Frank Worrell vs Everton Weekes vs Clyde Walcott

[Johan]

The famous 3Ws of West Indies Cricket, there have been many batter comparisons but I haven't seen a Cricketer comparison, so here we go.

Frank Worrell – The Technician of the trio, a technically superb batsman who was averaging 53 about 4 games before retirement. Lasted the longest among the three Ws, but I don't think anyone can really argue he was in the same class as Big Clyde and Everton in batting, shows both in statistics and general rating. Regardless, Frank was perhaps the greatest captain and leader in Cricketing history, as well as a very good left arm fast bowler, billed as an all rounder in his time and he was totally that.

Clyde Walcott – The Bludgeoner of the ball, he hit the ball so hard that fielders often feared blocking it, Averaged 56 with the bat, lasted less than Worrell and had injury issues but was a league higher than Worrell as a bat (imo) and an absolute titan at his peak. Was also a good wicket keeper, a handy medium bowler and a good slip fielder after his career as a wicket keeper ended due to his back injury in Australia in 1950-51.

Everton Weekes – The Murderer of the ball, He didn't blast it to another planet like Walcott but he was the one who carved you apart with free flowing strokes, very consistent, had one of the most dominant tours of England (FC included) in 1950, was a top class batsman his entire career, averaged 58 with the bat, deemed above George Headley and Garfield Sobers by Donald Bradman, deemed the greatest by Sir Garfield Sobers, his strokemaking was rated in the same class as the Don and Trumper in 1950. Injury riddled career, retired at 32. Was also an excellent slip fielder.

Rank Them, not only as batsmen, but as Cricketers

 

[sayon basak]

As Batsmen, Weekes>Walcott>Worrell

As cricketers, Worrell>Walcott>=Weekes

 

[ma1978]

Worrell for the captaincy

 

[kyear2]

As batsmen

Weekes - Walcott - Worrell

I see no need to change the order for cricketers as they all had supplementary skills.

I really struggle as how to rate captaincy, I've read of Worrell being the greatest leader of men and I personally rate Taylor as the greatest tactical leader I've ever seen.

Honestly the only one who I've seen that I even consider in player rankings is Taylor, so not so much Worrell here.

 

[sayon basak]

Honestly the only one who I've seen that I even consider in player rankings is Taylor, so not so much Worrell here.

Any reason you struggle to rate captaincy? It's definitely a part of their cricketing ability.

 

[kyear2]

Any reason you struggle to rate captaincy? It's definitely a part of their cricketing ability.

Multiple reasons.

It's hard to judge what makes a good captain.

I've covered this before, but there are multiple factors that generally should go into what makes a great captain, but more often than not, once someone stands out in one, they're designated great.

Team success / winning percentage / Best of era
Tactical excellence
People leader (inspirational)
Team builder

The only captain that I've watched and consistently and over time, that moved the needle on the field was Taylor.

And as I've read, a captain is only as great as his attack, or something to that effect.

So no, not something I generally factor in.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The most shocking result from the poll till now is, only one of the 15 voters thinks Walcott was the worst and only two thinks he was the best

 

[Johan]

I like the split, usually in these comparisons it just becomes Walcott vs Weekes, Atleast Frank's much superior captaincy and bowling not puts him on an equal footing.

 

[Coronis]

I have Walcott just ahead of Weekes as a batsman, but are the people rating Weekes ahead forgetting Walcott kept for part of his career too? Or just not caring at all? Because I’ve never seen anyone rank them more than 2-3 spots apart as batsmen.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have Walcott just ahead of Weekes as a batsman, but are the people rating Weekes ahead forgetting Walcott kept for part of his career too? Or just not caring at all? Because I’ve never seen anyone rank them more than 2-3 spots apart as batsmen.

Better bowler too but probably didn't really bowl quite enough for that to count for much.

 

[Johan]

Walcott has a pretty compelling case to be a better batsman than Weekes, Not really a take that I personally apply to but I think there's the possibility that he was superior.

