Top Ten West Indian Batsmen/bowlers

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO richards is a much better player than lara, and that stems from the fact that lara was for an extremely large part of his career extremely inconsistent, even if the averages say that hes not.

Viv Richards' averages rose to the mid60s, dropped to the 30podd, rose to 60s again, dropped to the mid50s, rose to the 60s and then dropped to 50podd at his career end. He wasn't a model of consistency either.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I never got that feeling with Marshall. It was just coming in and bowling quick and maybe short.

I've only seen highlights (a considerable amount) of Malcolm Marshall, but he did more than simply bowl quick and short! For a clearer and more informed explanation than I can give, I turn to Wisden's comment:


Malcolm Marshall slithered to the crease on the angle, pitterpat feet twinkling as if in dancing shoes. It was reminiscent of a sidewinder on the attack. Purists occasionally criticised his action as too open, but it had method: he maintained mastery of orthodox outswing and inswing from a neutral position without telegraphing his intent. He was lithe, with a wickedly fast arm that elevated him to express status. Only in inches was he lacking - but he even turned that to his advantage with a bouncer as malicious as they come, skidding on to the batsman. Later in his career he developed a devastating legcutter which he used on dusty pitches. Allied to a massive cricket intelligence, stamina and courage, Marshall had all the toys and he knew how and when to play with them. His strike rate of 46.22 was phenomenal, his average of 20.95 equally so. He may well have been the finest fast bowler of them all. He reserved his best figures for England. In 1984, he broke his left thumb while fielding early in the match, but first of all batted one-handed, hitting a boundary and allowing Larry Gomes to complete a century, and then, with his left hand encased in plaster, he shrugged off the pain to take 7 for 53. Four years later, on an Old Trafford wicket prepared specifically for spinners, he adjusted his sights, pitched the ball up, and swung and cut it to such devastating effect that he took 7 for 22. Let that be a lesson, he seemed to be saying, and indeed it was. The whole cricket world mourned his tragically early death, from cancer, at 41. ~ Mike Selvey

 

[SJS]

Viv was also a very good fielder. I was watching cricket legends the other day, and aparently he initiated two or so runouts in the in the CW cup final agiants australia in some year i cant remember. I know thats not amazing but he did look a very good fielder

Oh yes. I forgot him.

 

[chaminda_00]

Top Batsmen (dont take too much notice of the order, it is just of the top of my head)
1. G Sobers
2. G Headley
3. V Richards
4. B Lara
5. E Weekes
6. C Walcott
7. G Greenidge
8. R Kanhai
9. C Lloyd
10. A Kallicharan

Top Bowlers
1. M Marshall
2. C Ambrose
3. M Holding
4. A Roberts
5. L Gibbs
6. J Garner
7. C Walsh
8. C Croft
9. W Hall
10. I Bishop

 

[a massive zebra]

Top Batsmen (dont take too much notice of the order, it is just of the top of my head)
1. G Sobers
2. G Headley
3. V Richards
4. B Lara
5. E Weekes
6. C Walcott
7. G Greenidge
8. R Kanhai
9. C Lloyd
10. A Kallicharan

Top Bowlers
1. M Marshall
2. C Ambrose
3. M Holding
4. A Roberts
5. L Gibbs
6. J Garner
7. C Walsh
8. C Croft
9. W Hall
10. I Bishop

Pretty good. I would put Hunte in the top 10 batsmen, Garner and Hall higher in the bowling, otherwise the same.

 

[SJS]

I've only seen highlights (a considerable amount) of Malcolm Marshall, but he did more than simply bowl quick and short!

When I said quick and maybe short. i did not mean he bowled short itched stuff which was quick. I meant he bowled quick(to emphasis that he was one of the faster bowlers of his time, and maybe short, that he could surprise the batsman with very steep bounce which invariably took batsmen by surprise since he wasnt so tall and still managed good height off the wicket from not TOO short deliveries. Maybe, I should have worded better.

Secondly, I did mention that I did not see enough of him and also that I was perhaps biased by his open chested action.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

When I said quick and maybe short. i did not mean he bowled short itched stuff which was quick. I meant he bowled quick(to emphasis that he was one of the faster bowlers of his time, and maybe short, that he could surprise the batsman with very steep bounce which invariably took batsmen by surprise since he wasnt so tall and still managed good height off the wicket from not TOO short deliveries. Maybe, I should have worded better.

