career so he's less suited to bat three than before. Ponting will end up with a much better record at three than four not because he was so much better suited to the position, but because he was a better batsman when he batted there.
There is some truth here. But in Viv's case, he dropped down the order almost 3 years before his decline from 1988. Punter has dropped down only after being well into his decline. There is a difference in their careers. Viv played just 45 of his 121 tests at number 3, Ponting 113 of his 165 tests there. Big difference.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
There is some truth here. But in Viv's case, he dropped down the order almost 3 years before his decline from 1988. Punter has dropped down only after being well into his decline. There is a difference in their careers. Viv played just 45 of his 121 tests at number 3, Ponting 113 of his 165 tests there. Big difference.
This seems to be the Test he dropped down from 3 to 4, and it also coincided with Richie Richardson's first extended run in the Test side (it was Richardson's second Test, and Viv in fact batted four in Richardson's first Test too). I know Richardson opened a bit in Tests as well; perhaps he was regarded as a specialist opener upon coming into the side and the hierarchy at the time felt that if they were going to play three openers they all had to bat in the top three?
 
Last edited:

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This seems to be the Test he dropped down from 3 to 4, and it also coincided with Richie Richardson's first extended run in the Test side (it was Richardson's second Test, and Viv in fact batted four in Richardson's first Test too). I know Richardson opened a bit in Tests as well; perhaps he was regarded as a specialist opener upon coming into the side and the hierarchy at the time felt that if they were going to play three openers they all had to bat in the top three?
Yes, I remember it was Richardson who had replaced him, but if the reason was the one that you have given, then it was a ridiculous decision.
 

Top