 

[peterhrt]

Some opinions of players and writers.

Jeff Stollmeyer. Who was the better batsman, Weekes or Worrell? Worrell the sounder in defence, Weekes the greater attacking force; Worrell the more graceful, Weekes the more devastating; Worrell the more effective on soft wickets, Weekes the more so on hard wickets. Worrell gave the bowler less to work on, while Weekes had the wider range of strokes. Both were good starters, but Weekes was the more businesslike. Weekes took more chances than Worrell and Worrell was probably sounder overall. But Worrell was not as capable a runner as Weekes, nor was he as meticulous over the small accessories that make the complete batsman. Stollmeyer placed Walcott third.

Trevor Bailey. Weekes was a small, neat, compact back-foot player, while Worrell was the most artistic and stylish. But of all three I found bowling to Clyde on a good wicket the most difficult and unremunerative. He had the ability to hit good-length deliveries with astonishing ferocity using a straight bat off both front and back foot.

Bradman said Weekes was the best West Indian batsman he saw. So did Sobers. Benaud thought he was the most dangerous of the three.

Trueman said Worrell was the hardest to dismiss because he always played straight, while Sobers felt Worrell's lack of a hook shot was a weakness.

Bedser thought Worrell was the best on wet or turning pitches, Weekes the most dangerous on his day. Walcott hit the ball hardest but was not quite in the same class, especially when conditions favoured bowlers. Bedser covered the Australia v West Indies series in 1951-52 for the Melbourne Argus and didn't think any of the three dealt well with the short ball.

Graveney's order was Walcott, Weekes, Worrell.

Tony Cozier, John Woodcock and Christopher Martin-Jenkins all went for an order of Weekes, Worrell, Walcott.

Arjun Tan, writing in the International Journal of Mathematical Education in 2020: In the batting average scheme, there is a three-way tie. In the outstanding performances scheme, this tie is finally broken with difficulty, returning the final verdict: Weekes in the first place, followed narrowly by Worrell and Walcott in that order.

 

[Johan]

Some very intresting observations there, I think Walcott is generally underrated due to a sour early career in comparison, 16 tests in he averaged 37, Weekes averaged 65 and Worrell around 63. That likely left a sour impression. For Years, there was no "Three Ws" but two Ws and their wicketkeeper who happened to be good at batting too. Walcott caught up with the other two as his career progressed and had one of the most insane peaks in history. I'll make an addition to Tom Graveney.

Tom Graveney: Deemed Worrell the most brittle of the three, and put both Walcott and Weekes in his top 10 batsman, rated Walcott at 6 and Weekes at 9, agonised over Worrell not making the cut.

I think it was Walcott himself who deemed Weekes the best all-round Batsman of the three Ws, while making no comparisons between his own batting and Worrell's.

 

[ataraxia]

I wonder who gets picked first out of the three Ws in the most drafts. I know I always agonise over that one. That's more in the line of "who's valuable in an ATG team" than "who's valuable in a normal team" of course.

 

[peterhrt]

First-class averages in each country

West Indies: Walcott 58, Weekes 58, Worrell 57
England: Weekes 50, Walcott 49, Worrell 47
Australia: Worrell 42, Walcott 41, Weekes 26
New Zealand: Walcott 86, Worrell 84, Weekes 71
India: Weekes 84, Walcott 71, Worrell 64
Pakistan: Walcott 43, Weekes 42, Worrell 13
Ceylon: Walcott 179, Weekes 143, Worrell 98
Rhodesia: Weekes 22

Total: Walcott 56.64, Weekes 55.34, Worrell 54.24

[English Leagues: Weekes 91, Worrell 75, Walcott 75]

First-Class Centuries: Walcott 40, Worrell 39, Weekes 36

Order in ICC Test Batting Rankings at Calendar Year-End

1948-51: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1952: Worrell, Weekes, Walcott
1953: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1954: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1955: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1956: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1957: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1958-59: Walcott, Worrell
1960-62: Worrell

Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World (retrospective)

1950: Worrell
1954: Walcott

 

[Bolo.]

