George Headley- How close to Sir Don Bradman was he?

[King Pietersen]

​

George Headley is one of the West Indies greatest players. Regarded by everyone outside the Caribbean as the 'Black Bradman', but within the Carribbean Bradman was regarded as the 'White Headley'. But how good was George Headley?

Headley's Test career started in 1930, but Headley had already made an impression on the world game before then. In a match against a Touring England side led by Lord Tennison, Headley played what was described as the perfect innings. Headley smashed an emphatic 344* in that innings, and according to people that witnessed it, it was as close to perfection as you can get. After this innings everyone thought he'd be a shoe in for West Indies first series, but the selectors thought differently, and couldn't find a place for the young Jamaican.

He soon got his chance though, and made the most of it immediately. In his first Test match, at Bridgetown against England, he made scores of 21 in the first innings, before hitting a glorious 176 in the 2nd. He then went to Port of Spain and got 2 starts but failed to convert. It was at Georgetown where he really made his impression though, scoring 114 and 112 to lead West Indies to victory.

He followed this with a record innings at Sabina Park, hitting the highest score by any batsman in the 4th innings of a match. He made England toil, hitting 223 from 385 balls, hitting a record score that still stands today, 79 years after it was made.

It was to get tougher for Headley, in his first tour of Australia. In his first tour game in Australia, he smashed yet another hundred, which was full of flashing off-side play, but one of the Australian bowlers at the time, spotted a flaw in his technique. The Australian's then decided they'd focus on bowling on Headley's leg stump, as he had a clear deficiency in that area. The plan worked, with Headley failing in both Adelaide and Sydney. This made Headley think about his game, and in the build up to the 3rd Test in Brisbane he worked relentlessly in the nets, perfecting the on-drive and developing a full repetoire of leg-side strokes.

Headley's hours of work in the nets paid off, and he showed off his new found on-side play with a glorious 112* at Brisbane, and after this innings was proclaimed as the greatest on-side player in the world. Just showing how much work Headley had put in, and how much natural talent he possessed.

After this tour he continued his dominance, making 5 more Test Hundreds in the years that led up to the 2nd World War. After the war, Headley had moved on from the West Indies, and was coaching schools in England and playing abit of league cricket. It was then in 1948 that Headley was asked to return to the West Indies, and return to Test cricket, by this time he was in his 40's, and well passed his prime, and it showed, as he failed in his 3 Tests after the war.

Headley finished his career, with 2190 runs from 22 Tests, with 10 hundreds and a career average of 60.83, an average only surpassed by Graeme Pollock and Sir Donald Bradman. His career average does not tell the whole story though. If you take out the matches after the war where he was clearly passed his prime, he would have averaged 66.71.

Unlike Sir Donald Bradman, Headley did not have a line-up of fantastic batsmen. Bradman did not have that fear of failure, as he had guys like Ponsford, Woodfull, Kippax, Jackson and McGabe who were all more than capable of making big scores. George Headley was a 1 man batting line-up, hence his nickname 'Atlas' as he did carry the West Indian side. Proof of Headley's dominance is the fact that of the first 14 Test centuries from West Indian's, Headley made 10 of them.

Headley was also a fantastic player on wet wickets. In his innings on such wickets he made 5 half centuries, compared with Bradman, who struggled, making only 1 half century on wet wickets. Headley was regarded as the greatest player of wet wickets, an incredible compliment considering the likes of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and later Hutton were so good on those types of wickets.

George Headley really is an under-rated batsman in the world game. I'm sure a fair few of you wouldn't have heard of Headley before this thread, and I hope you've enjoyed reading about one of the great batsmen we've ever seen. I rate Headley amongst the top 2 or 3 batsmen to have ever played the game, and wish I'd known more about Headley before I made the 2nd Greatest Test Batsman thread, as Headley would certainly have got my vote, with Hobbs and Tendulkar following him. For my money, George Headley, the Black Bradman, is as close as we're going to get to the great Sir Don, and what a fine player he was.

 

[karnog]

For sure. Agree. But for the record i knew off him
George Headingly's success made cricket a fashionable sport in the Windies. He had a great impact.

