"Kanhai provided fantastic support for Lloyd and those two really pulled the game around."
Internationally, Kanhai always gets overlooked. It is only in Trinidad and Guyana where he is correctly rated. Beyond this, you have a few Indian writers, a few famous Indian cricketers (Gavaskar notably) and a few West Indian intellectuals (notably CLR James) who sing his praise. His status in India is largely because he kept destroying them. All his big knocks were in India and he averages over 60 vs them.
Incidentally, the World Cup game you guys are discussing was played at Lords. Kanhai was one of the few players of that era to average over 50 at Lords in both formats.
Kanhai only played a handful of ODI games (seven exactly), but he managed an average of 55, which is staggering for any era. Remember, Kanhai was an old man too when he was playing these ODI games, a format that was relatively new.
And Kanhai's ODI average was well ahead of Viv Richards' average of 47 (Viv played hundreds of ODI games to be fair). Viv's ODI strike-rate was a mammoth 90, though, whilst Kanhai's was "only" 60. It would be interesting to know Kanhai's test strike rate, but we dont have full figures for that era (minutes rather than balls faced were considered important).
But we do have lots of strike-rate stats for many of Kanhai's key test innings (in the 1950s and 60s), and what they do show is that while everyone is scoring at SR of abot 30-40, he is striking in the mid 50s range. This might seem silly to modern cricket fans, but in the context of the era, it was an abberation. This was a time when every other game was a draw, and here he was striking at a relatively fast clip.
Another reason Kanhai gets overlooked by young cricket fans is because his test average is "only 47". People forget that a 45 test average in that era is the equivalent of a 50 average now, and a 55 average in ODI then is the equivalent of a 60 ODI now. You then have to factor in the position he batted (he moved from 3 to 6), and that he was surrounded by legends in both phases of his career.
Basically, you have to look at stats in the context of their era. A 50-53 test average was the top of the tree in the 1990s, but with new rules, gear, training, weaker bowling attacks, minnow bashing, shorter boundries and flatter pitches, a 58-60 plus average is now considered great. Kanhai's stats get him short changed because he's straddling two very different cricket eras, the 1950s generation, and the 1970s superstars. In a way, though an old man in the 70s, he was the first of the 1970s styled WI batsmen; flashy, aggressive, lots of exaggerated strokeplay (some of this would rub off on Lara when coaching him) and with an air of casual cockiness.
