Message Board Archives

Lots of WI fans including myself have great memories of my favourite opening test pair of Grenidge and Haynes. In recent WI cricket history only one opening batsman that has captivated the hearts of WI fans and cricket fans worldwide. That is Christopher Gayle the last WI test batsman with a triple test century and numerous T20 and ODI centuries.

All young WI batsmen should respect and try to emulate his exemplary performance and representation of WI Cricket.

In reply to Slipfeeler

You are correct that Gayle is the last superstar but each new player has to carve out his own space. Gayle didn't emulate Chanderpaul who did not emulate Lara who did not emulate Richard's who did not emulate Sobers ....

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Mount Gay Fuzzy

Is Sobers the guy that the 'Trini' ran out at Lords, oh the guy dat didn't want to run singles?

In reply to Slipfeeler Gayle has two triple centuries at Test level

He's not that far away from overtaking Lara with the most runs in ODI's.

In reply to Slipfeeler

In tests I won't describe Gayle as a great. He doesn't average over 45, he had two triple centuries but only 15 centuries

In reply to Jumpstart

Christopher Henry Gayle is a West Indian all-time great (taking all formats into consideration).

In reply to Slipfeeler

He might be a great, but he didn’t score 4 ODI centuries in his first 22 matches!

In reply to StumpCam


hit them with facts

In reply to Slipfeeler

Slippy are saying that WI will not produce another bat of the same statue ?

In reply to sgtdjones

You still with the same shoite, the situation was not the same, sobers did not turn his baCk on Davis, or refused to run his runs, or did Charlie run Sobers on purpose.when Gayle was on strike, he ran his runs hard, but refused to run Shai or Hetty's.
Gayle has to give the same , whether he is the striker or non striker.
From 5000miles, Shai's projects himself as a very humble young man. Gayle the same.

In reply to Jumpstart

Then by your definition neither are Greenidge and Haynes.

By no stretch of the imagination is Chris Gayle a GREAT BATSMAN.
GREAT BATSMEN tend to average 50 or thereabouts
VERY GOOD BATSMEN tend to average 45 or thereabouts
GOOD BATSMEN tend to average 40 or thereabouts

GAYLE is a GOOD BATSMAN

HAYNES is a GOOD BATSMAN

GREENIDGE is a VERY GOOD BATSMAN

LARA is a GREAT BATSMAN

I expect Shai Hope to be a GOOD BATSMAN

I expect Shimron Hetmyer to be a VERY GOOD BATSMAN

KANHAI was a GREAT BATSMAN despite averaging only 47

HOOPER was a GOOD BATSMAN despite averaging only 35

In reply to Dukes

Poor you. Having set out the criteria based on your much vaunted love for statistical evidence and analysis you then had to find a way for two of your favourites who didn't meet your criteria.

Btw. No mention of a man called Chanderpaul

In reply to Dukes

Btw I call Gayle a superstar...an outsized personality....as was Lara Viv and Sobers

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

It's a rum shop, he has a ready made excuse

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

CHANDERPAUL is a GREAT BATSMAN.

IF you are adept at reading you would notice I said "TEND TO"

I do not rate Kenny Barrington as a GREAT BATSMAN

I rate TED DEXTER as a better batsman than him despite their batting averages.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

I seriously doubt the Vaas rates Gayle as a great batsman.

In reply to Dukes

Exactly my point. You use statistics when it suits you and ignore them when it don't



Objectivity?????


Why is Barrington not a great batsman?

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Statistics have to be used but not exclusively.If we do then Chanderpaul is a better batsman than Viv Richards.

In reply to Dukes

fixed it

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy



Barrington was scared of real fast bowling as evidenced by how he dealt with Hall and Griffith.He took his eye off the ball on several occasions.Look at 40 odd year old Close and Cowdrey how they dealt with genuine pace.I rate Cowdrey higher than Barrington.

In reply to Dukes

Hooper was below the 'good' - The 35-39 mark (aka 35 and thereabouts). Let's call this category average.

So Gayle is good, while Hooper was average.

But if you wish, you could find another category 'Should have been good or better' if you want to attach good to Hooper's name.

In reply to JahJah

I am sure Vaas would disagree with you.

In reply to Dukes

And still average more than your bouy.

In reply to Dukes

About Gayle being good? True.

But then all the other bowlers would disagree with you about Hooper.

