debut: 1/30/09
1,894 runs
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
Who has the highest test average
debut: 2/15/09
4,621 runs
In reply to Seechy
I was looking for Kohli but my eyes got tired from the scrolling.
I was looking for Kohli but my eyes got tired from the scrolling.
debut: 3/16/21
12,054 runs
Gayle averaged almost 50 and with a healthy s/r yet put out to grass via Union Busting.He was robbed of his best yrs as a test batsman
debut: 1/30/09
1,894 runs
In reply to WIForever
Absolutely. At one point in the mid-2000's, Ponting averaged close to 60, but then experienced a drastic decline after 2010. He probably played a couple years longer than he should have.
I thought Steve Smith might go the same way, but seems like he's back in form and keeping that average above 55.
Interesting his low Ponting average is in the period.
Absolutely. At one point in the mid-2000's, Ponting averaged close to 60, but then experienced a drastic decline after 2010. He probably played a couple years longer than he should have.
I thought Steve Smith might go the same way, but seems like he's back in form and keeping that average above 55.
- edited -
debut: 1/30/09
1,894 runs
In reply to Brerzerk
Absolutely man. The last 2 West Indian greats make that list and average well over 40. Both could have played for a couple more years and Gayle was robbed of test matches in 2011.
Kamindu Mendis and Harry Brook are making good progress, and Sangakkara came very close, but I don't think Shiv's average of 64 will be surpassed by anyone scoring more than 2000 runs after 2007.
Gayle averaged almost 50 and with a healthy s/r yet put out to grass via Union Busting.He was robbed of his best yrs as a test batsman
Absolutely man. The last 2 West Indian greats make that list and average well over 40. Both could have played for a couple more years and Gayle was robbed of test matches in 2011.
Kamindu Mendis and Harry Brook are making good progress, and Sangakkara came very close, but I don't think Shiv's average of 64 will be surpassed by anyone scoring more than 2000 runs after 2007.
- edited -
debut: 6/22/08
14,073 runs
In reply to Brerzerk
Saying that Gayle was interested in playing test cricket after 2014 is like saying that Hetty, Pooran, Hope, Mayers and Rutherford are interested in playing test cricket today
Saying that Gayle was interested in playing test cricket after 2014 is like saying that Hetty, Pooran, Hope, Mayers and Rutherford are interested in playing test cricket today

debut: 6/22/08
14,073 runs
That Harry Brook fella is impressive. A 58 average with only 1 NO in 40 innings
debut: 1/30/09
1,894 runs
In reply to StumpCam
Gone on him! Last man standing
I think Shiv has more NO than anyone else!lol
Gone on him! Last man standing

debut: 7/22/22
960 runs
Look at the figures since the start of 2015. This is the year I have unscientifically identified as the beginning of a period of famine after the batting feast of the 2000s. There will be several factors at play, but I suspect the ICC deliberately moved to tip the balance back in favour of bowling following a decade or more when almost every change in the game (bigger bats, flatter wickets, shorter boundaries, dominance of the Kookaburra ball) was perceived to favour batsmen.
debut: 11/13/02
44,608 runs
In reply to Seechy
Is this post for The Prof and Trinies?
Jumpy and the Musicman, soon tells us who his lowest average was against and bowlers who had his numbers.
Is this post for The Prof and Trinies?
Jumpy and the Musicman, soon tells us who his lowest average was against and bowlers who had his numbers.
debut: 3/16/21
12,054 runs
In reply to Walco
2014 is one single year
If you're removed from captaincy 2010 or so. Zmaligned by coach, CEO and board in 2011; read in the media that you have been dropped; fought a protracted legal and PR battle to return to the team why the hell would you be interested in 2014? Moreover you'd still even then have to sponge! In 2019 WC Gayle was one of the better batsman. Now, imagine if all the BS above had not occurred and Gayle played test to 2015...even if he chose to miss some as we are seeing 3 format players from.many countries do today
2014 is one single year
If you're removed from captaincy 2010 or so. Zmaligned by coach, CEO and board in 2011; read in the media that you have been dropped; fought a protracted legal and PR battle to return to the team why the hell would you be interested in 2014? Moreover you'd still even then have to sponge! In 2019 WC Gayle was one of the better batsman. Now, imagine if all the BS above had not occurred and Gayle played test to 2015...even if he chose to miss some as we are seeing 3 format players from.many countries do today
debut: 2/4/03
16,484 runs
Whose proportion of not outs to innings is twice higher than the majority of other players? It begs the question of whether he was genuinely left stranded or was he working on improving his average
debut: 1/30/09
1,894 runs
In reply to KTom
This is a very telling analysis for 2015 onwards. It identifies Williamson as being some distance ahead of the rest, but Brook and Smith not too far behind.
