At one glance it would appear that constructing a best West Indies Test cricket line-up over the last 50 years is an easy task: simply list Clive Lloyd’s team of the mid-1980s.
But the task is more complicated. Deciding who to leave out rather than include is the biggest challenge.
With this in mind I have constructed the best West Indian Test cricket side of the last 50 years as follows:
- Gordon Greenidge – 7558 runs at an average of 44.7
- Desmond Haynes – 7487 runs at an average of 42.3
- Vivian Richards – 8540 runs at an average of 50.2
- Brian Lara – 11,953 runs at an average of 52.9
- Clive Lloyd – 7515 runs at an average of 46.7
- Garfield Sobers – 8032 runs at an average of 57.8
- Jeff Dujon – 3322 runs at an average of 31.9, 270 dismissals
- Malcolm Marshall – 376 wickets at an average of 20.9
- Joel Garner – 259 wickets at an average of 20.97
- Michael Holding – 249 wickets at an average of 23.7
- Curtly Ambrose – 405 wickets at an average of 20.99
- Richie Richardson 5949 runs at 44.4 average
Curtly Ambrose. (Photo by Rebecca Naden – PA Images/PA Images via Getty Images)
Who can go past the pairing of Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes? They formed a dynamic opening partnership against all types of bowlers and conditions. On the rare occasion when the team was trailing on the first innings, out would come these two and wipe off the deficit in no time.
The upper-middle order is Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, Clive Lloyd and Garfield Sobers. The master blaster, replete with swagger and incessant gum chewing is at No. 3. Richard’s aggression, and ability to intimidate bowlers was second to none. He had some incredible series in England in 1976 and in the late 1970s in Australia, where at times he was unbowlable.
At No. 4 is Brian Lara, the games record-holder for an innings score. He could simply wear down bowlers with his brilliance, concentration and guile and his insatiable appetite for big runs. Lara virtually single-handedly kept the West Indies in the series against Australia in the Caribbean in 1999. He had an uncanny ability to find gaps in the field regardless of where fielders were placed or moved to.
At No. 5 I have gone for Clive Lloyd, the big cat, and I have also given him the captaincy. His dominating left-hand batting and captaincy, which moulded a disparate, talented and yet somewhat ill-disciplined group into arguably the finest team to ever grace the cricket field, could not be overlooked.
Clive Lloyd (Photo by PA Images via Getty Images)
While some may quibble with my choice of Garfield Sobers at No. 6 on the grounds that he played his best cricket a decade earlier, I could not have overlooked him even if he had played just five minutes in the 1970s. His majestic knock of 254 in Melbourne for the World XI against Australia in 1971-72 when facing criticism for his lackadaisical series to date cemented a spot. In the unlikely situation that this team would fail to bowl out an opposition, Sobers’ off spin and medium pace would also come in handy.
There are a number of unlucky batsmen, notably Roy Fredericks, Lawrence Rowe, Alvin Kallicharran, Rohan Kanhai, Richie Richardson and Shivnarine Chanderpaul, who would have walked into many other sides.
At No. 7 and for the wicketkeeping slot is Jeff Dujon. Elegant batting and sound wicketkeeping, especially to pacemen, ensured that Dijon got the nod ahead of Deryck and David Murray.
Now come the bowlers. As per Clive Lloyd’s alleged edict that West Indies should play only pace bowlers, I have gone for a pace quartet in Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner, Michael Holding and Curtly Ambrose.
Malcolm Marshall is an obvious selection with his skiddy bowling, deadly bouncer and ability to move it both ways but with a particularly deceptive in ducker. Joel Garner, the big bird, is an important complement to this side with his awkward trajectory – over the sightscreen at times! – and ability to do just enough with the ball.
Michael Holding, whispering death, was sheer poetry in motion with his long and silent run-up, high pace and pure class with the ball, and he was also a walk-up start after a difficult beginning to his career, playing in the 1975-76 drubbing by Australia. Holding’s destruction of the Australian batters in the opening Test at Perth in the 1984-85 series was a sight to behold.
The final spot goes to Curtly Ambrose, who lived up to the moniker of silent but deadly. With his high trajectory, his movement off the pitch and in the air and his at times express pace, Ambrose is also a starter in this line-up.
