whether Greenidge and Haynes were great.
Message Board Archives
If Gayle Not Great Maybe We Should Re-Examine
In reply to Walco
His numbers are parallel to those of Haynes despite not having the luxury of a stable opening partner, something Haynes enjoyed throughout his career. Gayle is a Windies all-time great if Haynes is a Windies all-time great!
Looking beyond statistics, does anyone remember Gayle helping to save or win Test matches for West Indies? Is there a career defining Chris Gayle knock? Was there a time when he curbed his natural instincts and dug in to either save or win a match?
He scored a century once every 12 innings, which is one century every six matches. That's piss fu#king poor.
Two players could play 100 matches each, have identical statistics, but very different careers.
In reply to Devin
a 12 hour knock in NZ! thought you would look these things up before you talk!
It's funny, but when modern players from other countries are hyped up, the argument you all insist on making is that the bowling is soft and the pitches are flat. All of a sudden that same argument is no longer relevant or applicable when pitting Gayle against Greenidge and Haynes.
In reply to camos
And what? What was accomplished? Did West Indies win? Draw? Move up the rankings? #1, #2, #3?
In reply to Devin
dude stop talking shit for a minute and think! Gayle played better teams than Greenidge and Haynes!
In reply to Devin
Let me ask you this was Hadlee shit because NZ was no good,the same question for Kapil Dev?
In reply to camos
There have probably been four or five truly great opening batsmen in Test cricket.
Gavaskar
Len Hutton
Boycott
Hayden
And perhaps Sehwag
Is Sehwag great? It's debatable, but if Gayle is great, the Sehwag is one of the greatest. He has a far superior average, much better consistency rate, more centuries per innings, and his strike rate was significantly greater as well. In fact, Gayle had a strike of 60 in Test cricket, while Sehwag's strike rate was 82.
In reply to camos
I think you're trying to re-write history. No one remembers Gayle as being some lone standout in the West Indies test team. That never fu#king happened. The majority of his test career was spent playing with Lara, Sarwan, and Shivnarine fu#king Chanderpaul. You must be fu#king crazy.
In reply to Walco... When it comes to those two I never separate them ... the greatest opening pair ever!
In reply to natty_forever
Edridge and Boycott?
Simpson and Larry?
In reply to Devin... say you do not remember, but I am sure we did not lose those matches he made his triple to name two.
In reply to camos... if winning is added.
In reply to natty_forever
He scored two triples on the flattest tracks in the world. The one against Lanka was sans Murali or Vaas. Who were the bowlers he faced?
In reply to Devin... and your POINT? Gayle was not given any chance to succeed, so in that context he is GREAT!
Gayle was a good Test player.
Gayle was a good ODI player.
Gayle was a great T20 player.
Gayle was a good, bordering very good, opening batsmen.
In reply to Devin
Gavaskar
Len Hutton
Boycott
Hayden
And perhaps Sehwag
Yet you're ready to endorse Hayden as a great (opening) batsman even though his triple ton was scored against the great ZIM attack.
As I posted on another thread, maybe you just don't like how Gayle looks.
In reply to Drapsey
the guy is like Trump , not sure if is someone to engage in a debate.
Gayle was not a great test batsman. However if you look across all formats, he could be considered a great player.
I always believed, that if he batted at #5 or #6, he would have been a great batsman.
In reply to JoeGrine
In the absence of the IPL's interruptions and his disputes with the WICB, Gayle would probably be close to surpassing Greenidge as the highest run scorer for an opener, and he likely would also have more centuries than Greenidge.
In reply to Andy99
Gayle was a good ODI player.
What about Greenidge and Haynes?
In reply to natty_forever
So the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?
In reply to Walco
Both very good in both formats.
Both very good batsmen in cricket.
In reply to Andy99
But both are considered WI greats and most people just pencil them into the opening spots when selecting an all-time WI eleven.
Some stats:
Tests
1960 - 1979 (Min. 1000 runs)
1980 - 1999 (Min. 1000 runs)
2000 - Present ((Min. 1000 runs)
ODIs
1970 - 1999 (30 yr because ODI came in the 70s and no one had scored a 1000 runs before the 80's)
2000 - Present
In reply to Walco
I would have them as my openers, maybe Freddo in the mix too.
Could be WI greats yeah.
Check my links above, I rank them based on how well they did with their generation.
When does scoring a century, a double century or triple century cause a team to lose a match? Now if the players' other team members fail to contribute sufficient additional runs, then the team will more than likely lose. I am sure many (great) West Indian and other Test teams, batsmen, have suffered that fate. Who do you think would fall into this category?
Sorry... Gayle not great.... too flawed technically.... very good.... not great.
In reply to Devin
There is a host of fake WI greats..time for WI fans to get real..Walco's effort is a start albeit weak..
In reply to Khaga
It would be interesting to hear from cricket fans, around the world, about Gayle and greatness.
The reason I put Devin on ignore, when dealing with sports, he is racially bias.
It is about strength and built, instead of what makes a player great
Gayle is among the three top West Indian opening batsman, how many openers scored two, triples?