Secondly, I did mention that I did not see enough of him and also that I was perhaps biased by his open chested action.

Granted. My point was more that Marshall did a lot more than bowl quick with the odd well-directed bouncer.

 

[steds]

I'm disappointed by the lack of Ramadhin love

 

[SJS]

Granted. My point was more that Marshall did a lot more than bowl quick with the odd well-directed bouncer.

Oh yes. You cant take near 400 wickets at about 21 each with bouncers. No. In fact he was, I think, the last really fast bowlers to rwing the ball AT HIGH PACE consistently. And you cant do it without pitching up.

No he was very good. I, somehow, got the feeling he was not plotting the batsmen's downfall as you always got when you watched someone like Roberts or Imran Khan.

It may also have to do with the fact that i saw a lot of these two bowlers live and sat through entire test matches seeing them do battle with people like Gavaskar, Vishwanath and Mohinder. I did not see Marshall except on television.

 

[SJS]

I'm disappointed by the lack of Ramadhin love

I have him in my list and his "pal" Valentine too

 

[vic_orthdox]

i was thinking much the same. "those two pals of mine, ramadhin and valentine". that first series they played together, some of those figures are amazing. and you can thank these two (especially valentine) for the career of lance gibbs.

 

[SJS]

i was thinking much the same. "those two pals of mine, ramadhin and valentine". that first series they played together, some of those figures are amazing. and you can thank these two (especially valentine) for the career of lance gibbs.

Come to think of it, Carribean Calypso's were such a beautiful part of cricket. I have most of the old ones in a book but one hasnt heard any new ones for long.

Passion going out of West Indian supporters also

 

[C_C]

Marshall, to me, is the best fast bowler of alltimes.
He had an incredible mind, had success everywhere and against every team and had every delivery in the book. I've seen him extensively and he was the most planning, knniving and ruthless bowler i've ever seen. If out of any of the windies bowlers that seemed to bowl without a plan, it was Colin Croft. Mikey Holding never struck me as planned either but sheer reliance on his armoury.
Marshall had a genius on bowling and teaching people how to bowl. Bowlers like Klusener, Pollock, Ntini etc. owe their training to Malcolm Marshall.

And the reason i didnt pick headley is not because he was from that era.....i consider him the best batsman of that era after Bradman...unquestionably, that is. The only reason i didnt pick him is because he played too little and has too little sample points to compare with players who've at minimum played atleast twice as much as him.

 

[steds]

I'm disappointed by the lack of Ramadhin love

in fact, I'm even more disappointed in the lack of Dave Mohammed love

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Come to think of it, Carribean Calypso's were such a beautiful part of cricket. I have most of the old ones in a book but one hasnt heard any new ones for long.

Passion going out of West Indian supporters also

There are still calypsos released about West Indies cricket, but not as mainstream as before. The last one I remember properly was from the 2003 series against Australia. That incorporated all the players - Ganga and I think Sanford too.

Rally 'Round the West Indies is all we need.

 

[tooextracool]

Viv Richards' averages rose to the mid60s, dropped to the 30podd, rose to 60s again, dropped to the mid50s, rose to the 60s and then dropped to 50podd at his career end. He wasn't a model of consistency either.

wow so his average dropped from 60 odd to 30 odd at the start of his career, really i mean that must be inconsistent!
viv richards wasnt the most consistent player, no he was not, but there were very few people questioning his greatness at any point of his career, as well almost everyone was for lara from 96-00.

 

[C_C]

i do consider Viv to be a superior player than Lara and Sobers with the bat....Viv pre 85 or so was definately better,albeit he slipped considerably near the end of his career.
Viv-Sobers is a tough call IMO...Sobers isnt that far behind with the bat...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

wow so his average dropped from 60 odd to 30 odd at the start of his career, really i mean that must be inconsistent!
viv richards wasnt the most consistent player, no he was not, but there were very few people questioning his greatness at any point of his career, as well almost everyone was for lara from 96-00.

As I said, Richards' greatness was never questioned because he was part of an era of dominance.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean Lara from 96 to early 99, as he averaged 71.30 between March of 1999 and March of 2000. That doesn't help your argument much. Granted that in the period of 1996 to 1999, he did average a bit under 38, which is hardly great.

