John Trim, who died in hospital in British Guiana on November 12, aged 45,
played in four Test matches for the West Indies. A right-arm fast-medium bowler, he gained his First Test Match honours on the strength of a good performance for British Guiana, for whom he made his debut in 1944, against G. O. Allen's M.C.C. Team in 1947-48 when at Georgetown he earned analyses of four wickets for 68 runs and five for 36. He toured India in 1948 and Australia in 1951. In all he took 18 Test wickets, average 16.16.
[quote author=boquiesse link=topic=78324.msg488774#msg488774 date=1363697406]
Mapoui, IMO it's a futile argument trying to compare Bradman with "modern" batsmen and we have no way of knowing how he would have coped. Good point and demonstrates the difficulty of comparing eras so what is left are numbers and books we have to get a better feel. I have previously quoted a player called Victor Trumper, is anyone gets a chance, you will see ordinary numbers until you assess the impact he really had. Look at Lord Constantine's record compared to the impact he made at Nelson. As you say the bodyline series was an exception when he averaged 56.57!!! I am no Australian fan, far from it, but facts are facts.
You mention him playing on wet pitches and failing but his lowest series average is 56.57 so I am not sure where the failure is. Correct and pitches were uncovered in those days making conditions very difficult to bat on and in 234 first class matches he averaged 95! Personally, I have batted on uncovered pitches and they are interesting, to say the least.
You mentioned Hammond whose average in England was 50.06 and Len Hutton whose home average was 57.79.
You stated that an average of 99 was possible but my point is that no one has come even close to it. Whilst difficult, if not impossible, to factor in the variables to make eras comparable, what really are the main changes? Also remember Kanhai's playing conditions were exactly the same as Bradman's bar some improvements in Gloves, pads and boxes in Kanhai's later career. Kanhai's travels would have been more extensive, in conditions Bradman never ventured in, as he only ever travelled to England. There is also a point that Bradman also played the majority of his tests at home but his average away from home is higher. In terms of comments made by mapoui, that he was pegged back and he averages 75, I am not sure how much pegging back that is.
[/quote]
We have had the likes of Barry Richards, Vivian Richards, Tendulkar, Lara as pure batsmen and as amazing as they were and are, they have not even come close to Bradman.
There was a time we did not have, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe so you can only play against those available.
Bradman was great but is Kanhai greater?
On numbers no, but Kanhai's impact, his panache, his gravitas, his attack and style of play was the first of a kind and a mantle, perhaps, later taken up by Vivian. Not as much as now but more cricket was played and Cricketers travelled more to foreign conditions. Something Bradman never did so that would have to count against him, as it would have been interesting seeing him in West Indies, Indian and other conditions. Alas that was not to be for the time he lived.
What I know is, of all the West Indian batsmen I have seen, Kanhai is definitely the greatest. I think mainly because he was the first of a kind and was graceful and at the same time ruthless.You would have to say Headley is up there but would his average have been affected had he played more than 22 tests, as comparatively speaking his away record was significantly less than his home record.
![[Image: 96858.jpg]](http://www.espncricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/96800/96858.jpg)