Kraigg is the only WI batsman on that list, with an average of less than 32. Very sad.
This is a very telling analysis for 2015 onwards. It identifies Williamson as being some distance ahead of the rest, but Brook and Smith not too far behind.
Kraigg is the only WI batsman on that list, with an average of less than 32. Very sad.
debut: 11/29/03
3,672 runs
In reply to Walco
The beauty about Conspiracy theories, is that they don't have to be based on truths.
The beauty about Conspiracy theories, is that they don't have to be based on truths.
debut: 4/16/09
36,115 runs
In reply to Walco
This snipet below which is extracted from a letter to Gayle from Cricket West Indies will help bolster your assertion that Gayle was not "interested in playing test" cricket for the West Indies. I have several pieces of correspondence on this issue which give a clear and unambiguous conclusion on this matter. I will allow no one here to rewrite history on this particular matter.
This snipet below which is extracted from a letter to Gayle from Cricket West Indies will help bolster your assertion that Gayle was not "interested in playing test" cricket for the West Indies. I have several pieces of correspondence on this issue which give a clear and unambiguous conclusion on this matter. I will allow no one here to rewrite history on this particular matter.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:44 PM
To: 'Chris Gayle '; 'Ayana Cooper '
Cc: 'amedford@windiescricket.com '
Subject: RE: BPL NOC Request
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your latest email on the subject of NOCs. I do welcome the opportunity to engage with you, with a view to clarifying our respective positions.
WICB has never restricted you from "plying your trade". You have not been playing for the West Indies in recent months, initially on fitness grounds and then because you rendered yourself ineligible for selection, by making public comments denigrating WICB and the Coach of the West Indies first team, comments which you have, thus far, refused to retract. During that time you have played in a number of Twenty20 tournaments. You have been given an NOC for each and every tournament for which you have needed one, in accordance with the applicable procedures as to form and timing. You have not been prejudiced in any respects by WICB's approach to NOCs. Rather, you have chosen to play for overseas franchises, rather than represent your country in the regional tournaments organised by WICB, whilst spurning the chance to make yourself eligible once again for selection for the West Indies.
WICB's approach, when dealing with requests for NOCs from both retained and non retained players is based on the ICC Operating Manual and accompanying guidance. Thus, where a request for an NOC is received, that request is given reasonable and appropriate consideration. Where appropriate, WICB discusses the issue with the West Indies and territorial selectors. Following such consideration, WICB may grant an unconditional, partial or conditional NOC. When considering its response to a request for an NOC, WICB will consider the player’s wishes, the terms of the NOC required by the relevant overseas board, FTP commitments (actual and potential) and any other circumstances (all being factors set out in the ICC Operating Manual and related guidance) relevant to that player, such as fitness. Customarily, a player with a retainer contract, and any other player who is (or would be regarded as) a member of the current first team squad, and who purports to make himself available, and is eligible, for selection for the West Indies team, will be granted an NOC subject to FTP commitments. Conversely, a player who has declared himself unavailable and/or is ineligible for selection for the West Indies team for the foreseeable future would (absent other relevant factors) be granted an unconditional NOC (although, in practice, this would be rare, because players who are offered the chance to play in overseas domestic tournaments tend to be current members of the West Indies first team squad).
In your case: you do not have a retainer contract, which is your choice; you are a player who would be regarded as a member of the current first team squad; you purport to make yourself available for selection; currently, you are ineligible pending resolution of certain matters referred to above and below; but we do not consider that you will be ineligible for selection for the foreseeable future, as you have expressed publicly a strong desire to play for the West Indies.
