Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[The Sean]

Shame Pollock and Headley didn't play more Test matches, and if they did I am sure that Richards would be ranked lower than them. As Richard has said a number of times, I think that people generally rate Sir Viv Richards as highly as they do due the way in which he batted, as opposed to the runs he scored. Now IMO, that's not 'right'.

Not going to get into the whole "the way Viv batted made people over-rate him" thing again - I've posted my thoughts on this elsewhere.

As for your other point about the other two playing more Tests - I'd say that was a stronger argument for Headley than Pollock. Headley's Tests were played over nearly two decades, so he at least had a full career in terms of time in the international arena, if not in volume of Tests. As such the record he maintained over that period of time stands up better than Pollock's IMO.

Pollock's official Test career was over at 26 and who is to say whether he would have improved or diminished his record and reputation through the 1970s? I've posted before on the fact that his series for RoW against England and Australia in the early 1970s would have seen his average drop markedly had they been official Tests (and the 1970 series WAS played as an official Test series at the time). Pollock was clearly a wonderful batsman and I rate him very, very highly but as much strength as there is in the argument that a longer career would have greatly enhanced his reputation, there is an equal argument that he has prospered from a "what might have been" mentality and that as his career went on both his numbers and performances might have declined.

We'll never know either way, and that's the most unfortunate thing.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, we've been through the Headley thing before as well.

Edit: http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=26914&page=11 - last 10 posts of that thread.

 

[neville cardus]

I'm assuming there the cutoff is 500 FC wickets?

1,000, actually.

Because otherwise KR Miller (497 FC wickets) with a FC batting average of nearly 49 and FC bowling average of 22 would rank at the top of that list.

Indeed. I think that we ought to push it down a touch.

 

[Ikki]

I'm assuming there the cutoff is 500 FC wickets? Because otherwise KR Miller (497 FC wickets) with a FC batting average of nearly 49 and FC bowling average of 22 would rank at the top of that list.

 

[shortpitched713]

Higgs, though?

Could dominate sides in his day, I heard. Actually, he probably just had a short term golden run that skews things. Those types of things do tend to overrate some of the players on the list. David Gower being in the top 5-10? batsmen is one I can remember.

 

[The Sean]

In his prime I would have had no problem at all with David Gower being ranked among the top 5-10 batsmen in world cricket.

 

[neville cardus]

Could dominate sides in his day, I heard. Actually, he probably just had a short term golden run that skews things. Those types of things do tend to overrate some of the players on the list. David Gower being in the top 5-10? batsmen is one I can remember.

I do not dispute that Higgs was a very fine bowler -- just ask the New Zealanders! --, but his presence in the upper echelons of these rankings drastically undermines their value (if you ask me, that is).

 

[shortpitched713]

In his prime I would have had no problem at all with David Gower being ranked among the top 5-10 batsmen in world cricket.

In ODIs?

Anyway, personally I think thats insane, but thats just imo.

 

[Perm]

Not going to get into the whole "the way Viv batted made people over-rate him" thing again - I've posted my thoughts on this elsewhere.

Sure thing, and I don't blame you. I don't have much else to say on the matter that I didn't mention in my first post.

As for your other point about the other two playing more Tests - I'd say that was a stronger argument for Headley than Pollock. Headley's Tests were played over nearly two decades, so he at least had a full career in terms of time in the international arena, if not in volume of Tests. As such the record he maintained over that period of time stands up better than Pollock's IMO.

There is indeed a stronger argument for Headley, but I still don't think that either should be included in an all-time Test XI, as their lack of Test matches can be held against them, despite the length of Headley's career. IIRC George Headley's career was affected by the war, much like Graeme Pollock's was affected by South Africa's isolation from Test cricket. Headley's FC record is also far superior to that of Pollock, another factor that could be involved in saying he has more of a claim, as he was statistically one of the best batsman to play the game.

Pollock's official Test career was over at 26 and who is to say whether he would have improved or diminished his record and reputation through the 1970s? I've posted before on the fact that his series for RoW against England and Australia in the early 1970s would have seen his average drop markedly had they been official Tests (and the 1970 series WAS played as an official Test series at the time). Pollock was clearly a wonderful batsman and I rate him very, very highly but as much strength as there is in the argument that a longer career would have greatly enhanced his reputation, there is an equal argument that he has prospered from a "what might have been" mentality and that as his career went on both his numbers and performances might have declined.