Let's compare them on another basis. Since his milestone of 291, Viv Richards averaged 46.52 in his last 99 Tests. In Lara's last 95 matches, ie those since his 375, he averages 51.85. You may say that it's inflated by 400*, though that should not be taken away from him. However, for the sake of it all, the average is 49.39 in the last 95 matches, not including 400*.

Both batsmen have undoubtedly had their high points and some would argue Lara's to be higher. Also, both have had their low points. Your argument seems to be that Lara's low point was lower than anything Viv Richards every expressed. You'd be right too... by 3.25 runs.

Lara's March 1996 to February 1999 stretch of poor form was 28 matches in length over which he scored 1812 runs at 37.75. Similarly Viv Richards had a stretch of 29 Tests from 1981 to 1985 during which he scored 1610 runs in 7 less innings than Lara at an average of 40.25. Still better than many players, but a trough just about comparable with Lara's. Once can also consider that in Viv Richards' period, he had individual scores of 178 and 208, which do add to the suggestion of inconsistency.

 

[tooextracool]

As I said, Richards' greatness was never questioned because he was part of an era of dominance.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean Lara from 96 to early 99, as he averaged 71.30 between March of 1999 and March of 2000. That doesn't help your argument much. Granted that in the period of 1996 to 1999, he did average a bit under 38, which is hardly great..

no i did mean to include the period till the the series against SL in 01. because it was glaringly obvious that in that one series against australia in 99, he rose up from mediocrity(by his standards at least) and then fell back down again not long after. his average from aus series till the series in SL stood at 34, which is poor by any standards. the series in SL was what brought back the lara of old, and if you look at his consistency since that series you'd realise exactly what im talking about.

Let's compare them on another basis. Since his milestone of 291, Viv Richards averaged 46.52 in his last 99 Tests. In Lara's last 95 matches, ie those since his 375, he averages 51.85. You may say that it's inflated by 400*, though that should not be taken away from him. However, for the sake of it all, the average is 49.39 in the last 95 matches, not including 400*.

Both batsmen have undoubtedly had their high points and some would argue Lara's to be higher. Also, both have had their low points. Your argument seems to be that Lara's low point was lower than anything Viv Richards every expressed. You'd be right too... by 3.25 runs.

richards low point came towards the end of his career, where he would have probably done his stats a favor had he retired a bit earlier than he did. lara as i remember went from being the best player in the world in the early 90s to just a good one who could occasionally recapture his brilliance- the series vs australia in 99.

Lara's March 1996 to February 1999 stretch of poor form was 28 matches in length over which he scored 1812 runs at 37.75. Similarly Viv Richards had a stretch of 29 Tests from 1981 to 1985 during which he scored 1610 runs in 7 less innings than Lara at an average of 40.25. Still better than many players, but a trough just about comparable with Lara's. Once can also consider that in Viv Richards' period, he had individual scores of 178 and 208, which do add to the suggestion of inconsistency.

i understand your point, but for me its simply not represented statistically, which is what i said at the start. the bowling attacks that richards faced and the conditions in which he played in were far far more bowler friendly than the one lara plays in, especially at home- where lara averages nearly 60. almost everyone in the late 90s forgot about lara, he was the fallen prince, the one that could have achieved far more than he did. whatever his problems were off field reflected on field and he was clearly half the player he was before and after that time period even if stats dont show it conclusively.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

no i did mean to include the period till the the series against SL in 01. because it was glaringly obvious that in that one series against australia in 99, he rose up from mediocrity(by his standards at least) and then fell back down again not long after. his average from aus series till the series in SL stood at 34, which is poor by any standards. the series in SL was what brought back the lara of old, and if you look at his consistency since that series you'd realise exactly what im talking about.

Point seen, though Lara did look very good in New Zealand in '99, admittedly in just a 2-Test series. He had substandard series in England and Australia though. There was talk at the time that he was having vision problems. I'm not sure how much that affected his game, but from what I've heard he got that corrected not long before the Sri Lanka series.

One thing that I think is a testament to the greatness of the man is the way he has recovered from his period of intense struggle. Yes, we've established he had a lengthy down period, but he then took time out and refocussed his powers. He committed himself to the game once more and returned with a stunning run of form. That takes both courage and something rather special. Hayden did the same thing to an extent.