Everyone can debate if he could be in an alltime World test X1, but to say he is now a great test cricketer is on Devin.
The world knows different.
In reply to openning
Would you call the West Indian fans on this forum who question Sehwag's gratness, as racially biased?
In reply to Khaga
If they have the same rhetoric as Devin
Anyone who use race to define a sports person, is racially bias.
In reply to robbo
Talk is cheap. To support your argument you need to state:
a) what the technical flaws are/were, and
b) which bowlers have consistently exploited those technical flaws
At that point people will be able to make some kind of informed judgement on your claims.
//
In reply to robbo
I saw Gayle bat live only once, while he was playing for Jamaica against the Windwards in St Elizabeth, Jamaica. That was just after he scored his first triple (against the Saffies). He made 70 plus while Devon Smith scored a ton in that same match.
To be honest, I was very disappointed in Gayle's technique, from his batting stance to his lead-footedness, and left without much care for seeing him bat again. In the meantime, I fell head-over-heels in love with Devon's batting, twinkle toes and all.
I'm leading with all of that just to say that regardless of the fact that I wasn't impressed with how Gayle looked (and still looks) while batting, it cannot influence me into disregarding all those numbers he has amassed. Numbers amassed across the cricket globe, and cricket formats. Yes, home and away, the little Captain-flee episode notwithstanding.
In reply to openning
If we're dealing with statistics alone, do you understand that no batsman with an average of 42 has ever been considered a great?
Triple centuries and double centuries don't really count for much unless you were undoubtedly a great, or the knock goes down in history as one of the best.
Sanga, Lara, Tendy, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid. These guys scoring doubles or triples mean a lot more, it's sort of the icing on the cake.
Whereas with Gayle, it's a handful of huge scores mixed in with primarily low scores and repeated failures. The numbers don't lie, he only averaged above 50 against Bangladesh and a very weak New Zealand team. He averaged in the 30's against quite a few of the test playing nations.
Perhaps Haynes and Greenidge weren't great either, because that's a hell-of-a-lot more plausible than putting forth an argument stating Gayle was a great Test batsman.
I have never heard anyone refer to Gayle as being a great Test batsman. He was devastating, entertaining, swashbuckling, a cowlasher, but never great.
He wasn't great in ODI'S either, and truthfully, he was only great as a T20 club player, but not as good in T20 internationals. I think Gayle scored 18 T20 tons, but only two of those came in maroon colours.
Let's stick to Test cricket though, he is not even remotely close to being great.
He scored two triples on the flattest tracks in the world. One was against a team that possessed a bowler who repeatedly made Gayle look like a buffoon, but when Gayle scored that triple, the bowler wasn't in the team.
In reply to Drapsey
As I posted on another thread, maybe you just don't like how Gayle looks.
Are you a fu#king imbecile? Why are you carrying on about triple centuries? Who the fu#k cares about a meaningless triple century, or two meaningless triple centuries?
Hayden averaged 50.73, Gayle averaged 42.18. Gayle averaged 50+ against two teams; Bangladesh and a weak NZ team.
In reply to Devin
Are you insinuating that BC Lara's 375 and 400, scored at the ARG, should be discounted along with Gayle's 317, scored at the same venue?
In reply to Devin
Very few men make 300 runs. That is to paraphrase Clive Lloyd while addressing Lawrence Rowe's 302 at Kensington Oval.
In reply to Devin
Dude can you name two other batsman, that scored a triple against the same bowlers?
This is why I love listening to Everton Weekes, he understood that any bowler can get you out
Your basic logic, tells the world, that batsman at the highest level, were scoring triples against these teams, that Gayle scored runs against.
BTW, how many great openers ended with an average better than gGayle's after the same number of test matches?
In reply to camos
Are you a moron? Richard Hadlee is regarded as one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time, and a very fine all-rounder.
Hadlee took 431 wickets from only 86 Test matches at an average of 22.29 and an economy rate of 2.63. Four hundred and fu#king thirty one wickets.
Those numbers are brilliant and staggering.
Why are you fu#king idiots constantly carrying on about triple centuries?
Mark Taylor scored 334 not out against Pakistan. He averaged 43.49 in Test cricket. No one considers Taylor to be a great opener.
If Mark Taylor went on to score 400, he still wouldn't be considered a great.
You all are trying to use a handful of innings to argue a case on Gayle's behalf.
Is Sehwag great? His numbers absolutely annihilate Gayle in the test arena. Yet no one can definitively say that Sehwag was great. I think he has two triples as well.
Gayle's statistics by opponent:
Australia - 42.33
Bangladesh - 56.44
England - 36.21
India - 30.75
New Zealand - 66.21
Pakistan - 31.36
South Africa - 45.30
Sri Lanka - 36.50
Zimbabwe - 45.27
Where do you see greatness in those numbers?
In reply to Devin
So average is the only statistic that counts for anything.
No wonder someone said that you must be an average person.
In reply to Drapsey
You're right, the two triple centuries are more important, along with the countless match-winning knocks.
The triple century vs Sri Lanka is more important than the fact that he averaged 36.50 against Sri Lanka.