Who could forget the 7-1 that he took in the 1992-93 series to simply blow Australia away and ensure that the Frank Worrell Trophy remained in the Caribbean?
Desperately unlucky bowlers include Andy Roberts, Courtney Walsh, Ian Bishop and Colin Croft, and also Lance Gibbs if a spinner was sought for variety.
To boot this team has six knights: Sobers, Richards, Lloyd, Ambrose, Greenidge and 12th man Richie Richardson.
It is a sad indictment on the contemporary game in the West Indies that I could not find a spot for recent players – the most recent is Brian Lara, who retired in 2007. The game of cricket needs a strong West Indies contingent, and though the team and its individual players have shown promise and signs of a major recovery in recent years, it so far hasn’t amounted to a sustained run.
Clear as mud
Guest
My beef is that Simmo walked away from the game 10 years earlier having been a moderate at best skipper. The fact he was getting runs in first grade - well, it’s first grade. I feel like the Board saw Benaud and Lawry going with Packer and felt like they needed their own icon, to create a competitive brand. I don’t think they needed it. I would have preferred they backed in young talent. Against the pensioners and maybes of Packer. India a non threatening intro , good team but no pace, and we still had Thomson. And when found out, as you would be, inevitably, against the Windies, we went into the home Ashes with no captaincy options. Lack of forward planning by the Board. Thinking one series at a time, as usual. ( I think England’s quality seamers would have done for him. Maybe if he had batted at 7 and bowled -he loved to bowl himself - he would have done OK, made some 50s. Steered the shop. But the players - according to Ryan - were pretty Jack of him.) Anyway. I have a beef with Brearley as well. Some sort of anti authoritarian cult of leader thing. Says more about me I guess ????
sheek
Roar Guru
Clear as mud - okay, all good.
Clear as mud
Guest
Sorry that was a Tony Abbott joke quote, it wasn’t directed at you, although I can see that you would take it that way. My bad.
sheek
Roar Guru
Clear as mud, Play the debate, not the person. I can assure I know my cricket history. I certainly agree re Invers, he should've been captain in 1978/79. He was a similar type to Simmo, but 8 years younger. Not as good a batsman, but equally astute as a tactician, probably a better player manager, almost as good a slip fielder, & very useful spinner. But he only played 3 games in 1976/77 before relocating to UK to further his teaching career. When he began the 1977/78 season he was underdone. When the ACB approached Simmo, they may have been unaware of Invers' intention to return. Of the other players you mentioned only Hughes proved adequate as a captain. Although Yallop captained Vic to two SSs, he was found wanting at the national level. Cosier & Serjeant were discarded during the civil war, while Turner had already lost his test & state place & Woodcock was discarded by SA during 1977/78. So rather than being a travesty, or false, absurd or distorted, the ACB thought, with some justification, they had few genuine options available when approaching Simmo to return. It wasn't a move out of left field. Since his retirement 10 years earlier, Simmo had led the Sydney district batting averages almost every single year. I'm pretty sure he was never out of the top 5. So, it wasn't such a strange decision at all. Certainly not a travesty. So by all means attack me on my arguments only. That's how it was back in 1977/79.....
