And I'm fine with people saying that. I don't take issue so much with people voting for Richards; but with the reasons some are giving. If you'd back Richards to score more runs consistently against the best attacks when it mattered, then that's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote for him. But people stating the reason for their vote as enjoying him bat having seen him are being just as silly as I was by selecting Ganga for the exact same reason.
Well they shouldn't be saying that really, it's muddying the waters.
Which is my point. There's no doubt in my mind that Richards was a far, far superior batsman to Daren Ganga and, really, half the players on the poll, but if the criteria for being a good batsman has been changed to include pleasing the judge, then Ganga is all of sudden one of the best batsman I've seen.
Indeed, because it's a positive argument to suggest he'd be able to score runs against all comers. Not, however, because dismantling attacks actually makes you a better batsman than those who play against the same and score more runs in a less eye-pleasing way.grecian said:
I should make it clear that I'm not saying Richards wasn't a great batsman or even that he wasn't the best after Bradman - I'm just pointing out that being a good batsman really has nothing to do with how much you please the crowd or appear to be doing; but all about what you can achieve and actually do achieve. What cricket is about and what being a good player is about are two totally different things..
That would require people being interested in baiting people like Sean and SJS, which, frankly, is a ludicrous accusation.
Couldn't agree more if I tried.
Surely saying Hobbs is in a "different class", is just that, though.Couldn't agree more if I tried.
And the phrase 'if you had watched him play' is a cop out. None of you watched Bradman play, or Trumper, or Shrewsbury or WG Grace, or a bunch of players but I see those same people rolling out the red carpet every time they are so much as mentioned.
And no one is saying that Richards was anything less than exceptional. But run output = your measure as a batsman. You can slice that up to get a closer look (by country, by attacks faced, by match situation, etc) and that is all very valid but in the end, run output = better player.
And as Prince, I love watching Darren Ganga bat and cricket for me is watching guys like that bat, while I can't stand watching Sehwag but I can concede that the latter is a better player while the former is still better to watch.
And earlier in the thread someone said that they feel sorry because cricket to some people is 'just runs and wickets'. Um, no. My judging Steve Waugh a better player than Daren Ganga has nothing to do with my enjoyment of watching Daren Ganga. That line of argument is completely inane.
Very few arguments make me truly mad, but something like this is one of them.
Which brings us back around to the point that if that was the only criteria then old 'erbert would trump Hobbs.
It's not the only criteria though. On criteria X, Hobbs (and Sutcliffe) trump Richards. On criteria Y, Hobbs trumps Sutcliffe.
Contemporaries of each of Archie Jackson and Stan McCabe thought they were right up there with The Don too.
Mark Chilton?
A different class suggests to me a gulf, that isn't there or hasn't been proven imho.
To be Honest, this is one of the silliest post on CW. This whole line of immature argument has ruined the CW for me. If you really believe that Ganga is more watchable than Sir Viv Richards then what can I say. Perhaps there is something wrong with the definition of 'Watchable'.Couldn't agree more if I tried.
And the phrase 'if you had watched him play' is a cop out. None of you watched Bradman play, or Trumper, or Shrewsbury or WG Grace, or a bunch of players but I see those same people rolling out the red carpet every time they are so much as mentioned.
And no one is saying that Richards was anything less than exceptional. But run output = your measure as a batsman. You can slice that up to get a closer look (by country, by attacks faced, by match situation, etc) and that is all very valid but in the end, run output = better player.
And as Prince, I love watching Darren Ganga bat and cricket for me is watching guys like that bat, while I can't stand watching Sehwag but I can concede that the latter is a better player while the former is still better to watch.
And earlier in the thread someone said that they feel sorry because cricket to some people is 'just runs and wickets'. Um, no. My judging Steve Waugh a better player than Daren Ganga has nothing to do with my enjoyment of watching Daren Ganga. That line of argument is completely inane.
Very few arguments make me truly mad, but something like this is one of them.
Very interesting argument. How do you think these things up?
why exactly is his case dubious to you? He's been hailed as the finest left hand batsman to play the game by all and sundry. He's been named as SA's player of the century(over Richards mind you, the guy you think has more cred than Pollock according to you Richie). He's had the Don pay him numerous compliments(Dont think Don is someone who gives off compliments like that. There was this innings that he played in the 60s down under which made the Don tell him something along the lines of 'Give me a call the next time you decide to play an innings like that'). He's been widely regarded as one of the best if not the best timer of the ball. His technique was supposed to be better than even David freakin Gowers. The stats speak for themselves as you can imagine. The only thing that could have possibly have worked against his case was that he didnt pick up English County cricket like Richards did, so less number of people were exposed to him. But nonetheless Richard, what is it that you know that makes you think the claims of people like Barry Richards and others are spurious?
.
*Shakes Head*
