What's new

Chris Gayle - A great of the game ?

Is Chris Gayle a Great?

  • Total voters
    113
Bhaijaan

Bhaijaan

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Runs
67,032
Post of the Week
1
For the man that he is, for the things that he has done. :13:


He'll always be remembered.
69991.gif
 
Last edited:
Not a great but one of the most watchable players in the world.

You don't have to support Windies or RCB to watch Gayle play.
 
Great of the game does not say 'I wouldn't mind if test cricket died out'.
 
Can't judge him as a Cricketer based on that comment. He's still a better test Cricketer than most of the test loving chaps out there.
 
Besides that ain't the only form of the game he excels in. Chris Gayle is a star in all formats of the game. This is one reason why i believe he should be rated highly ahead of many Cricketers that excel in one or two formats only.

Tests, ODIs or T20s. Chris Gayle can do it all and in style.
 
Very respectable and very consistent record that. Lowest average 32. I have seen greats completely failing in certain countries having averages of 20-25.

This proves one thing, Gayle doesn't have a big technical problem in any particular condition.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Very respectable and very consistent record that. Lowest average 32. I have seen greats completely failing in certain countries having averages of 20-25.

This proves one thing, Gayle doesn't have a big technical problem in any particular condition.
Click to expand...


Can agree with this but not with post # 1 :)
 
wasi90lk said:
he has scored 2 triple centuries in test format. how is he not a good test player?
Click to expand...

That only demonstrates how inconsistent he is. He has 2 triple centuries and still only averages 41? In a batting era?

Also, everyone always seems to disqualify minnows because it's expected that any decent batsman scores runs against them, but Gayle averages 39 against Zim.
 
Last edited:
^ Doesn't finish there only since we are not talking about Test greats which would only make hal;f of what we are discussing here. Chris Gayle's ODI and T20 performances will add up and then you get a world beater.
 
wasi90lk said:
he has scored 2 triple centuries in test format. how is he not a good test player?
Click to expand...

He is good in test cricket but I was responding to the suggestion that he is 'better than most' in the format. Average of 40 with mediocre attitude says that he is not!
 
Last edited:
freelance_cricketer said:
^ Doesn't finish there only since we are not talking about Test greats which would only make hal;f of what we are discussing here. Chris Gayle's ODI and T20 performances will add up and then you get a world beater.
Click to expand...

It does finish there IMO. A great of the game is great at test cricket, and the way they carry themselves. A guy who wants test cricket to die is clearly not cut out to be one. Guys like Bevan and Klusener were awesome at ODIs, but we don't hear of them being spoken of among the greats.

Obviously you may have your own definition of what makes a great, but then we'll have to agree to disagree :)
 
Not even close to being a legend. I can't even believe this question is even being asked! He is a t20 legend but not a legend in either test matches or one dayers. He s just brilliant to watch, which doesn't make him a brilliant player.

He is nothing more than a decent test player, 13 hundreds averaging 41, but there are countless batsman who are better than him and arent legends and the same is true in 50 over cricket.

He's not on the same plane as Sehwag in tests. Sehwag averages a whole 10 points more which is a massive difference and cannot be ignored.

I would say best t20 batsman ever, decent test player but nothing special, and a very good 50 over batsman. Strangely he scores slower than someone like Tendulkar in one dayers, even though Sachin played in the 90s when scoring rates were down.
 
Jo_Don said:
Obviously you may have your own definition of what makes a great, but then we'll have to agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

I see what you are trying to do but you are being too nice. Gayle is clearly not a legend or a great of the game. He was a good test and ODI player for a while, and then went to score runs for money in IPL against third rate bowlers.
 
I'm not sure such thing as a T20 legend or T20 great even exists. Bakwaas format.
 
My view is that the 3 forms should be viewed separately. So Michael Bevan is a legend of one dayers, but is a nobody in tests. Tendulkar is a legend in both one dayers and tests. Chris Gayle is an alltime great t20 player but its only in that format he can be considered a legend.

James is right though. T20 isnt even a proper format so being a t20 legend doesnt mean much. Being a one day legend is a great achievement, since the 50 over world cup is so prestigious. Being a test legend is the ultimate aim and that is how cricketers are judged.

Atherton is seen as a decent player and Hick an underachiever. A lot of people forget how Hick was a much better one day batsman than Atherton, because test cricket is seen as the ultimate form.
 
great of game for me are people that can change course of game.
lara, richards, gavaskar, imran, dravid, sachin etc etc is great of game....
anyone that want to put gayle up with the folks above?
 
A batsman who can blast any opposition off in any format on any pitch. :)

Can't be said about many batsmen IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME. Besides he's uber cool.
 
Only IF he plays in International, then only he can be considered to be a great.

Blasting bowlers in IPL or Other Domestic Tourney's proves nothing.
 