 

[sifter132]

Yeah George was pretty damn good. Like Sir Don he played most of his matches against England. Don played 37 of his 52 Tests against England, Headley played 16 of his 22. That can make it harder to analyze how good someone really is when they play against the same guys all the time. Against the Aussies, George average only 37 and they thought they'd beaten him with a technical flaw like you point out, but he played them right at the start of his Test career too, making it more difficult for him.

Just as an aside, I don't think it is necessarily bad for someone to be an awesome player surrounded by scrubs. Bad for your winning percentage certainly, but not for your individual stats. An extreme example is when a good batsmen is batting with the tail, the good batsman rarely gets attacked. JP Duminy for example made 166 v Australia in Melbourne, yet he was only 20-odd when Morne Morkel came to the crease and from then on the Aussies rarely attacked Duminy. So while Duminy's runs were well made, they were pretty stress free, middle overs of an ODI type runs.

Bradman had the same effect when batting, in that teams would be much more confident of getting his partner out and that would be reflected in their tactics. That sounds like heresy implying that Don had an easier time of it, he was still the greatest ever - easily, but there were times when the opposition looked to attack his partner and I'm sure Headley had that same effect, possibly more since he was a bigger step above his teammates than Bradman was above his.

 

[Dare]

He was certainly one of the closest to Bradman. I wish he could have played 20-30 more tests while he was in his prime, then we could really see how close he was to Bradman. His domestic record is amazing also. One of the best to ever come out of the Caribbean.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Not even the best West Indian batsman ever produced.

He played in an era where like 8 batsman averaged over 60 in first-class cricket.

 

[Skater]

Not even the best West Indian batsman ever produced.

He played in an era where like 8 batsman averaged over 60 in first-class cricket.

How can you make bold statements like these without ever seeing him bat for yourself? You rely far far too heavily on statistics which often tell us little. Michael Vaughan for example may have a modest record but he is the most technically gifted batsman England has produced for a decade. Stats are not the be all and end all!

 

[mrtwisties]

Stats are not the be all and end all!

Nor, to be fair, is technique. Cricketing history is littered with batsmen who "exuded class" or had "perfect technique" and yet failed to score runs and win matches for their team.

Statistics are often misinterpreted (sometimes deliberately), and most statistical analyses in cricket (particularly cricket journalism) are rudimentary at best. But used well, statistics have an objectivity that judgments of natural talent, technique, shot selection and concentration just don't.

 

[aussie_ben91]

How can you make bold statements like these without ever seeing him bat for yourself? You rely far far too heavily on statistics which often tell us little. Michael Vaughan for example may have a modest record but he is the most technically gifted batsman England has produced for a decade. Stats are not the be all and end all!

If his so great then why was Sir Vivian Richards ranked in the top 5 Wisden cricketers of the 20th century and Headley wasn't? Viv's in the top 5 batsman of alltime, if we went by statistics then over 30 batsman would be better then him. Headley only averaged 37 against the Australians aswell.

I find it laughable how some people can rate Barry Richards & Graeme Pollock as alltime greats despite playing little International. Unforunate for them but if Michael Hussey's career had've ended after 20 Tests then I doubt he would've been rated in the same vain as Richards or Pollock, which is ludacris.

Hussey has a gun technique and immense concentration, he also spent well over a decade hammering better domestic bowlers then what Richards & Pollock probably faced over an extended period of time.

People may say that Hussey has been "found out" but he hasn't. His just experincing a rough patch at the moment, which Barry Richards & Graeme Pollock would've experienced had their International careers lasted longer, except their averages would've dipped well below 50 whilst Hussey's hasn't.

Personally, I don't think Richards, Pollock or Hussey are alltime greats and they don't deserve to be, unless of course, Hussey recaptures his golden form and plays til his about 40. Hell, none of their firstclass averages are even that great considering they spent the majority of their careers in county cricket. Ajay Sharma and Vijay Merchant stake claims for the same honour.

 

[Dare]

The reason Viv is rated and Headley is not is probably because Headley only played 22 tests. I am yet to find a video of Headley so many people didn't see him bat. I have no doubt that if he had played 20 more tests and maintained his record he would have been ranked in that list.

Didnt you rate Hughes as one of the best after his 3 tests.