Well, TBH, I'm not too sure how Pollock would have been viewed if his Test career was longer. No doubt he was a very fine batsman, and his FC and List A record shows as much, but I think he may have been hyped up a bit more because of his lack of Test match cricket. I know it's fairly weak logic, but he only averages 54 in FC cricket compared to George Headley's 69. That is a massive difference, and it could possibly be used against Pollock as it's unusual to average more in Test matches than in First Class matches.

We'll never know either way, and that's the most unfortunate thing.

Couldn't agree more mate.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I'm assuming there the cutoff is 500 FC wickets? Because otherwise KR Miller (497 FC wickets) with a FC batting average of nearly 49 and FC bowling average of 22 would rank at the top of that list.

It could also be for the reason that Miller took only 2.1 wickets per match in FC cricket.So,despite having a spectacular average,he was not as good as those who took more 3 or 4 wickets per game.In FC cricket,he was just a batting allrounder,not a genuine one.So,they did not do much wrong in leaving him out.

 

[neville cardus]

it's unusual to average more in Test matches than in First Class matches.

You'd be surprised.

 

[Perm]

You'd be surprised.

To the extent that Graeme Pollock does over a long career it'd be pretty damn rare.

 

[neville cardus]

It could also be for the reason that Miller took only 2.1 wickets per match in FC cricket.So,despite having a spectacular average,he was not as good as those who took more 3 or 4 wickets per game.In FC cricket,he was just a batting allrounder,not a genuine one.So,they did not do much wrong in leaving him out.

That is an argument so hollow and specious that it might well have been contrived. In what proportion of his matches do you believe that Miller bowled?

 

[Ikki]

That is an argument so hollow and specious that it might well have been contrived. In what proportion of his matches do you believe that Miller bowled?

There is the point neville brings... and

It could also be for the reason that Miller took only 2.1 wickets per match in FC cricket.So,despite having a spectacular average,he was not as good as those who took more 3 or 4 wickets per game.In FC cricket,he was just a batting allrounder,not a genuine one.So,they did not do much wrong in leaving him out.

It would only matter if his SR was poor. Since it isn't, then whether someone - for example, a Gary Sobers, who averaged 3 the same per match - has more per test does not mean they are better, just that they bowled more.

In actuality, his FC figures show him more as what he really was ought to be: a batting all-rounder. It boggles the mind how talented he was to still be one of the best, if not the best at some times, in the world at his weaker discipline.

 

[The Sean]

In ODIs?

Anyway, personally I think thats insane, but thats just imo.

He certainly wasn't a poor ODI player, and played one of the best limited overs innings ever in Australia, a 150-odd in the early 80s. Bearing in mind I'm not saying one of the top 5-10 of all time, simply that at his best I don't see why he couldn't have been in the top 10 in the world for a period.

Nothing insane about that IMO, but maybe I just rate him a lot higher than you do.

 

[shortpitched713]

Bearing in mind I'm not saying one of the top 5-10 of all time, simply that at his best I don't see why he couldn't have been in the top 10 in the world for a period.

Well now your just lowering the bar. Of course he could have been in that range for a period. In fact I'd say he was easily in the top 3 or 4 in the early period of his career. But to have him ranked 5 or 6 in a list that purportedly ranks batsmen throughout ODI cricket history is too much.

 

[The Sean]

Well now your just lowering the bar. Of course he could have been in that range for a period. In fact I'd say he was easily in the top 3 or 4 in the early period of his career. But to have him ranked 5 or 6 in a list that purportedly ranks batsmen throughout ODI cricket history is too much.

Not lowering the bar, and tbh I don't for the life of me understand your problem with my statement. All I said, from the very beginning, was the I would have had no problem with David Gower being considered among the top 5-10 batsmen in the world at his best.

If I misunderstood you and you were saying that David Gower was at one point ranked in the top 5-10 of all time then fair enough, I disagree with that just as you do.

 

[Richard]

Could dominate sides in his day, I heard. Actually, he probably just had a short term golden run that skews things.

Ken Higgs was a fantastic bowler, and was absurdly unfortunate not to play more Tests.

 

[Richard]

IMO

tbh

Sorry, but I really wish people wouldn't do this! Either use CAPS for all your acronyms\abbreviations or don't do it at all!

 

[The Sean]

Meh, I have a go over apostrophe use, so I guess I can cop that.

TBH, not a big deal imo though.