What's new

Chris Gayle versus Andrew Strauss: Who is the better Test batter?

Ab Fan

Ab Fan

Senior Test Player
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Runs
27,080
In this millennium, the best test openers are Graeme Smith, Virender Sehwag, Alastair Cook and Matthew Hayden.

A rung below them you have Gayle and Strauss with full fledged career, averaging over 40 as bat among non active test players. Who was the better opener of the two?

1722530401617.png

1722530470297.png
 
Chris Gayle was a white bal specialist so here comparing him with andrew strauss is same like comparing a buggati with some cheap toyota car.
 
Strange comparison..
Due to his heroics in limited overs cricket, Chris Gayle is very underrated in tests.
 
Very random comparison.

Gayle obviously.

More Test runs. 2 triple centuries.
 
Probably the weirdest thread I've seen.

But ig Gayle, although gayle isn't known for Test despite having triple century
 
sweep_shot said:
Very random comparison.

Gayle obviously.

More Test runs. 2 triple centuries.
Click to expand...

Both are openers.
Both left handers.
Similar era.
Similar stats.

Nothing random about this comparison. Players with different style but the above stated points are enough for this comparison to get a nod.

mominsaigol said:
Probably the weirdest thread I've seen.

But ig Gayle, although gayle isn't known for Test despite having triple century
Click to expand...
 
Ab Fan said:
Both are openers.
Both left handers.
Similar era.
Similar stats.

Nothing random about this comparison. Players with different style but the above stated points are enough for this comparison to get a nod.
Click to expand...


It is random because Strauss is not a big name. He was an okay player.

Gayle was obviously a big superstar. All-format player. Has 2 Test triple-centuries.
 
I'd say Gayle. Gayle had a revolving door of clowns for opening partners whereas Strauss had the rock solid Cook. Although opening in England isn't easy.
 
sweep_shot said:
It is random because <B>Strauss is not a big name</B>. He was an okay player.

Gayle was obviously a big superstar. All-format player. Has 2 Test triple-centuries.
Click to expand...

Damn, how is Strauss not a big name? He was a world class batsman. Opening in England and averaging 41 over 100 tests, that's not a joke. Ask Ben Stokes, the guy can barely keep up his 35 average despite batting at 5/6 and bowls occassionally.
 
Gayle was actually a proper batsman.

He just happened to be a phenomenal hitter and decided to focus more on T20's.

Definitely better than Strauss.
 
Cricket Warrior said:
Sometimes numbers don't fully reflect a player's capability. if you had to choose an opening combination in Test cricket, who would you pick between Gayle and Strauss? Can you trust Gayle to survive the new ball?
Click to expand...
Would always pick Gayle, he is a better player (TEST) compared to Strauss.
So did not really get it, calling Gayle a cheap Toyota.
 
Ab Fan said:
Damn, how is Strauss not a big name? He was a world class batsman. Opening in England and averaging 41 over 100 tests, that's not a joke. Ask Ben Stokes, the guy can barely keep up his 35 average despite batting at 5/6 and bowls occassionally.
Click to expand...

It is not always about average.

Samaraweera averaged 48.76 in Test. Do you think he is a big name?

Also, Stokes plays in middle order. He is a hitter. He is an impact player. Strauss was an opener.

Gayle >>>>>> Strauss (any format).
 
sweep_shot said:
It is not always about average.

Samaraweera averaged 48.76 in Test. Do you think he is a big name?

Also, Stokes plays in middle order. He is a hitter. He is an impact player. Strauss was an opener.

Gayle >>>>>> Strauss (any format).
Click to expand...

Samaraweera plays for Sri Lanka. Strauss plays for England. Difference.

Stokes plays in middle order, the Duke bowl doesn't swing much, Strauss has the toughest job. So much for being called as "random" comparison.
 
In Test, Strauss was a stat-padder like Sachin Tendulkar. Soft runs specialist.

Gayle was far more impactful. He has 2 triple-centuries. One in Sri Lanka and one against a strong South African bowling attack at home.
 
Strauss offered more than Test average to English cricket, Gayle offered than Test average to world cricket
 
Barragan said:
Gayle was actually a proper batsman.

He just happened to be a phenomenal hitter and decided to focus more on T20's.

Definitely better than Strauss.
Click to expand...

This.

Chris Gayle was so good at smashing big sixes that some people tend to forget he was first and foremost a rock solid all format batter who came through the ranks right from under 19 cricket facing top quality bowling talents

Both his triple centuries in tests came against good teams.

He was clearly not just a slogger like Dre Russ and Pollard but had the talent to take on the best of the best bowlers.
 
Chris Gayle any day.

Unless you are arguing for the sake of it, who in their right mind as a cricket fan would pick watching Andrew Strauss over Chris Gayle ?
 
