Pujara is an ATG batter (or) how long should a career last before it is judged?

[hendrix]

Maybe why bagapath used the word 'and' not 'or'...

Read the rest of his post and you'll understand what his argument is and why my argument refutes it.

 

[benchmark00]

Read the rest of his post and you'll understand what his argument is and why my argument refutes it.

Yep read his post. And although I don't agree with what he's saying in the case of Barry Richards, your post in no way refutes it.

 

[watson]

about the rest.... hayden did so well on the spinning decks of india and braved the scorching sharjah heat to play a few classic test match innings...

greenidge was the most destructive opener in the world for many many years and averaged 50 after 70 tests when 40 was considered great. the lords double hundred and another 200+ score in new zealand are good enough to keep his name frozen in cricketing history forever.

trumper, from what we have read, would give the jayasuriyas and sehwags a good run for the money.

barry was never tested against the very best in the toughest conditions year after year. And WSC is firstclass cricket, not international. Even there barry played only 5 games. If he is an ATG then pujara is an ATG too.

Pujara has played only 69 FC games. In another 150 or so we'll be able to make a proper decision. Until then, he is a flash-in-the-pan.

 

[benchmark00]

Spreadsheet brigade out in force, I see.

I wouldn't consider baggers to be apart of the 'spreadsheet brigade' at all. I've found his posts over a long period of time to be very well written and I consider him a learned cricket follower. Deserves much more respect than what you're giving him.

I do find his point fascinating as I've never actually heard anyone question Richards' ability, despite his dearth of test matches.

 

[bagapath]

Read the rest of his post and you'll understand what his argument is and why my argument refutes it.

where did you differ from what i have written and how are you refuting anything i have said?

 

[hendrix]

Yep read his post. And although I don't agree with what he's saying in the case of Barry Richards, your post in no way refutes it.

he's saying:

You can't judge a batsman as all time great when he has only scored runs at test level for a small number of matches.

I'm saying:
you can judge a batsman as such if he's also shown an excellent record across a lengthy first class career.

I.e. in the case of richards he's a) shown potential at test level and b) had an excellent and lengthy first class career

while with Pujara he's a) shown potential at test level but b) has not had a lengthy enough first class career to judge.

another example in Hick, he's a) **** at test level b) very good first class career over a long period.


TBH I think Richards shouldn't be judged to be an all time great, but that's the logic flow anyway. IMO a good record across a lengthy test career should be the only indication, but I am simply pointing out that there's a difference between Pujara and Richards careers that makes one quite a bit easier to judge.

 

[benchmark00]

he's saying:

You can't judge a batsman as all time great when he has only scored runs at test level for a small number of matches.

I'm saying:
you can judge a batsman as such if he's also shown an excellent record across a lengthy first class career.

I.e. in the case of richards he's a) shown potential at test level and b) had an excellent and lengthy first class career

while with Pujara he's a) shown potential at test level but b) has not had a lengthy enough first class career to judge.

another example in Hick, he's a) **** at test level b) very good first class career over a long period.

Well ahh no, you said you need both first class and test success.


Bagapath said you need both first class and test success....

 

[hendrix]

Well ahh no, you said you need both first class and test success.


Bagapath said you need both first class and test success....

Simply repeating an exact sentence doesn't summarise the overall meaning of a paragraph.

He's using the logic that two players' careers are equivalent, when i'm saying that they are not.

 

[watson]

And we can't ignore the testimonies of knowledgeable people;

.....Tony Mann, WA legspinner: I was the cover fielder and had to run like hell all day. He didn't hit hard but he played beautifully.

It was always amazing to watch Barry bat. He placed the ball magnificently - minimal footwork, brilliant eye, very strong wrists - just caressed the ball to the boundary ropes; no big hitting at all. It was his trademark, to find the gaps. Basically he was punching the ball off the back foot. If there was a wagon-wheel, you'd find the lines all around.