In reply to natty_forever

An anomaly!!!!!!!
One underachieved and the other overachieved.

In reply to JahJah

I know Wavell Hinds is your contemporary, but even you would admit that Marlon Samuels was a better batsman.Their respective averages say otherwise.

In reply to Dukes

We picking batsmen to make runs. Not look pretty getting out.

Wavell and Marlon had similar Test records, so Samuels' 'prettiness' gives him the edge.

Disclaimer for sudden: Prettiness of the batting.

Gayle is a batsman? Since when?

In reply to Devin

Since his 2 test triple centuries and relatively by your batsmen lacking to measure up to international standards.

In reply to Slipfeeler

My batsmen? Who are my batsmen? Picking and choosing isolated innings doesn't strengthen nor make his case.

Out of the 9 test playing nations (Zimbabwe included), Gayle averaged in the 30's against FOUR of them.

One of his triple centuries was scored against Sri Lanka(333), yet he only averaged 36.50 vs Lanka. Put that into perspective. If you score 333 in an innings, all you need to do in order to average 40 is score 67 runs from the next 9 innings.

He averaged over 50 against two of the nine Test playing nations. Bangladesh and New Zealand. 56 odd and 66 odd, respectively.

In reply to Dukes

Yet you have more respect for an underachiever. And these things happen a lot not an anomaly.see Marlon Samuels.

In reply to natty_forever


Marlon "ELEGANCE" Samuels is only comparable to Wavel Hinds in the minds of people whose eyes have not seen the GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD!!!

In reply to Dukes

Always had a problem with those fanatics. Think they know it all.

In reply to Devin

That why unlike most since 1995 we have a player who rose above his short comings and achieved more than others with vaas more amount of talent. Yet ... imagine if he could bat.

In reply to Dukes
i tend to agree with your summation in terms of how the brackets of good, very good and great are broken down. Similar to Kanhi who is ranked above what his average would suggest, Gayle is a Great Batsman though his average might suggest otherwise. 30 years from now the kids might look at Gayle's average and think he was just a mediocre player...but if you ask all opposing bowlers they will tell you the Chris Gayle was a great player. Even Chaminda Vaas who seemed to get Gayle cheaply would agree that for the fear factoer that he presents Gayle is a great batsman. Damn it.. you don't score 2 test triples if you're not a great batsman.

In reply to Mrcricket

Scoring two triple centuries doesn't make you a great test batsman, especially if you end up with an average of 42. Fearing a batsman doesn't make him great either.

In reply to Devin… he is a Great in the triple century column and a great in the feared batsman category.

In reply to natty_forever

In reply to Dukes

What an innings by the great WI batsman?

In reply to Devin
Name me a batsman other than Gayle who has 2 test triples but is not considered great? actually scratch that, name me 4 batsmen other than Gayle who has 2 test triples. After you struggle to come up with those 4 tell me which of those also have an ODI double. The damn man is a great batsman.

In reply to Mrcricket

These are the same guys always on the board, parading their mediocre players. Now here is a genuine great WI batsman, yet he gets no love from them, due to the obvious and ridiculous reason of Gayle, not from their region.

He definitely great this series. Averaging 115.6

In reply to Slipfeeler
I have to conclude that every person who's suggesting that Gayle is not a great batsman is a person who never played the game at any decent level. Had they played at any level above bush cricket they'd know just how difficult it is to score a triple century not to mention 2. Why you think only a handful of players have ever done so?

In reply to Mrcricket

All you're doing is pointing out a handful of innings and trying to suggest that Gayle is great due to those knocks.

He still doesn't average 40 in ODI's, and he averages 42 in Test cricket.

If Lara scored 400 not out, 375, and 277, but averaged 42 for his career, he wouldn't be considered great. He'd be considered as someone who had an appetite for big/mammoth scores. In sports, greatness is measured by consistency, first and foremost.

People talk about Gayle as though he overcame some great deficiency. He's a fu#king unit. He's probably one of the few batsmen to have ever existed who could probably score 250 runs in a day in a Test match. Guess what, he still isn't great.

As i said before, there are 9 Test playing nations, Gayle averages under 40 against four of them. England - 36.21, India 30.75, Pakistan - 31.36, Sri Lanka - 36.50.

90 of his 182 innings were played against those four sides. He only averaged above 50 against New Zealand and Bangladesh.