Clear as mud
Guest
We had Invers, Cosier, Hughes, Serjeant, Turner, Woodcock, Yallop that all had test experience and were playing first class cricket. Invers the perfect captain. False, absurd, distorted? you bet you are…
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No, unfortunately, you cannot have Sobers because he was of the 60s. This makes it easier on two counts: 1. RR comes into the top 6, and Andy Roberts comes into the 12. It is true that Garner and Ambrose have similarities but so do Holding and Roberts. The good news is if any of those four or Marshall are injured you have Croft, Clarke, Patterson, Walsh and Bishop to choose from.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No bowler should take any even remote offense to be told PC is better than he, though I am far from convinced that Hazlewood is better than those others you mention, but Hazlewood is a very good bowler none the less. BTW, New Zealand were extremely lucky it rained lots in Brisbane and Hobart in 2001-02 and also for that flukey deflection off the bowler's hand (who none can even remember his name) to run out Steve Waugh for 67 to prevent a record successful 440 chase in the same Perth test of the same series.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The big disappointment for me almost always is that most people who say complimentary things about Mark Waugh still can’t help themselves when finishing off with the ignorant, unflattering stereotypes about him, things such as “Too often he threw it away when his team needed more from him”. Nothing could be further from the truth. ________________________________ Here is the reality: Mark batted 219 times in a test match, and the breakdown of scores are: _______________________________ Of his 20 100+ scores, Australia lost once, so we can say that on a mere 5% of occasions when Mark got to 100, Australia needed more from him than he gave. This is the only score range that he never reached twice in the same test, nor did Australia ever need him to. __________________________________ In the 50-99 range, Australia lost 8 of the 47 times he reached this score range, so we can say on only 17% of occasions Mark reached this score range, was it in a losing test. At least one of these occasions involved Australia losing a test when he batted twice in the match and reached this range on both occasions, such as Mumbai 2001 when he made 70 and 57. On that occasion, it was the other batsmen in the side, bar Matthew Hayden, who didn’t do enough, not Mark. _____________________________________ In the 21-49 range, Australia lost 19 of the 54 occasions, but remember, some of these were losing affairs when Mark scored in this range in both innings and the same applies to the 0-20 range when 26 of his 88 scores in this range were in losing tests. ______________________________________ Obviously, lines get crossed and for example, the sole loss in scoring a ton, also accounted for one of the occasions in the 20-49 range because his scores in that match were 116 and 34. ________________________________ Overall, Australia lost only 25 of the 128 tests Mark played in and won 72, so if we flatten his 128 tests into 25 series of 5 tests each, on average Australia are 3-1 winners each time and remember 7 of those 25 losses were dead rubbers after Australia had been the victors. The sole loss in scoring a century was also the sole loss of those 7 dead rubbers in which he even reached 50, so he did not pad his average in dead rubbers after doing nothing previously in the series, like Dean Jones did. __________________________________ During Mark’s prime mid-1993 to mid-1999, Australia lost only two test series, one in Pakistan 1-0 and one in India 2-1. In the one in India Mark did more than enough with 66 in Australia’s first innings of the series to help his team to a 71 lead, only for the bowlers to be unable to contain Tendulkar leaving Australia no chance of winning the match and very little chance of staving off defeat. Then it was Mark’s unbeaten 153 in 3rd test which enabled a remarkable come from behind win, so get Tendulkar cheaply in first test, Australia win series and Mark is the key impact for his team. _______________________________ A large percentage of Mark’s scores in the 0-49 range in losses were in 3rd and 4th innings lost causes, such as twice in the West Indies 1991, Perth 1992-93 or Kolkatta 1998. _____________________________________ In the aforementioned lost series in Pakistan, Mark made key half tons in all three tests and the series was lost because Australia’s bowlers could not close out Pakistan’s batting innings when they had genuine opportunities to do so. ____________________________________________ Then there is the 17 50+ scores (6 of them tons) in 18 successive deciding tests during those aforementioned 1993-99 prime years. Without Mark Waugh’s impact, we lost against South Africa away and home in 1997-98, very possibly also lose there in early 1994, and we get to the end of the 20th Century not having beaten them in a test series since their readmission. We also squander a breakthrough series win in Pakistan in late 1998. __________________________________________ We also lose in the West Indies in 1995, and then struggle to beat them here in 1996-97 because we don’t have the confidence of having beaten them in 1995. Mark was the highest run scorer in that 1996-97 series against the West Indies for either side, without scoring a century, only five of which were scored by both teams combined in the entire series. We also have to settle for a drawn series against England here in 1998-99 which ends our run of 8 successive series wins against them at 5. Here is an example of how Steve would pad his average, while Mark wouldn’t. At Headingly, 1993, Australia made 4 for 653. We won by an innings and 148. Mark made a ‘mere’ 52. 