It is WICB’s position that, if a player wishes to play official cricket and to be considered for selection to play for the West Indies, and whether or not he signs a retainer contract, he must expect NOCs to be issued subject to international commitments, in accordance with the rules of the ICC which govern the overseas tournaments in which he wishes to play. WICB does not have the resources to match the amounts of money that players can earn from playing in the IPL and certain other overseas domestic tournaments. WICB's approach is to permit players to play in the IPL and other overseas domestic tournaments wherever possible, subject only to international commitments. This approach, in WICB’s view, has to be adopted for all players ("FTS Players" i.e. first team squad players) who are (or would be regarded as) members of the current first team squad and who purport to make themselves available for selection, and are eligible for selection (or, rather, not ineligible for selection for the foreseeable future), whether they have signed retainer contracts or not. If FTS Players were automatically granted unconditional NOCs for every overseas domestic tournament in which they wished to play, this would, in effect, allow any FTS Player to make himself available for selection for the West Indies only for matches where he could not find a better paid alternative.
WICB believes that asking an FTS Player who requests an NOC to play in an overseas domestic tournament to accept a condition that he make himself available, if selected, for international commitments which may clash with that tournament, is justifiable. If a player has no contractual obligation to WICB and does not wish to make himself available to play in international matches for which he may be selected, then he has the option of ceasing to be a FTS Player, by retiring from international cricket, or otherwise declaring himself ineligible and/or unavailable for selection for the foreseeable future. In that event, WICB would not consider it necessary or appropriate to issue a player with anything but an unconditional NOC.
So, Chris, it is your choice, whether you receive a conditional or unconditional NOC. But you cannot have an unconditional NOC and be considered for selection to play for the West Indies. Either you wish to make yourself available to play for the West Indies, in which case you must accept that NOCs will be granted to you on the same conditional terms as other international players, or you do not, in which case you can have your unconditional NOC. All that is required from you is a clear statement, one way or the other.
At the moment, WICB considers you ineligible for selection pending resolution of certain matters referred to above and below. If you want to address those matters now, then I would be delighted for you to do so. You say that you have not been given an explanation of what is required of you, but our exchanges on the matter of your selection have identified very clearly what is required. I also note your suggestion that WICB has not given you an opportunity to be heard. I am sure you are fully aware that this is not the case, as the WICB has had many communications with you in its efforts to resolve these matters, including with the involvement of the Jamaica Cricket Association. You also refer to the need for WICB to state categorically what are the offending statements which you made. This is a new position, which you adopted in your last email, and not something you have raised previously. The fact is that the Coach has discussed your comments with you, and you have insisted that they are correct. I refer to meetings of June 15 2011 and June 24 2011 and the telephone discussion between you and the Coach on August 25 2011. You are fully aware of the comments you made which denigrate WICB and the Coach. You have stated in meetings, discussions and in public, that you have no intention of apologizing for or retracting your comments...
To: 'Chris Gayle '; 'Ayana Cooper '
Cc: 'amedford@windiescricket.com '
Subject: RE: BPL NOC Request
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your latest email on the subject of NOCs. I do welcome the opportunity to engage with you, with a view to clarifying our respective positions.
WICB has never restricted you from "plying your trade". You have not been playing for the West Indies in recent months, initially on fitness grounds and then because you rendered yourself ineligible for selection, by making public comments denigrating WICB and the Coach of the West Indies first team, comments which you have, thus far, refused to retract. During that time you have played in a number of Twenty20 tournaments. You have been given an NOC for each and every tournament for which you have needed one, in accordance with the applicable procedures as to form and timing. You have not been prejudiced in any respects by WICB's approach to NOCs. Rather, you have chosen to play for overseas franchises, rather than represent your country in the regional tournaments organised by WICB, whilst spurning the chance to make yourself eligible once again for selection for the West Indies.
WICB's approach, when dealing with requests for NOCs from both retained and non retained players is based on the ICC Operating Manual and accompanying guidance. Thus, where a request for an NOC is received, that request is given reasonable and appropriate consideration. Where appropriate, WICB discusses the issue with the West Indies and territorial selectors. Following such consideration, WICB may grant an unconditional, partial or conditional NOC. When considering its response to a request for an NOC, WICB will consider the player’s wishes, the terms of the NOC required by the relevant overseas board, FTP commitments (actual and potential) and any other circumstances (all being factors set out in the ICC Operating Manual and related guidance) relevant to that player, such as fitness. Customarily, a player with a retainer contract, and any other player who is (or would be regarded as) a member of the current first team squad, and who purports to make himself available, and is eligible, for selection for the West Indies team, will be granted an NOC subject to FTP commitments. Conversely, a player who has declared himself unavailable and/or is ineligible for selection for the West Indies team for the foreseeable future would (absent other relevant factors) be granted an unconditional NOC (although, in practice, this would be rare, because players who are offered the chance to play in overseas domestic tournaments tend to be current members of the West Indies first team squad).