John Inverarity, WA top-order batsman: It was the only occasion in my life where I began to enjoy watching an opposition batsman make a lot of runs. It was just sublime - he was toying with the bowling. Casselas He had a high back-lift, and his precise footwork allowed him to score all round the wicket - he was technically perfect. He had so much time, he was so calm, so composed at the crease, and he was so correct on that day. His cover-driving that day was almost peerless.
McKenzie On a day like that, if you are a bowler, you don't want to be bowling. You expect the batsman to commit some error at some point, but that day Barry didn't give us even a tiny bit of space.....


Barry goes ballistic | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah anyways...

Baggers, you must concede that Richards' situation was a unique one, and therefore you must give greater weight to testimonials of players who played against him and other great players, and they rate Richards either higher or on par with these undisputed greats.

There's no doubt he has question marks over his ability to play on sub continental wickets, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to expect him to be able to succeed on those wickets given all the glowing praise greats of the game lavish upon him.

 

[hendrix]

I don't have a problem with the argument that Barry Richards shouldn't be judged an all time great because his Test career wasn't long enough, but using Pujara as an equivalent doesn't make sense because of the differences in their first class career lengths.

Should've said that initially, a bit more clear and concise that way I think.

 

[bagapath]

he's saying:

You can't judge a batsman as all time great when he has only scored runs at test level for a small number of matches.

I'm saying:
you can judge a batsman as such if he's also shown an excellent record across a lengthy first class career.

am so glad malcolm marshall and steve waugh didnt retire after 4 test matches. they would have been considered total flops on the big stage based on their early records. OTOH, sunny gavaskar should have quit after his first test series. he would have retired as the best batsman the world has ever seen. (all three had excellent FC records)

barry was a great FC batsman, I agree. several cricketers do rate him highly. Fine. but he played only four tests. that is not good enough to give him the legendary status he gets from some corners.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah anyways...

Baggers, you must concede that Richards' situation was a unique one, and therefore you must give greater weight to testimonials of players who played against him and other great players, and they rate Richards either higher or on par with these undisputed greats.

There's no doubt he has question marks over his ability to play on sub continental wickets, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to expect him to be able to succeed on those wickets given all the glowing praise greats of the game lavish upon him.

if you tell me so nicely i will concede... anyways, this was no earth shattering revelation for any of us.

here is an earth shattering revelation i heard from the indian team dressing room: .......... well, forget it, i might get banned

 

[hendrix]

am so glad malcolm marshall and steve waugh didnt retire after 4 test matches. they would have been considered total flops on the big stage based on their early records. OTOH, sunny gavaskar should have quit after his first test series. he would have retired as the best batsman the world has ever seen. (all three had excellent FC records)

You really have not understood my post at all.

barry was a great FC batsman, I agree. several cricketers do rate him highly. Fine. but he played only four tests. that is not good enough to give him the legendary status he gets from some corners.

Again, I do not have a problem with this point of view. It is a fair argument.

 

[Jager]

barry was never tested against the very best in the toughest conditions year after year. And WSC is firstclass cricket, not international. Even there barry played only 5 games. If he is an ATG then pujara is an ATG too.

Oh go and get ****ed

 

[bagapath]

Oh go and get ****ed

thanks. i really hope to.

 

[benchmark00]

 

[uvelocity]

barry was a great FC batsman, I agree. several cricketers do rate him highly. Fine. but he played only four tests. that is not good enough to give him the legendary status he gets from some corners.

unfair as it maybe, this for me. Life isn't fair anyway.

 

[duffer]

Barry is pretty poor in the commentary box. Waiting for Chetaswar to get his turn to decide.

 

[Howe_zat]

If Pujara fell out with the BCCI and never played another Test, despite completely dominating FC cricket for many years in multiple countries (given the relative lack of Test players in domestic cricket compared to Richards' time, he'd have to average considerably more than mid-fifties), then in 30 years' time people would no doubt consider him amongst the best ever. He'd deserve it.