The greatest ever West Indian batsman

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL. I'd be as happy WATCHING Carl Hooper.. but I quite accept that others have been better players.

I accept Viv's claim to fame without ever having taken to his play,,, and whilst I have a lot of time for Lara I do find the excessive backlift and high hands a little off-putting: I'm quite sure that were I able to see Headley and the three Ws... I'd find an option I found preferable.

That said.. for me, WI greatness in cricket is about bowling rather than batting... and if you had to list the 5 greatest WI players of all time I'd hope that not ONE batsman figured!

Ok, you like bowlers and the art of bowling.

Nothing wrong with that!

But don't let that cause you to say something absurd.

WI greatness in cricket is about batting AND bowling.

Sobers
Headley
Richards
Lara
Weekes
Walcott
Kanhai
Greenidge
Lloyd

Just some of the best ever batsmen to grace the game for ANY nation and spread over maybe FIVE distinct eras.

The first 4 will be considered in an all time top five without the merest thought.

SOBERS being the greatest allrounder ever is a certainty for that 5.

Luckily, you have made your point about the top 5 all time West Indians being bowlers on this messageboard because if you made it in a rum bar in the West Indies, you'd be laughed at to the point of embarassment.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Luckily, you have made your point about the top 5 all time West Indians being bowlers on this messageboard because if you made it in a rum bar in the West Indies, you'd be laughed at to the point of embarassment.

LOL. I'm aware that a WI poll of recent vintage was absolutely dominated by batsmen... and recall this being greeted with incredulity in the rest of the world: the phrase "it's a batsman's game" was used by one prominent WI to laugh off the slur on the great WI bowlers.

I accept that Sobers gets the no. 1 spot.... mostly for his batting but at least in part for his bowling... but I trust that there's no question about Malcolm Marshall being a credible candidate for the second greatest WI player ever: even those who would prefer a batsman at two should accept that Marshall's case is very strong.

I'd have no problem having Wes Hall at 3 and Ambrose at 4... and if you think Lance Gibbs (or any one from Roberts, Garner, Croft, Walsh or Holding) is a clear top 5 contender... I submit the batsmen have got stiff opposition!

ps. That's not disputing that the batsmen make a strong case!!!

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

WI greatness in cricket is about batting AND bowling .

Agreed. I have been 'building my own West Indian dream XI of test cricket. I had to take a few legitimate liberties; Worrell was needed for his captaincy and being unable to place him anywhere else, had him open the innings (which he occasionally did for Barbados); also Walcott, who was a very good wicket-keeper but seldom used as such in tests, as than man with the gloves. So:

1. Gordon Greenidge
2. Frank Worrell (capt)
3. George Headley
4. Vivian Richards
5. Everton Weekes
6. Clyde Walcott (Wk)
7. Gary Sobers
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Wesley Hall
10. Lance Gibbs
11. Michael Holding

Assuming that all these players are at their peak, can you think of a balanced World XI from any generation to beat this team in a test match?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Wisden Profile

It was one of the most spectacular sights of cricket in the 1980s. A great West Indian fast bowler - any of several suspects - roared on by a partisan Caribbean crowd, a short ball rearing, the batsman fending and edging, and behind the stumps, a lithe athlete leaping and plunging to take another one-handed blinder. Jeff Dujon was the gymnastic hub of those all-conquering Windies sides, a man who never participated in a losing series and whose tally of victims has been exceeded only by Ian Healy and Rod Marsh. If his keeping was never adequately tested against spin bowling (just five of his 270 victims were stumped) then there was scant opportunity. No-one can have been more riveting to watch standing back. He could bat too, elegantly, sufficiently well to make five Test centuries.

Unless someone can come up with a genuine wicket-keeper... this position is surely not up for negotiation: someone has to be chopped to accomodate him. Perhaps Headley could open instead of Greenidge...

ps. Has there ever been a great WI gloveman at Test level?

pps. Dujon doesn't count himself as one:

I was primarily a batsman [...] I developed as a Test keeper by virtue of playing at that level for so long [...] It got better as time went on. When I started, I was very basic but I adapted to the bowling that I had to face. I was primarily a batsman - I never kept wicket for my club even when I was playing Test cricket. And I only kept wicket for Jamaica the same year I made the West Indies team. Obviously, I was a batsman who could keep.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/248057.html

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL. I'd be as happy WATCHING Carl Hooper.. but I quite accept that others have been better players.