In your case: you do not have a retainer contract, which is your choice; you are a player who would be regarded as a member of the current first team squad; you purport to make yourself available for selection; currently, you are ineligible pending resolution of certain matters referred to above and below; but we do not consider that you will be ineligible for selection for the foreseeable future, as you have expressed publicly a strong desire to play for the West Indies.
It is WICB’s position that, if a player wishes to play official cricket and to be considered for selection to play for the West Indies, and whether or not he signs a retainer contract, he must expect NOCs to be issued subject to international commitments, in accordance with the rules of the ICC which govern the overseas tournaments in which he wishes to play. WICB does not have the resources to match the amounts of money that players can earn from playing in the IPL and certain other overseas domestic tournaments. WICB's approach is to permit players to play in the IPL and other overseas domestic tournaments wherever possible, subject only to international commitments. This approach, in WICB’s view, has to be adopted for all players ("FTS Players" i.e. first team squad players) who are (or would be regarded as) members of the current first team squad and who purport to make themselves available for selection, and are eligible for selection (or, rather, not ineligible for selection for the foreseeable future), whether they have signed retainer contracts or not. If FTS Players were automatically granted unconditional NOCs for every overseas domestic tournament in which they wished to play, this would, in effect, allow any FTS Player to make himself available for selection for the West Indies only for matches where he could not find a better paid alternative.
WICB believes that asking an FTS Player who requests an NOC to play in an overseas domestic tournament to accept a condition that he make himself available, if selected, for international commitments which may clash with that tournament, is justifiable. If a player has no contractual obligation to WICB and does not wish to make himself available to play in international matches for which he may be selected, then he has the option of ceasing to be a FTS Player, by retiring from international cricket, or otherwise declaring himself ineligible and/or unavailable for selection for the foreseeable future. In that event, WICB would not consider it necessary or appropriate to issue a player with anything but an unconditional NOC.
So, Chris, it is your choice, whether you receive a conditional or unconditional NOC. But you cannot have an unconditional NOC and be considered for selection to play for the West Indies. Either you wish to make yourself available to play for the West Indies, in which case you must accept that NOCs will be granted to you on the same conditional terms as other international players, or you do not, in which case you can have your unconditional NOC. All that is required from you is a clear statement, one way or the other.
At the moment, WICB considers you ineligible for selection pending resolution of certain matters referred to above and below. If you want to address those matters now, then I would be delighted for you to do so. You say that you have not been given an explanation of what is required of you, but our exchanges on the matter of your selection have identified very clearly what is required. I also note your suggestion that WICB has not given you an opportunity to be heard. I am sure you are fully aware that this is not the case, as the WICB has had many communications with you in its efforts to resolve these matters, including with the involvement of the Jamaica Cricket Association. You also refer to the need for WICB to state categorically what are the offending statements which you made. This is a new position, which you adopted in your last email, and not something you have raised previously. The fact is that the Coach has discussed your comments with you, and you have insisted that they are correct. I refer to meetings of June 15 2011 and June 24 2011 and the telephone discussion between you and the Coach on August 25 2011. You are fully aware of the comments you made which denigrate WICB and the Coach. You have stated in meetings, discussions and in public, that you have no intention of apologizing for or retracting your comments...
- edited -
debut: 5/14/05
24,122 runs
In reply to Courtesy
The MOST repeated point covered in that letter was the offence the author seems to have taken from Chris’ public statement.
Grated then and still grates today. That this came from a supposedly professional body, well, just goes to show that a man doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, or care to know.
The MOST repeated point covered in that letter was the offence the author seems to have taken from Chris’ public statement.
Grated then and still grates today. That this came from a supposedly professional body, well, just goes to show that a man doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, or care to know.
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
Search
Live Scores
- no matches