500 was already enough to defeat England by an innings or have a mere literal handful of runs to make in 4th innings. Healy and the tail would have been good for 100 runs, extras another 25, so that leaves 375 for the six batsmen to make, meaning a par of 60-65 for each. So, Mark was a 10-12 runs short of par, not for a narrow 2 wicket or 10 run win, but for an innings or 10 wicket win. Taylor made 28 and Slater 67 so these two plus Mark made 147 between them leaving Boon, Border and Steve to make 228 between them, meaning that from those three Australia needed 76 each. Boon made 101, Border 200 not out and Steve 157 not out. So, Border had made two and a half times more than his team actually needed, while Steve more than twice as many – and remained not out into the bargain. Kingston 1995, Mark makes precisely what his team needs from him, 126, coming in at 2-52 and then being joined by Steve at 3-73 in response to the West Indies 265. Mark gets his brother going, and stays until they are 39 in front, still an even game if they then lose 6 for 0 after his departure. Steve slows down drastically after Mark is out, but gets to 150 when Australia are 6 down 168 in front. 168 is enough of a lead at that point, but Julian, Reiffel and Warne are good for another 30 odd, and 200 in front is certainly enough. Steve goes on to 200 and the lead is far more than they need, 266. In South Africa early 1997 Blewett makes 214 and Steve 160 in the first test which Australia win by an innings and 196. 100 each from Blewett and Steve would have more than sufficed, again, not to ensure a narrow 2 wicket or 5 run win, but rather still a full innings win. In the second test, Australia win by a mere 2 wickets, with Mark’s 116 not only the only ton in the match on either team, but 2.11 times higher than the next highest individual opposition score, 55, and 2.64 times higher than the next highest Australian individual score, 44. Mark’s strike rate across both innings is almost twice his team mates’ and his 136 for the match is almost as much as the 172 combined for Taylor, Hayden, Elliott, his brother, Blewett and Steve combined. So with the series already won, their impact has been equal with Mark’s scores 26, 20, and 116, compared to Steve’s 160, capped at 100 for impact, 8 and 18. In the dead rubber 3rd test, Mark makes 5 and 42, while Steve makes 67 and 60 not out, Australia dropping the test. When Australia batted in the 3rd innings, it was already in the lost cause region, 157 behind, so Steve’s 60 not out had no impact on the outcome of the match, his first innings 67 no impact on the series. Mark averages 41.8 for the series, Steve 78.3, the 127 for once out in the dead rubber 3rd test raising his series average by a massive 36 when also not capping the 160 in the first test at 100 in line with what was actually seriously needed. Back to the West Indies 1995, 2nd test, Mark comes in 3rd innings with the first innings deficit not quite yet erased, and makes 61, Steve comes in later and is not out on 65 when the declaration comes. The whole point I am making is that when you strip away the padding, Mark is not even statistically inferior to Steve, and his impact arguably more. Steve was a fabulous player too, obviously, but if I rate Mark slightly higher, it’s on account of his scoring rate during the key innings at key times as well as the almost complete absence of such afore outlined statistical padding. Mark is easily in the top 10-12 Australian batsmen in test cricket and alongside Ponting as the best 1 or 2 in one day cricket. To compare any of those players listed at the end of your comment is a hollow joke.
Kalva
Roar Rookie
In the mid-80s, it felt like Gomes was the main man…watching the 1983 WC Final,I only thought India had a chance once Gomes got out.
Mike
Guest
Mark W definitely played some brilliant and valuable innings for us. However, the bottom line is he also failed a lot for a player of his ability. The total difference in runs between averaging 41 or 51 over 100+ tests is considerable. Mark Waugh scored too many 50s and not enough 100s. He scored too many 20s and not enough 40s. These runs, or lack of, add up and matter. I remember loving him but being frustrated many times as well. The cliche opinion is that he often played a lazy shot after getting himself set - I tend to agree with that. The end result is that after playing well over 100 tests he was a long way from having a 50 average. With his natural talent, on his day, he played many remarkable and valuable innings. Unfortunately, he had too many low scores that dragged his average down from what could've, should've, might've been 50+ which would place him in the upper category. The Greg vs Ian Chappell discussion is very similar I reckon. Consistency over a career is the sign of a great player - allowing for the odd dip where they prove their resilience to bounce back. There is nothing wrong with being a very good player who often reached levels of greatness - that's where Mark Waugh, Taylor, Slater, Boon, Jones, Walters, Langer, Martyn, Warner, I.Chappell, Redpath etc sit. From that list perhaps it is Mark Waugh who really should have reached a higher level of assessment and ranking.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
He’s in the top 10 I assure you and he is not inferior to Steve in test cricket. He is up there with Ricky Ponting as our best two one day bats.