I wouldn't consider him a great of the game, only a few cricketers are worthy of that title.
 
Scoring 300 is a great way to test a calibre of a batsman. Only the best of nerves can stick along and must have the patience. Isn't that what test is all about? Even by fluke one can't get there. That is the ultimate test.

Fact 1: In the HISTROY of Test Cricket only 20 other batsman has scored 300. There is a reason why the number is so low.

Fact 2: In the HISTORY of Test Cricket only 3 other achieved what Gayle has achieved. That is multiple triple hundreds. Bradman, Lara, Shewag. Pretty good company to be with for a Domestic bully don't you think?

Gayle 2 - Tendu 0 in 300+ scores. :)

Replace Tendu with Ponting, Border, Waugh, Dravid, Kallis, Chandurpaul, Richards, Miandad, Boycott, Gower, G Smith, Moyo (couple of years he was unstoppable, run machine), Haynes, Gordon G, C Lloyd, Amla .... I can go on and on. Still 2-0.

Noone is claiming he is the greatest with 41 average and 13 centurties. He is certainly one of the greats in the game - even in test standards. The problem was he couldn't get along with WI management. Certainly in his prime he would have upped his average considerably. Especially in placid wickets all around the world. last two years were crucial. De Silva, Gooch, Haynes, Vengsarkar averaged 42, Mark Waugh, Strauss 41, Flemming 40.

Considering all format he is among the elite of course.

As for his comment on Test cricket can die for all he cares - Serena Williams hates (I repeat HATES) to play Tennis yet she plays. Personal opinion doesn't mean anything on the game itself. Gayle prefers the lesser format. Because he is head and shoulder above others in that format. Why blame him on his preference?
 
Last edited:
CricketTruth said:
Not even close to being a legend. I can't even believe this question is even being asked! He is a t20 legend but not a legend in either test matches or one dayers. He s just brilliant to watch, which doesn't make him a brilliant player.

He is nothing more than a decent test player, 13 hundreds averaging 41, but there are countless batsman who are better than him and arent legends and the same is true in 50 over cricket.

He's not on the same plane as Sehwag in tests. Sehwag averages a whole 10 points more which is a massive difference and cannot be ignored.

I would say best t20 batsman ever, decent test player but nothing special, and a very good 50 over batsman. Strangely he scores slower than someone like Tendulkar in one dayers, even though Sachin played in the 90s when scoring rates were down.
Click to expand...

He can be equated with Sehwag inspite of lesser average. Sehwag is a home bully and does not make too many runs outside the SC. Gayle, otoh scored runs every where.
 
Its not all the runs that matter as well, many statistical greats are soon forgotten. A larger than life character and a complete batsman like Gayle is not going to be forgotten anytime soon. People will be talking about Gayle's personality and heroics 20 years from now.

That's when many purists would have been forgotten. I am surely gonna bump this thread then :)
 
I wouldn't have mind if the title was, " Chris Gayle - A great of the IPL".

One thing is clear that he can't be a great of the game since his priorities are IPL, BPL and most probably PPL would also be added in his list of priorities set by him.
 
average of 40 in test cricket in an era where the bowling was mostly ordinary and the pitches flat...he's not even close to being a great.
 
IndianWillow said:
He can be equated with Sehwag inspite of lesser average. Sehwag is a home bully and does not make too many runs outside the SC. Gayle, otoh scored runs every where.
Click to expand...

Disagree with this strongly. Sehwag is a much better batsman at home, but then both home games and away games are equally important, so he should get credit for being so good at home. I could reverse the question and say why cant other batsman be so good at home if its so easy?

Secondly a 40 average and 50 average is a huge difference considering that both players played in the same period of time, and it's not like Sehwag has gone on a crazy minnow bashing spree. He scores much more heavily than Gayle, plus we can look at the fact that Gayle made 2 triples on arguably the flattest Antigua track in the world. His first triple came in a match where there were a record number of hundreds, his second triple came against SL without Murali, Vaas or Herath.

Gayle simply doesnt score anywhere near the amount of runs that Sehwag does in test matches and this is coming from someone who supports West Indies over India.
 
A great of the game doesn't average 41 in test cricket. Even Taufeeq Umer has hovered around that number these days.
 
CricketTruth said:
Disagree with this strongly. Sehwag is a much better batsman at home, but then both home games and away games are equally important, so he should get credit for being so good at home. I could reverse the question and say why cant other batsman be so good at home if its so easy?

Secondly a 40 average and 50 average is a huge difference considering that both players played in the same period of time, and it's not like Sehwag has gone on a crazy minnow bashing spree. He scores much more heavily than Gayle, plus we can look at the fact that Gayle made 2 triples on arguably the flattest Antigua track in the world. His first triple came in a match where there were a record number of hundreds, his second triple came against SL without Murali, Vaas or Herath.

