Is Chris Gayle an underachiever in Tests?

[Rahul1]

Averages 42 in tests. Has 2 triples to his name. One of the only 4 men to do it. A very balanced record all over the world. Averages 30 or less in only one country (England).

 

[shane]

I reckon Chris Gayle is an over-achiever in every format of the game.

 

[IgnitedMind]

For an opener to play 100 test matches and have an average of 42 with his strike rate and 8000 runs in totality is pretty damn good.

People don't credit how complete a cricketer he is because of his t20 exploits, but he was pretty damn great in every format !

 

[Ab Fan]

He became a T20 mercenary which is why people dont give him enough credit for tests.

A very good test bat I would say.

 

[finalfantasy7]

slightly underachieved - his average should have been 46

 

[Deewana Mastana]

Next thing people here would say that he should've averaged 50 and then in high 40's in limited cricket.

 

[Sam99]

In tests avg of 42 as opener is as good as having avg of 50 at no 4.

 

[j_kazmi]

For an opener to play 100 test matches and have an average of 42 with his strike rate and 8000 runs in totality is pretty damn good.

People don't credit how complete a cricketer he is because of his t20 exploits, but he was pretty damn great in every format !

Yeah i find it annoying when discredit Gayles test record and call him a hack and a T20 mercenary.

He achieved a lot in the test format and he’s done stuff that many cricketers haven’t been able to achieve in test cricket, so it’s unfair to dismiss his international records becuase he plays a lot of t20 now.

Out of all of the T20 mercenaries from WI, Gayle is most loyal to the West Indies.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

For an opener to play 100 test matches and have an average of 42 with his strike rate and 8000 runs in totality is pretty damn good.

People don't credit how complete a cricketer he is because of his t20 exploits, but he was pretty damn great in every format !

Exactly.

GOAT in T20.

Very good in ODIs and tests.

 

[ArsenalFC]

No he's had a fantastic career. Remember when you assess a player's ability and overall impact as a batsman it isn't just about average it's also the strike rate which is 60 and phenomenal for anyone in a team let alone an opener.

When you look at it from a batting index point of view - adding the batting average and strike rate it is in excess of 100. So overall I would take a Gayle over a batsman who averages 50 with a SR of 40 because the latter has a batting index of just 90 whereby the average is offset by the low strike rate since the batsman with a 20% lower average but 50% higher strike rate is going to have a far more profund impact for his side.

It is important to note however with the batting index approach analysis it shouldn't be used to compare players across different eras.

Also to reinforce Gayle's case 7 of his 15 tons are big hundreds including 2 triple hundreds, which I define as 150+ scores so not only could he produce brisk innings but when he gets past a hundred he makes it count.

For the reasons explained here, his legacy shouldn't be solely defined by his T20 heroics. The reason why he was so prolific in the shorter forms of the game is due to his exploits in the hardest form of the game which is why it was disappointing when at one point he was slagging test cricket. But nonetheless he could be the last legendary test batsman from the Caribbean.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Not what the experts say, they say its 45, will be matching a 50+ average as a someone who plays in the middle

 

[Ab Fan]

In tests avg of 42 as opener is as good as having avg of 50 at no 4.

Now this is getting over-the-top. Many openers have averaged 45+ over their career.

Gayle is a very good test batsmen but that's all. He isn't even a great test bat. You have Smith, Hayden, Cook, Sehwag, Warner from this millennium only with much higher average.

 

[Mamoon]

He has had a great Test career. The reason why he does not really have a legacy in Tests is because WI did not achieve anything of note as a Test team during his career, and in the second half of his career, he reduced himself to a white ball specialist.

In terms of Test openers of the last 15-20 years, he is just below the cream at the top, i.e. Smith, Cook, Hayden, Langer and Sehwag.

 

[topspin]

He has had a great Test career. The reason why he does not really have a legacy in Tests is because WI did not achieve anything of note as a Test team during his career, and in the second half of his career, he reduced himself to a white ball specialist.

In terms of Test openers of the last 15-20 years, he is just below the cream at the top, i.e. Smith, Cook, Hayden, Langer and Sehwag.

Well said he certainly was a test legend. A fair few posters on here need to give him the respect he deserves whether you like him or not.

Warner is a far more controversial person but he will at the very least end his career as an Australian and test legends, if not an ATG!