sheek
Roar Guru
High Plains Roarer, You're wrong on two counts. One, I'm a fan of Mark Waugh. But he's not among the top 18 (ie, top 3 XIs) all-time batsmen Australia has produced. Why is that so difficult to accept? Two, I'm not beholden to stats. I know better than most that they are a guide. You could go back & read my Roar posts over 14 years & understand that. I'm not going to discuss this any further because it's pointless. We're more or less on the same page but discussing different widths of hair, which I'm sure you'll agree is absurd.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Mark Waugh change? How would that have benefitted Australia in the 1990s? Where would that have left us in Kingston 1995, PE, 97, Sydney January 98, Karachi 98 or Sydney January 99? Those innings for the team’s benefit could only have been delivered by a fast-scoring batsman. The one time Australia needed him to change, he did, in Adelaide late January 1998. 305 balls, unconquered, how many did the other six batsmen face in total? 317, next best Ricky Ponting 118 balls. How many great sides in history have not had a fast scoring stroke player in their middle order? Greg Blewett was a one dimensional dud, as was Bevan as they were only good against pace and spin respectively. Why were South Africa not a great side in the 2000-10 period? Because their premier batsman for most of that period was Jacques Kallis, a stodgy slow scorer who didn’t tear apart opposition attacks when it mattered. Steve also changed back from high functioning technician to his original artistic stroke player when his team needed him to, such as Trinidad 1995, first day at OT 97 and of course the virtual quarter final WC ton at Headingly in 99. You’re a fine bloke Sheek, and one of my favourite most personable roarers, but gee by golly by jingo your extremely unhealthy and extremely unsound unshakeable and unwavering belief in overall raw averages bother the absolute living hilt out of me.
Keith Griffen
Guest
Personal vendettas aside , if we talk purely performance and game changing ability Gayle needs a mention. Between 2007 and 2011 he was easily in the top 5 test batters in the world. He was man of the series here against an attack featuring lee, Johnson, Tait, starc. He carried his bat in Adelaide, and smashed the attack to all parts; windies could have won that match.
fabian gulino
Roar Rookie
I agree powerful side,what about Andy Roberts?
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
I'd have Roger Harper as 12th man. Pick your best fielder.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
You have offered a high quality, well written rebuttal all communicated in good spirit. Well done The Bush!
Great article Chip. A nice trip down memory lane. Here's my long shot theory for the greatness of those WI teams - they were all SPRINTERS! And now that Jamaica have been world champs at sprinting this last decade, most of the up-and-comers try out running instead.
sheek
Roar Guru
High Plains Roarer, Maybe if you have the time, or HowStat or CricketArchives or ESPNCricket, have the time, all batting & bowling stats can be rejigged over 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th innings. How would the value of each innings be rejigged? Would it make a significant difference to what we know now about every batsman & bowler? Someone like Mark Waugh might be appreciated more, but would his new value be more significant or merely incremental? You are doing a modern exercise on Mark Waugh that has been done ad nauseam on Victor Trumper. I rely on the unscientific approach (or it may in fact be scientific) of relying on my gut instinct to determine the true value of players. I guess (educatedly) that Trumper, if he played today, would be a 8-10 better batting average player, which would put him among the elites, taking into consideration the lesser pristine conditions he had to play under. I can't make a similar assessment on Waugh. Sure, he played many fine innings in difficult situations as you point out, but he did little otherwise. The final batting average of 41.82 suggests a lack of consistency, or productivity, no matter how many great innings he played in difficult circumstances. 41.82, you can't change that unless you want to rewrite history. His brother Steve changed to a dour player to average 51.12. We might prefer Mark's cavalier style but we admire & respect Steve's toughness & grit. Steve changed & became greater. Mark refused to change & remained a middler. One is respected & the other greatly liked. Ultimately, being respected is more important than being popular. Always. Steve wins.
Rob Peters
Guest
Agreed about Chris Gayle. He is toxic and selfish. I'd also throw the word mercenary in there as well. Chris Gayle only cares about one thing. Chris Gayle. Recently, Curtly Ambrose suggested that based on performance that Gayle should not be an automatic selection in the t20 team. Gayle took great offense to that and said he once looked up to Ambrose as a player and as a person, but after what he said he was now done with Ambrose, and that he, Ambrose, was only looking for attention. I'd steer well clear of having Gayle in any WI team.