Local.Dada said:
Chris Gayle any day.

Unless you are arguing for the sake of it, who in their right mind as a cricket fan would pick watching Andrew Strauss over Chris Gayle ?
Click to expand...
True there is no comparison. Both are different type of players

Chris Gayle Test average is 42.18 and strike rate is 60.26 and Andrew Strauss Test Average is 40.91 and Strike rate is 48.91
 
Cricket Warrior said:
Chris Gayle was a white bal specialist so here comparing him with andrew strauss is same like comparing a buggati with some cheap toyota car
Click to expand...
Lol, Gayle is very good test player, he even scored triple hundred in test cricket.. Due to his heroics in loi cricket he's very underrated in test cricket..
 
Ab Fan said:
Toyota smashed two triple tons with bat, one of them vs South Africa and other vs Sri Lanka. Neither were anywhere close to minnows during Gayle's era.
Click to expand...
SA is not a minnow now either. Very strong bowling unit.

Good luck facing burger jansen nortje rabada in those seaming wickets.
 
sweep_shot said:
It is not always about average.

Samaraweera averaged 48.76 in Test. Do you think he is a big name?

Also, Stokes plays in middle order. He is a hitter. He is an impact player. Strauss was an opener.

Gayle >>>>>> Strauss (any format).
Click to expand...
Agree with this but Strauss is a big name man. He won the series in Australia and was even captain for a while.
 
Reminds me of imran khan Comparison

People forget how good of a bowler he is when talking about him as an all rounder. He was easily one of the best bowlers of all time whilst being a very capable batsman. Yet many times you see him clubbed as an AR instead of a atg fast bowler.
 
Gayle's longevity and success in all formats is a testament to his talent and speaks of the fact that he has more to his game.

Strauss was a good opener but Gayle overtakes him in Test in my view.
 
sweep_shot said:
Gayle is actually more than that. You are dissing someone who has 2 triple centuries in Test.

Gayle can bowl too.
Click to expand...
That’s because my comment was edited by the moderators, I called Gayle a self absorbed, sexual predator and sexist. For me that is difficult to look past.

Much like I cannot admire the assess how much of an artist former president bush is, as I cannot look past his war atrocities for starting meaningless wars.
 
In all formats, Gayle is way ahead of Strauss. Most people might not rate Gayle higher in Test cricket but his record is not that bad. Actually it is better than Strauss. An average of 42 with 60 strike rate is superb.
 
It is a close comparison in Tests but Gayle is the better and more versatile batter overall. He has played marginally more high impact big inns against good bowling lineups and overall scores faster.

Strauss has a better and more impactful record than Gayle in India but overall they have a similiar 35 avg in the subcontinent.

Gayle has a far better record (450@50 in 5 tests )than Strauss in Aus (550 runs at 32 in 10 tests)

Gayle also edges out Strauss in NZ and SA.

Both avg around 40 at home but Gayle scores faster.

Strauss has a good record in WI (541 in 5 tests at 67) but he got some flat beauties to bat on. Gayle has a very reasonable average of 36 in 11 tests in Eng at 60+ SR.
 
Gayle for longetivity, both underrated and quality bats.
 
Strauss is getting underrated here, he was an amazing test opener and acually Cook was in his shadows for some of his initial years, he captained England to their first Ashes win in Australia in 25 years.

Strauss has a great away record and is definitely one of their most memorable captain, won 2 ashes as captain for England, I remember him scoring hundreds against us in India for fun.

In tests it is close but still I would take Gayle if we are just talking about batting. Strauss has a bigger legacy than Gayle in tests bcoz of captaincy and Ashes performance.
 
well in terms of reliability i will always pick strauss over gayle but in shorter format obvoiusly there is no comparison of Gayle.
 
Gayle well ahead in tests as well. This shouldn't even be up for debate.
 
Strauss legacy was his captaincy and leadership and then his role as the director of ECB men's team. Trescothick and Cook were better openers than him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fanboy375
  • Poll
Who is the better Test batter: David Boon or Chris Gayle?
Replies
1
Views
66
Fanboy375
Fanboy375
Rana
Chris Gayle versus David Warner versus Kevin Pietersen versus AB de Villiers: Who is the greatest all format batter of the modern era?
2 3
Replies
175
Views
3K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
atreus
  • Poll
Ricky Ponting vs Hashim Amla – Who was the superior Test batter?
Replies
39
Views
645
atreus
atreus
D
Who is the greatest Test skipper of the 21st century?
Replies
39
Views
959
BunnyRabbit
B
Unbiased-Fan
Who is England's best Test batter post 2000?
Replies
43
Views
1K
James
James
Back
Top