Gayle simply doesnt score anywhere near the amount of runs that Sehwag does in test matches and this is coming from someone who supports West Indies over India.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with this, but Sehwag has done little of note outside the SC over the past four years, and it is difficult to equate him with classical 50+ batsmen.

Sehwag is a king at home like no other. That is his biggest asset. Not denying this. But he has been sorted out outside the SC - unless he can prove otherwise over the next few years, I certainly can't hold him equal with many other 50+ players. ( which means it is not wrong to compare him with Gayle)
 
Surprised at his Test averages in Australia and South Africa!, they are excellent!

There goes the theory of Gayle being an FTB
 
Green Leopard said:
Surprised at his Test averages in Australia and South Africa!, they are excellent!

There goes the theory of Gayle being an FTB
Click to expand...

Never was.

In that regard he actually leaves many of the higher averaging guys behind. There goes the average argument as well.

Besides, i will keep mentioning again and again, the guy is a champion batsman in limited overs. Over 8000 ODI runs and an absolute destroyer in T20s.
 
I don't think he's a great. He's a good batsmen but for being a great, you need a lot more than that.
 
No he is not a great by any stretch of the imagination...

In the era of flat tracks and trundlers galore, his test average is 41!

Smacking bowlers around in IPL does not make you a great.
 
he is LAZY. he loses focus too quickly. if he is determined, you get triple centuries and you get that awesome performance vs australia at perth and adelaide.

with his talent, he should be averaging close to 50. t20 is such a short format that he cant lose focus there even if he wanted. but seeing his attitude there(Taking time then blasting off), he could prove to be good in tests also. but then again, its all upto him.

he is a good player and easily the most watchable currently but i want to watch him in tests.
 
He is a good player but calling him a great or a legend is just an exaggeration .
 
IndianWillow said:
I would have agreed with this, but Sehwag has done little of note outside the SC over the past four years, and it is difficult to equate him with classical 50+ batsmen.

Sehwag is a king at home like no other. That is his biggest asset. Not denying this. But he has been sorted out outside the SC - unless he can prove otherwise over the next few years, I certainly can't hold him equal with many other 50+ players. ( which means it is not wrong to compare him with Gayle)
Click to expand...

Green Leopard said:
Surprised at his Test averages in Australia and South Africa!, they are excellent!

There goes the theory of Gayle being an FTB
Click to expand...

LOL. If you Remove that recent 333, Gayle has been AWFUL in Asia.
It is bad even after adding that triple.
 
Green Leopard said:
Surprised at his Test averages in Australia and South Africa!, they are excellent!

There goes the theory of Gayle being an FTB
Click to expand...

Gayle has a terrible record in asia , what about that?
For non-asians , playing on slower turning tracks is testing NOT on bouncy/seaming pitch (except England at Perth or Johannesburg,lol.).
 
Chris Gayle is not an all time Test great.

Chris gayle IMO can be considered an all time ODI great. He has scored over 8000 runs with 19 tons! he is one fo the few players with multiple scores over 150.

In T20 cricket he is without peer

2 out of 3 aint bad:akhtar
 
Sensiemella101 said:
Chris Gayle is not an all time Test great.

Chris gayle IMO can be considered an all time ODI great. He has scored over 8000 runs with 19 tons! he is one fo the few players with multiple scores over 150.

In T20 cricket he is without peer

2 out of 3 aint bad:akhtar
Click to expand...

But the one hes missing unfortunately carries the most value
 
Chris Gayle seems to be at the peak of his abilities right now. Can break many records if he gets back to the Test side.
 
A great I'm not sure, however, easily my favourite batsman at the moment, and has been for quite some time.
 
Chanderpaul is an ATG. Chri$$ Gayl£ is not.

Which is a pity. Because there are few things more enjoyable than watching an opener smash it at 80+ strike rate on the first morning of a Test. I would get out of bed to watch Sehwag and Gayle (Warner in future?) thump the bowling while everyone else is plodding on at 2 an over. Don't get to see enough of that with Gayle because he doesn't care (and the WI have an incompetent board). He seems content with knowing that he is good enough to play tests, without actually feeling like playing them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Average cricketer.

Lazy.

Poor against good short bowling.

Good slogger to cow-corner of length balls.

Hardly a legend does that make.
 
Nowhere near a great. Very average Test player, averages 41. Good ODI player averages 39.

Averages 32 in T20 internationals which is ok.

So you mean to make him a great based on T20 domestic? So he is a gun at the lower level but not quite good enough at international level? A great? Lots of players dominate domestic level.

This forum is losing the plot.
 
Is Mark Ramprakash a great of the game?

Brad Hodge?

David Hussey?

All dominate lower level cricket
 
I keep thinking if he can convert his ipl form to international format

Most number of centuries in domestic t20
 
And in the end his team wins nothing , doesn't even qualify. Selfish batsman.
 
