What's new

Which West Indian batsman was the biggest under-achiever?

H

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,520
Post of the Week
2
Most under achieved batsmen ranked in order of merit analysing the difference between ability and performances.

1.Rohan Kanhai
2.Alvin Kalicharan
3.Lawrence Rowe
4.Carl Hooper
5.Viv Richards

All 3 were simply oustanding talents.


Kanhai may have averaged 87 with the bat posessing more prowess than even Bradman and exploring regions in batting never penetrated before.Worth reading what John Woodcock,Albert Baldeo and Ian McDonald said about him.Often through his wicket when set,never caring for records.Averaged 47.53/

Kalicharan was simply Kanhai the other way around.On his day could launch a bliztkreig few batsmen ever could,posessing the most organized technique by any left handed batsmen ever.Averaged 44.with 10 centuries.At one stage looked like becoming the batsmen of the 1970's when averaging over 56 in 1976.A master staging great spin.


Lawrence Rowe was technical correctness and elegance personified.In terms of pure game almost as complete as any great.Averaged 43 .


Carl Hooper could take pure batting skill to it's supreme height on his day.At his best copula score centuries on the worst of tracks lie against England when he single-handedly won a test at Port of Spain in 1998.Was a revelation in ODI's in India in 1994-95.


If he wished Viv Richards may have broken all the batting records.No batsmen never had a better eye or could take the bowling more by the scruff of the neck.Averaged 50.24 officially.Counting packer cricket 52.
 
Lawrence Rowe. He had all the ability. But he seemed to get sick a lot and Lloyd lost faith I think. Then he sold out to the South African Breweries.
 
why do people confuse elegance or great attacking batsman as a best batsman.
I used to hear same crap for mark waugh, that how elegant he was, he knew every type of batting, he can play every type of bowling, he should have been averaging 50- 70 in test cricket.
 
I'll go with

1. Hooper, 2. Viv, 3. Kanhai in that order; Lara may be 4th.

Hooper should have been at least a 48 average Test batsman, if not 52, keeping his bowling stats intact; which should have brought him in the ranks of Shakib, Mankad as spin all-rounders; may be better, because guy was a genuine match winner with bat.

Viv was always beyond stats, still his Test & ODI numbers were remarkable. But, we should remember that, Viv was a batsman of supreme confidence, sheer will (& muscle) power and for his eyes. It's understandable that into his 30s, Viv lost his eye sight and reflex, hence we see a batsman of 50/75; 47/90 stats in Test & ODI at the end of career between 1970s & 80s (to me that's easily 65/75 & 60/110, if his career started 35 years later), but his stats in 1970s against some of the best attacks (no globalization days in 1970s - it's straight fight between 7 teams) was mind blowing; he batted like 65/80 stats in 70s and that time he lost his best 2 years (around 20 Tests) to WSC.

Kanhai obviously, average of 48 is too low for such a class. He was probably the most perfect ever No. 3 one can imagine - being est Indian, he was the best player of spin, could negotiate swing and he had multiple gears; a perfect No. 3. I see lots of resemblance in Ken Willamson with Kanhai. May not be 87, but to me Kanhai was probably better batsman than Sir Gary - one scored mostly at 3 other one at 6.

Lara lost his way in middle of career - for 4-5 years, his career stats dipped from 60 to below 50 level; though I can't explain why or how; he never looked to me out of touch, but somehow found a way to waste his starts. Also, he retired all of a sudden (hitting a double in his penultimate Test); probably could have played Test cricket for couple more years.

Al Kali was class, but I think his stats are reasonable for him (he has some soft runs as well, during Packer days), while Rowe suffered from grass allergy. His stats should have been better definitely, but we should remember that his stats were boasted massively for his early career against NZ & ENG at home. He was poor in/against AUS, in ENG & NZ.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Chris Gayle. Simply wasn't bothered enough.
Click to expand...

How has he underachieved ? Gayle has had a very good career. Playing 100 Tests with an average of 42 and a triple century to his name despite having countless opening partners, in an era of West Indian decline is no mean feat.
 