His ODI numbers are preposterous, and not in a good way.

Of the 9 test playing nations, he only averages above 50 against TWO of them in ODI's. England - 50.63, and Zimbabwe - 61.96.

He averages under 31 against Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia, and Pakistan. He averages 26 odd and 27 odd against Australia and Pakistan respectively.

He averages 34 odd, 33 odd, and 37 odd against Bangladesh, India, and New Zealand, respectively.

So basically, he only averages over 40 against two of the 9 major cricket playing nations in ODI's.

A better and more accurate description of Hooper is this- he was the greatest underachiever in the history of WI cricket. Please read that carefully, it is an actual compliment to Hooper.

In reply to Devin

Ok since isolated performances does not equate to greatness let's use another sport as an analogy. Let's say Usain Bolt ran 9.58 once 9.63 once but never went under 9.90 in any of his other 75 races. Wouldn't he still be considered a great sprinter for the mere fact that he not only once but twice breeched a margin that others can only dream of? A test triple is that margin of brilliance that every batsman dream of. Chris may be inconsistent but he's great.

In reply to Mrcricket

Irrelevant and foolish comparison, but if Bolt ran those times and never won a Gold medal at the Olympics, then no, he wouldn't be considered great. He'd be referred to as the favourite, or a dark horse, or someone to keep your eye on.

Once again, the stats don't lie, in fact, Gayle's averages are doing him quite the favour. When you look at his performances against each team, you would think that his Test average would be lower than 42, and his ODI average considerably lower than 38.

Keep bigging up the isolated innings though.

Chris Gayle, as an opener, is the following:

T20 - a great, arguably the greatest overall
ODI - decent
Test = very good (just like Greenidge, Haynes and Fredericks). Hunte I am almost prepared to call a great.

In West Indian context:

T20 - great
ODI - very good
Test - great

In reply to Devin

what is the relevance of "test playing nations" in ODI analysis?

In reply to camos

Because they are the major nations. The associates only play against the top 9 teams during the WC, and that was especially the case during Gayle's days of playing ODI's.

You want me to include his averages against Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Canada, etc etc?

In reply to Devin

ICC establish minimum standards, the major teams ODI and test sides are not identical, would you remove Tendy tons against Bang?

Sobers 365 was against a 4 man Pakistan bowling attack.

In reply to camos

Cut and paste time.

Chris Gayle is undoubtedly a T20 great

In reply to Runs

Chris Gayle is a cricket great, who continues to uplift a fallen WI cricket but many are too bad-minded to recognize his worldwide impact on cricket as a sport, especially WI Cricket.

In reply to Runs

That is seconded by other Test, ODI and T20 fellow players

In reply to Dukes
By no stretch of the imagination is Chris Gayle a GREAT BATSMAN.
GREAT BATSMEN tend to average 50 or thereabouts
VERY GOOD BATSMEN tend to average 45 or thereabouts
GOOD BATSMEN tend to average 40 or thereabouts

I admired KANHAI, one of my favorite stroke-players but your logic makes no sense.

If you are saying an average of 50 or thereabouts puts you in the category of a great batsman, the threshold must be 50 and above not 50 and below.

Going by your averages of 40, 45 and 50, KANHAI would fall under the category of VERY GOOD BATSMAN.

You have a bias here and therefore attempted to rationalize by stating "despite averaging only 47".

In reply to Star

Have you ever seen Kanhai bat?

Lloyd averages 46 and Kanhai averages 47.If you talk to Lloyd himself, he will tell you that Kanhai was a far better batsman than he is. Similarly Dessie Haynes does not compare himself with Gordon Greenidge despite the minimal difference in their batting averages.

Kenny Barrington has a higher test batting average than Garry Sobers. I have NEVER heard anyone compare the two.

In reply to Star

Clearly the definition of "thereabouts" escapes you.According to you thereabouts means higher.You need to understand the meaning of the word and then we can resume this discussion.

Why is a player only great if his "stats" are of a certain measure? Modern players play in an era of inflated numbers due to better equipment conditions etc, does that mean that they are "greater" than players from other eras?

That said, I cannot imagine how Gayle cannot be considered "great" based on his exploits across all three formats. How many players can count two triple centuries in their test career? Additionally in that same test career there's also double and big centuries. When you look at his exploits in ODI cricket and his records in the T20 format, you have to admit that Gayle was one of the most impactful players in the modern era, and a great!