Random Aussie said:
Is Mark Ramprakash a great of the game?

Brad Hodge?

David Hussey?

All dominate lower level cricket
Click to expand...

How many of them have 33 INTERNATIONAL HUNDREDS?


Gayle's international heroics are quite unforgettable.
 
Lethalweapon said:
LOL. If you Remove that recent 333, Gayle has been AWFUL in Asia.
It is bad even after adding that triple.
Click to expand...

Why should you remove one of his best innings ( only 20 odd people have emulated that in history) to make him look awful?
 
Surprised to see average of Gayle used to bring him down. Some very good players in history have had average of around 40 - Mark Waugh, Aravinda de Silva, Mark Taylor to name a few. Gayle is not in their league, but you get the point. Averages are not everything. Gayle is an exciting player even in test cricket, just like Sehwag.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. 41 averaging opener scoring at 60+ SR is not really bad. Adding that to his ODI, T20 and Premier league heroics + his overall personality makes him a heck of an unforgettable.
 
Gayle is a brilliant batsmen, it's pointless dismissing him as a hack because it's simply not true. However being a brilliant batsmen doesn't mean he's a cricketing great. Once you reject International cricket in favour of domestic cricket you lose any hope of being a great because you ran away from proving yourself.

I think Gayle should make it clear he is willing to play the LOI formats whenever required for WI but not test cricket. He has to make some sort of commitment to WI.
 
IndianWillow said:
Surprised to see average of Gayle used to bring him down. Some very good players in history have had average of around 40 - Mark Waugh, Aravinda de Silva, Mark Taylor to name a few. Gayle is not in their league, but you get the point. Averages are not everything. Gayle is an exciting player even in test cricket, just like Sehwag.
Click to expand...
Any reason why your average comparison had to go back 15 years or use an semi-allrounder (M Waugh)?

If the OP used the terms "exciting" and "unforgettable" instead, we wouldn't be here now.
 
IndianWillow said:
Surprised to see average of Gayle used to bring him down. Some very good players in history have had average of around 40 - Mark Waugh, Aravinda de Silva, Mark Taylor to name a few. Gayle is not in their league, but you get the point. Averages are not everything. Gayle is an exciting player even in test cricket, just like Sehwag.
Click to expand...

Different era Not many batsmen avged in the 50s back then because the quality of the bowling was brilliantly high (wasim, waqar, donald, pollock, mgrath, warne, ambrose, walsh)

In this day age where bowling quality has been debatably at an all time low, to have an avge of 40 isnt great
 
^ It has already been established that Gayle's problem are not much technical. He scores his runs against the best of them without a problem whatsoever. He would score runs in any era.

In Australia
​
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LnOZM10Dh1g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​

In England
​
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oOkpe3-IifU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In South Africa
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NcuzQpUanLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In New Zealand
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o2FYTvygrM8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 
Last edited:
I remember him coming to India in 2002 for a 7 match ODI series. Blasted 3 hundreds against our bowlers in the conditions perfect for spinners.
 
IndianWillow said:
Surprised to see average of Gayle used to bring him down. Some very good players in history have had average of around 40 - Mark Waugh, Aravinda de Silva, Mark Taylor to name a few. Gayle is not in their league, but you get the point. Averages are not everything. Gayle is an exciting player even in test cricket, just like Sehwag.
Click to expand...

Those guys actually played in a fairly tough era for batsman, 2000-2010 was the easiest batting era we have seen an average of 50 for a batsmen was commonplace and an average of 40 certainly not even close to greatness.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
^ It has already been established that Gayle's problem are not much technical. He scores his runs against the best of them without a problem whatsoever. He would score runs in any era.
Click to expand...
I think scoring against the current state of bowling would be a good start. That number, 41, captures all the allowances, rebates, discounts, excitement, etc. From what you are making him out to be, he should be averaging 50+.

He has given us some unforgettable innings, I'll give you that.
 
^ The thing is, he would be averaging 41 against even Imran Khan, Lillee and Botham. Not more, not less. That's how he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
"Money is a good motivator; if you are paid well, you will travel anywhere": Imad Wasim
Replies
25
Views
842
ali_ed2006
A
mominsaigol
ICC Champions Trophy 2025: Team of the Tournament Predictions
Replies
46
Views
7K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
The Bald Eagle
'India run cricket, players have no power right now': Chris Gayle
2
Replies
100
Views
3K
kach
K
mominsaigol
  • Poll Poll
Who should replace Saim Ayub for ICC Champions Trophy 2025, should he not regain fitness?
2
Replies
82
Views
2K
SpiritOf1903
SpiritOf1903
Bhaijaan
IPL : Career earnings
Replies
65
Views
2K
Bewal Express
B
Back
Top