Markhor said:
How has he underachieved ? Gayle has had a very good career. Playing 100 Tests with an average of 42 and a triple century to his name despite having countless opening partners, in an era of West Indian decline is no mean feat.
Click to expand...

I think he could have done better doty the ability he had. Gayle always struck me as someone who was simply relying on his natural talent without putting in any extra effort.
 
Jimmy Adams deserves a mention as well. What a player he was in the first half of his short test career.
 
Man, with all these threads you portray these players with 40-something averages like the second and third comings of Bradman! Every player you highlight on these posts of yours is technically correct, elegance personified, precision artist and what not! :lara

On the point, though, Carl Hooper is who I expected to do more with his career. He was a very good player or pace and spin and had the game to succeed around the world on different types of wickets.
 
I thought Phil Simmons was quite explosive, but didnt play to his full potential.
 
MMHS said:
I'll go with

1. Hooper, 2. Viv, 3. Kanhai in that order; Lara may be 4th.

Hooper should have been at least a 48 average Test batsman, if not 52, keeping his bowling stats intact; which should have brought him in the ranks of Shakib, Mankad as spin all-rounders; may be better, because guy was a genuine match winner with bat.

Viv was always beyond stats, still his Test & ODI numbers were remarkable. But, we should remember that, Viv was a batsman of supreme confidence, sheer will (& muscle) power and for his eyes. It's understandable that into his 30s, Viv lost his eye sight and reflex, hence we see a batsman of 50/75; 47/90 stats in Test & ODI at the end of career between 1970s & 80s (to me that's easily 65/75 & 60/110, if his career started 35 years later), but his stats in 1970s against some of the best attacks (no globalization days in 1970s - it's straight fight between 7 teams) was mind blowing; he batted like 65/80 stats in 70s and that time he lost his best 2 years (around 20 Tests) to WSC.

Kanhai obviously, average of 48 is too low for such a class. He was probably the most perfect ever No. 3 one can imagine - being est Indian, he was the best player of spin, could negotiate swing and he had multiple gears; a perfect No. 3. I see lots of resemblance in Ken Willamson with Kanhai. May not be 87, but to me Kanhai was probably better batsman than Sir Gary - one scored mostly at 3 other one at 6.

Lara lost his way in middle of career - for 4-5 years, his career stats dipped from 60 to below 50 level; though I can't explain why or how; he never looked to me out of touch, but somehow found a way to waste his starts. Also, he retired all of a sudden (hitting a double in his penultimate Test); probably could have played Test cricket for couple more years.

Al Kali was class, but I think his stats are reasonable for him (he has some soft runs as well, during Packer days), while Rowe suffered from grass allergy. His stats should have been better definitely, but we should remember that his stats were boasted massively for his early career against NZ & ENG at home. He was poor in/against AUS, in ENG & NZ.
Click to expand...

In terms of sheer batting ability Kalicharan would be close to the best left gander if not the best batsmen like a left handed Kanhai.Lara was on par with Viv in talent but had a better aggregate and average and thus missed out by a whisker to Viv.
 
Carl Hooper from the batters I have seen. Brilliant player and so easy on the eyes but way to inconsistent.
 
Ricardo Powell, man I remember the match between West Indies and India, first ball of Srinath Six right over the bowler’s head in the first champions trophy semis. What a shot that was
 
I forgot who it was, maybe it was some other batsmen. First ball six is all I remember, back in the days it was a big thing
 
Vich Richards

For all the hype he doesn’t even average 50 in test cricket. It’s a shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Lawrence Rowe: Technically the best of all Calypso batters?
Replies
4
Views
680
Harsh Thakor
H
H
Frank Worrell - most stylish of all batters?
Replies
6
Views
658
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
MenInG
"History tells us that Pakistan over-promise and under-deliver": Greg Chappell
2
Replies
81
Views
3K
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
H
Who were the most perfect batsmen ever?
Replies
58
Views
3K
Rajdeep
R
H
List of Test batsmen with the best defence
Replies
25
Views
2K
Rajdeep
R
Back
Top