Yes I have seen Hooper play, and he is great to watch, but there have been better (batsmen).

Originally Posted by Rachael

I accept Viv's claim to fame without ever having taken to his play

He is the greatest modern day batsmen - but he was not one for the purist to like, his claim to fame was that he was effective.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Impossible to choose

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

WI greatness in cricket is about batting AND bowling .

Can't say I agree in total with that, The West indies bowlers IMO made the Windies great.

Taking England v West Indies as a yardstick, I have seen the Windies bowled out for smallish totals, the problem as far as England were concerned was that they replied with even smaller totals.

I am not saying West indies did not have great batsmen - just MORE great bowlers.

[Rachael]

I wasn't convinced Holding was an automatic choice... thinking both Ambrose and Roberts would contest his place. I found this... which seems to me to be a pretty balanced view of the matter:

Originally Posted by Dujon on WI seamers

Each was unique in his own right. Someone like Michael Holding - apart from his sheer pace, one of his attributes was that he didn't pound the ball into the wicket and it tended to gather pace once it pitched. That was something that the batsman, and sometimes I, didn't expect. Towards the end of his career, when he dropped a bit in pace, he tended to use the seam a lot better and get a lot of movement off the wicket and through the air, which prolonged his career.

Andy Roberts was more crafty, a very good assessor of batsmen. He had a good change of pace and could set batsmen up. By just looking at them, he knew how he could get them out. He was very deceptive and you never knew what he was thinking.

Joel Garner - tall man, got the ball to bounce closer to the batsman, which is very awkward, and had a very good yorker. He didn't swing the ball much but he got the ball to move off the seam. At that pace and that bounce, it could be very awkward.

Curtly Ambrose was probably the epitome of accuracy. He would just put the ball down in front of you and get it to do something off the seam. But he was very steady. He didn't go for many runs and was very patient and had a very good yorker - tall man, coming from that height it isn't easy to play.

Courtney Walsh was a workhorse. He put in the overs, he could bowl all day. But in my mind, the best of the lot was Malcolm Marshall. He was the embodiment of them all, he had the full package. And he was an excellent assessor of situations and batsmen, and would bowl appropriately. A look at the number of wickets he took in India is an indication of how capable a fast bowler he was.

See http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ry/248057.html

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

1. Gordon Greenidge
2. Frank Worrell (capt)
3. George Headley
4. Vivian Richards
5. Everton Weekes
6. Clyde Walcott (Wk)
7. Gary Sobers
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Wesley Hall
10. Lance Gibbs
11. Michael Holding

Sorry but I would cut a few of these players - Worrell would be dropped for Haines (Worlds best opening pair, imo, should never be seperated). Walcott is dropped for Dujon. and Hall and Gibbs would make way for Garner and Ambrose.

Now thats a team I could watch play. Unfortunately one of my favourite West Indies player is missing - Clive Lloyd - if I could have a way of getting him in there I would. He would be captain then instead of Sobers.

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Worrell would be dropped for Haines

OK. On a lighter vein, has anyone noticed how much Desmond Haynes resembles Forrest Whittaker, the star most likely to win the 'Best Actor' Oscar this year?

[pie_chucker]

I think the batting line up should be relatively easy to pick. The bowling on the other hand.......

Mashall is a cert - One of the greatest fast bowlers ever, had everything.

Roberts - could bowl orthodox outswing or could blast batsman out.

Ambrose - Think Glenn McGrath then add 15%.

Holding - Genuinley fast, but pitched the ball up. Took wickets on dead pitches.

Garner - Tall accurate never gave a thing away. Also deceptively quick apparently Knott stood further back than anyone to Garner in WSC.

Walsh - Workhorse. Could bowl all day at good pace, got better with age.

Croft - Tall, quick and genuinley "nasty".

Thats not including the likes of Hall or some of the bowlers who only played a few matches like Sylvester Clarke or Wayne Daniel.

I dont think a Windies dream team need bother with a spinner as such, I'm sure the 4 quick men + Sobers would be more than enough.

[Ernest]

Out of the above Holding must be the cream, he was worth his place for his run up alone.

Croft IMO was not in the same league as Marshall and Holding, he was good, but never great.

I would not argue against Garner being the pick of the bunch, his presence alone was awesome, IMO had the edge over Ambrose.