First-class averages in each country

West Indies: Walcott 58, Weekes 58, Worrell 57
England: Weekes 50, Walcott 49, Worrell 47
Australia: Worrell 42, Walcott 41, Weekes 26
New Zealand: Walcott 86, Worrell 84, Weekes 71
India: Weekes 84, Walcott 71, Worrell 64
Pakistan: Walcott 43, Weekes 42, Worrell 13
Ceylon: Walcott 179, Weekes 143, Worrell 98
Rhodesia: Weekes 22

Total: Walcott 56.64, Weekes 55.34, Worrell 54.24

[English Leagues: Weekes 91, Worrell 75, Walcott 75]

First-Class Centuries: Walcott 40, Worrell 39, Weekes 36

Order in ICC Test Batting Rankings at Calendar Year-End

1948-51: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1952: Worrell, Weekes, Walcott
1953: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1954: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1955: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1956: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1957: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1958-59: Walcott, Worrell
1960-62: Worrell

Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World (retrospective)

1950: Worrell
1954: Walcott

It's really weird how close their averages come to matching.

 

[Coronis]

First-class averages in each country

West Indies: Walcott 58, Weekes 58, Worrell 57
England: Weekes 50, Walcott 49, Worrell 47
Australia: Worrell 42, Walcott 41, Weekes 26
New Zealand: Walcott 86, Worrell 84, Weekes 71
India: Weekes 84, Walcott 71, Worrell 64
Pakistan: Walcott 43, Weekes 42, Worrell 13
Ceylon: Walcott 179, Weekes 143, Worrell 98
Rhodesia: Weekes 22

Total: Walcott 56.64, Weekes 55.34, Worrell 54.24

[English Leagues: Weekes 91, Worrell 75, Walcott 75]

First-Class Centuries: Walcott 40, Worrell 39, Weekes 36

Order in ICC Test Batting Rankings at Calendar Year-End

1948-51: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1952: Worrell, Weekes, Walcott
1953: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott
1954: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1955: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1956: Weekes, Walcott, Worrell
1957: Walcott, Weekes, Worrell
1958-59: Walcott, Worrell
1960-62: Worrell

Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World (retrospective)

1950: Worrell
1954: Walcott

This reinforces my view of Walcott > Weekes. Which seems relatively unpopular.

 

[Johan]

This reinforces my view of Walcott > Weekes. Which seems relatively unpopular.

How?

 

[sayon basak]

How?

He probably counted the number of countries where Walcott topped the averages.

 

[peterhrt]

Another measure might be which of the three played the best individual innings. @Days of Grace 's latest Top 100 innings last year featured one knock from The 3 Ws: Walcott's 220 v England at Bridgetown in 1954. It was ranked Number 50.

Patrick Ferriday's 2013 book Masterly Batting: 100 Great Centuries also included one innings: Worrell's 191* at Trent Bridge in 1957 when he carried his bat. It came in at Number 90 with a write-up by CW's Martin Chandler. Both these innings were included in Wisden's Top 100 in 2001, Walcott's at Number 12 and Worrell's at 55. There were no other entries for the Ws.

In 2023 and 2019, ESPNCricinfo and The Independent produced lists of 25 and 30 innings respectively, with nothing for the Three Ws. The two sources between them only included two innings from that era: Martin Donnelly's double hundred at Lord's in 1949 and Neil Harvey's 151* at Durban a few months later.

Back in 1982 an erudite statistician Derek Lodge devised a system for assessing Test centuries, awarding points for various criteria. 29 innings received 30 or more points. They included two each from Walcott and Weekes. Three of these came during the high-scoring 1955 home series against Australia. Walcott's 108 in Jamaica and 110 at Port of Spain, and Weekes' 139 in the same match in Trinidad. The other was Weekes' 206 against England on the jute mat in Trinidad the year before. Some believe Weekes' best innings was his 90 with a broken finger at Lord's in 1957, which gets excluded from some lists because it wasn't a century.