In reply to Devin
Your fu#king idiots, to think that a person's overall accomplishments, including his triple centuries, the team he played for, don't make his great, show your lack of understanding the game.
Who can say, Gayle playing for Australia, would not make his overall stats better?
Devin you seem to naive to basic facts, and understanding team dynamic
Cricket is not an Individual sport, so teams, so one has to look at team and what benefit performance was to the team.
With you're thinking, a number of NFL and NBA players, would not be in the Hall of fame.
Think about this for a second:
Gayle scored 333 against Sri Lanka. If you score 333 your first time out, you could score seven consecutive ducks and still average 41+.
Gayle averaged 36.50.
In reply to openning
Dude, his numbers clearly show that he wasn't great.
Dan Marino never won a Superbowl, he is still one of the greatest QB'S of all time.
Hadlee never took NZ to #1, he is still one of the greatest bowlers of all time.
Lara played on some of the worst West Indies teams of all time, he is still regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time.
Tendy spent half of his career playing in an absolute shit side, he is still regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time.
Kumar Sangakkara never experienced what it was like for his Sri Lankan side to be ranked #1, not even sure they ever made it to #3, but he is sill regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time.
Chris Gayle batted one way all the time, and never made an effort to correct his technique. He failed more often than not. He was a loose and technically poor batsman. His statistics do not spell GREAT.
In reply to Devin
Thats your opinion.
I believe him to be among the three greatest West Wndians openers.
In reply to Khaga
I think Greenidge, Gayle and Haynes are WI greats, so get out of the business of trying to read my mind. The purpose of this thread is to elevate Gayle the batsman, not denigrate him.
Laawd ah Mercy! Now Gayle is great but Shiv with a +10 over Gayle batting average in test cause us to get cuss over and over again for calling him great! Dem right allyuh fcuking brains too knew to chat!
Btw...Leadfoot not even in my top five for all time WI openers!
In reply to WestDem
The operative word is "WI great"..our legal eagle left himself a way out.
In reply to WestDem
All Shiv's fault. 280 at bats and all he has to show for it is one likkle 203 (not out of course).
I guess he was to busy concentrating on not outs so as to boost his average.
In reply to Khaga
Conveniently but he not dat foolish like my window covers that are a little drapesy!
In reply to Drapsey
Would you try to mek sense in at least one of your post? You are killing me here and I really want to understand your stupidity so I can try to smarten you!
Is Larry Gomes a WI great?
In reply to WestDem
You paint with a very broad brush my friend. But perhaps you have people in mind other than me By the way, Shiv is great.
In reply to Khaga
This thread was about WI greats from inception -- openers to be specific.
Shall we apply a name change?
Chris Great?
In reply to doosra
Either that of Gordon Not Great and Desmond Not Great. It's a personal choice
In reply to Walco
Greenidge and Haynes were among the top 50 Test batsmen among their era and were in the top 15 in ODIs while Gayle doesn't feature in neither the top 50 Test nor ODI in his era.
Gayle Great
I want a real Bajan like SamlordPirate to deal with this subject..
Gayle can only be considered a great in T20. A great starts with an average above 50 in the era of Gayle. There are other attributes, but the average is the starting point.
In reply to Devin
What forking ignorance
In reply to Andy99
I might be wrong but I suspect if there are less test playing nations, there will be less batsmen to fight for a top 50 spot
Gayle is the greatest ever from Jamaica..no disputing that..
Gayle is the greatest ever to play in di IPL
Gayle is the greatest ever to tell the Aussies bout dem rass in dey own backyard
Gayle is the Greatest with Australian reporters and Dottie WIBC administrators
Gayle is the greatest on Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms.
Gayle is the greatest Cricketer businessman
Gayle has one weakness he fraid women these days
In reply to ponderiver
At the very least in this post, Devin can get the rudiments of an appraisal system and move on from there.
In reply to Jabari18
Not counting Zim and Bang because apart from Flower and Tamim do they have any more players that qualify?
SA were away for a period but still played 70 Tests between the 70s and 90s.
Lanka started in 82 and played 96 Tests up until the end of 99.
In reply to Courtesy
Devin is only a consonant short of being the Devil incarnate, I doubt it
In reply to ponderiver
I always tell people the same thing. Remove the 'n' from my name and add 'l', you'll get the Devil.
Gayle is the greatest WI batsman ever.
In reply to Devin
I would opt for Devin being the root of deviousness...but you cannot even mislead yourself...poor chap.
The devil is an angel as it pertains your deviousness and biasness.
I rest my case in seeking to extract from you a methodology that we can agree upon for appraising a batsman with the ultimate goal of labeling him a "great batsmen."
In reply to ponderiver
In the words of Elaine to Gerry Seinfeld: "Voboom,vboom,he is now on my team."
In reply to Devin
Well I see you have been answered there. But just to add try to wrap your head around saving a team that Greenidge/Haynes played on to the teams that Gayle played on.
I do remember two triple centuries.
At the end of the day, players with the same stats, a hundred years from now, who uses the nuances to determine why was one one better than the next?
Search
Live Scores
- no matches