Greatest West Indian Batsman

[MrIncredible]

Brian Lara
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
George Headley
Someone else



Probably one of the most contentious arguments one could ever have. For me there is no doubt in my mind that Viv Richards was by far the best batsman from the West Indies (and a definite top 5 of all time). Stats dont truly reflect the master batsman he was but even the stats he does have reflect the career of a batsman well ahead of most of his contemporaries as well as his fellow West Indian greats

 

[Richard]

Headley the first great and greatest great for my mind. Sobers next - the fact that he was an all-rounder means plenty of people underestimate him as a batsman in my mind - and Lara next, possibly for no reason other than that he was the first outstanding West Indian I ever saw.

However good Richards might've been, the reality is that he wasn't quite as good (some might say anywhere near as good) as his admirers wanted him to be. Still, obviously, was magnificence, and the notion that he was > Lara isn't an outrageous one at all.

Then there's the Weekeses, Walcotts, etc. And that lot may have been unfortunate that they never got the chance to form an unequivocal case to be ranked alongside Headley, Sobers, Lara and Richards.

 

[AaronK]

Sir Viv was great.. but I voted for Lara..because i just loved his style.. he was just great to watch..specially against Spin..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Richards just ahead of Sobers, Sobers just ahead of Lara, all three well ahead of also ran Headley - There is no someone else.

 

[Richard]

Presume Bennett's "someone else" is Dave Mohammed.

 

[steds]

Presume Bennett's "someone else" is Dave Mohammed.

It is indeed the great man. How did you guess?

 

[Richard]

Because of the fact you're among the many posters on CW who vote irrelevant option every time.

 

[aussie]

Sobers=Richards=Lara, then Headley, Weekes etc

 

[steds]

Because of the fact you're among the many posters on CW who vote irrelevant option every time.

The greatest cricketer in the world is hardly an "irrelevant" option.

 

[Burgey]

Sobers = Headley > Lara = Richards.

Imo

 

[Days of Grace]

Headley averaged about 64 before the war in a side where he was the only test-class batsman. Although pitches were probably flat at times, that is still a very good effort. He couldn't help his low number of tests.

 

[Matt79]

Viv, just ahead of Sobers. Headley, Lara, Weekes and Walcott all very close as well.

 

[MrIncredible]

For me:

Viv
Headley
Lara
Sobers
--------------
Walcott
Weekes
Worrell
--------------
Chanderpaul
Kanhai
Lloyd
Nurse
Hunte
Kallicharan
Greenidge
-----------------
Richardson
Rowe
Butcher
Stollmeyer
Fredericks
Haynes

 

[Pothas]

Always amazed at the number of great West Indian batsman, I think that because as a nation they are so famous for the fast bowlers I tend forget that they arguably have the strongest batting in test history.

 

[Days of Grace]

You could easily have Headley, Lara, and Sobers as your middle order in an alltime test XI.

Richards would miss out because he would be competing with a certain D. Bradman for no.3.

 

[NUFAN]

Always amazed at the number of great West Indian batsman, I think that because as a nation they are so famous for the fast bowlers I tend forget that they arguably have the strongest batting in test history.

I'm not saying that you're wrong for sure but it definitely is a good debate. Like if you ranked the top 20 West Indians vs the top 20 Australians it would be close.

I get the feeling that if we did just the top 6 to 10 Windies would come out on top, but the higher the number (like a top 20) Australia would come out on top.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, I agree.

Just want to add one thing to the debate: Of the four batsmen mentioned, it could be argued that only Viv Richards played with the world's best bowling attack for the majority of his career. Therefore, he never went up against the world's best bowling attack of his time.

 

[Pothas]

I'm not saying that you're wrong for sure but it definitely is a good debate. Like if you ranked the top 20 West Indians vs the top 20 Australians it would be close.

I get the feeling that if we did just the top 6 to 10 Windies would come out on top, but the higher the number (like a top 20) Australia would come out on top.

Yeah i agree which is why I said arguably, think West Indies just edge it though. England not a millon miles away but the fact that most of their great batsman are pre-war puts them comfortably lower.

 

[MrIncredible]

In terms of depth I would give the edge to Australia and England simply because they started playing test cricket decades b4 the WI. Obviously South Africa had a jump start on the WI as well but they were banned for almost 20 years when cricket was at its peak in terms of quality sides (70s and 80s).

For me England would look like this:

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Sutcliffe
-------------
Barrington
Compton
Pietersen (yes i already thinks he is that good)
-------------------
May
Dexter
Amiss
Boycott
Gooch (stats be damned)
Leyland
Gower
Cowdrey
--------------
Thorpe
R Smith
Edrich


And Australia:

Bradman
-----------------
-----------------
Chappell
Ponting
Waugh (S)
Border
---------------
Hayden
Hussey
Harvey
Walters
McCabe
Ponsford
Lawry
Langer
Simpson
Hasset
Morris
D Jones
----------------
Clarke (M) (for now)
Gilchrist
Martyn
Boon
Slater
Taylor
Ian Chappell
-----------
Waugh M

Left/missed out a few because of lack of knowledge (ex Trumper) or just forgot.

 

[MrIncredible]

Some observations from the lists would show that England seem to almost have an endless stream of very good/great opening batsmen. WI/Aust have the edge as far as middle orders are concerned. And as stated prior many of Englands greats were pre WW2.