In reply to Dukes

As much as I respect your intellect this is one argument you cannot win.

If you had used 50 as your only reference point, then you would be ok but you qualified the designations with the following:


Don't bring that illogical BS reasoning to me because I will call a spade a spade when I see it.

In reply to Devin

Gayle my MVP of the series, how you like him now Devin?

Fastest 50 in 19 deliveries, all of a sudden Devin quiet like a mouse, not even squeak from him.

Isolate dat performance now!

My former classmate who is now an executive with Sandals met a few of the WI players and was impressed with Wurl Boss Gayie, also young Hetymyer and Hope, as they posed for photo opt with him.
Great team PR!

In reply to Jumpstart

All great test batsman average above 50 - just saying.

In reply to Chrissy

So Gordon Greenidge & Desmond Haynes is not great.

Gayle was brilliant this series. Nothing short of magnificent.

He managed to increase his ODI average from 37 to 38 odd.

He also improved his average against England to above 50. Which means that he is no longer only averaging above 50 against Zimbabwe.

Major cricket playing nations of course.

In reply to Devin

He's a better player than a 38 average and had a very slow start. What did Sanath Jayasuriya average? 32 or 33 yeah? He'd have to go down as an ODI great though wouldn't he? Gilly averaged around 35. No doubt in the last 5 years in particular ODI averages have increased in general, was pretty much only Mick Bevan that averaged over 50 in ODI back in the day. Now heaps of blokes do. I reckon if 23 yr old CG comes along now he averages 45+.

Would be interesting to see the stats of other major openers during Gayle's time.

I imagine opening spot is the most difficult, especially in the modern game. Technically and mentally.

In reply to Chrissy

Chrissy, Chris Gayle is currently the best known and sought after cricketer in the world. He is constantly filling cricket stadiums all over the world, I do not think any fan is checking Gayle's average before attending his matches, they went to see an exciting world Class batsman in action.

In reply to Chrissy

Chrissy, Chris Gayle is currently the best known and sought after cricketer in the world. He is constantly filling cricket stadiums all over the world, I do not think any fan is checking Gayle's average before attending his matches, they went to see an exciting world Class batsman in action.

In reply to Dukes
Disagree with this assertion.
This is really a one-dimensional way of looking at this.
To begin with, Gayle is an opener and most openers avg below 50

Check this list and tell if test cricket would be complete without those incredible players.
Greatness comes in many forms.
Both you and Crissy are dead wrong on this

This is report was written by one of Cricinfo reporters on Chris Gayle, which gives a sense of his batting prowess and what might be going on the the mind of a bowler who is forced to bowl against him:

"Let's deal with Gayle first. Be the bowler for a moment and consider that when you deliver full and straight and are planted onto the pavilion roof, you're under the hammer. Thus, you start to second-guess yourself with the not unreasonable conclusion that back of a length into the ribs is the next best option. This, as we now know, is promptly mowed 20 rows back into the bleachers. What you desperately need is movement in the air or off the seam, but without it, you are naked. Staying calm and searching for a solution, you cut your fingers across the seam of the ball and take the pace of it, a tactic that works well against Gayle when he is feeling his way into an innings but which almost certainly results in a lost ball when he is batting without a care in the world. Woakes went for the solution and... lost ball it was."

Sources: Cricinfo.com

In reply to Dukes

Dukesey, was Frank Worrell - good, very good or GREAT?

In reply to Casper

EASY QUESTION

Frank Worrell who I never saw, was by all accounts a GREAT BATSMAN as was the other 2 W's.

Worrell's test average ended up at 49.49 and prior to his last test series, when he was playing solely as Captain his average was 52.37
I said 50 or THEREABOUTS.

It was never my intention to slavishly stick to statistics in defining GREATNESS and that is why I used the term "TEND TO"

Bowlers are usually out of sorts when Gayle is his destructive element, I am at a lost as to which strategy to recommend to any bowler who is forced to face him in that kind of mood.

In reply to Runs

Naaah !


The greatest !

Consider that Gayle is probably the ONLY WI batsman to master all three formats of the game, which even BCL couldn't do. We all remember his disastrous albeit brief T20 career. You have to admit that Gayle is a great!

It's even more astounding that he could do it playing solely as an opener in all the formats too. His body of work makes him great.