World Series Cricket Stats

[Nikhil99.94]

GOAT

after bradman.

 

[Burgey]

Not sure when Bradman averaged 21 with the ball across a five test series while bowling more overs than anyone else.

 

[Daemon]

GOAT

Fmd GIMH and the like want to polish Flintoff's knob over his 05 Ashes series. Imagine averaging 70 over five tests with the bat and 21 with the ball. It's ****ing wrong.

Jadeja averaged 83 with the bat and 15 with the ball in the BG recently

 

[Burgey]

Jadeja averaged 83 with the bat and 15 with the ball in the BG recently

Five test series. He played three didn’t he? Maybe he would have averaged 17829/ 0.00007 tbf if he’d played all of it. Either way, shows how far Australian cricket has fallen. Smh

 

[AndrewB]

Not sure when Bradman averaged 21 with the ball across a five test series while bowling more overs than anyone else.

Nor did Sobers (check Intikhab Alam’s figures).

 

[_00_deathscar]

Nor did Sobers (check Intikhab Alam’s figures).

So it’s settled, Jadeja confirmed GOAT

 

[_00_deathscar]

Those CW members who are reluctant to acknowledge Barry Richards as an ATG due to how few Tests he played should look at his performances in WSC when facing the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Lillee. Averaging almost 80 (in a competition in which only Viv Ricards and Greg Chappell were the only others to average over 50) speaks volumes.

Yes but almost anyone can have an epic series.
And yes he has a great first class career, but several have fallen

I agree that he can’t be an all time TEST great.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Not sure when Bradman averaged 21 with the ball across a five test series while bowling more overs than anyone else.

Wasn’t bradman an all rounder tho ?,bats+bats, the word GOAT ? is overused in cricket tbh cause in sport there can be only one GOAT.
Was seeing my social media accounts and every post is abt ab de villers with the word GOAT.

 

[Burgey]

He’s not even the ? AB

 

[Starfighter]

Yes but almost anyone can have an epic series.
And yes he has a great first class career, but several have fallen

I agree that he can’t be an all time TEST great.

Yeah, the 'Richards would have average 60+ in tests' crowd seem to forget that Boycott had an FC average two runs higher over a longer career, but that didn't entirely carry over to tests. He was a serious player, but you just can't tell.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Those CW members who are reluctant to acknowledge Barry Richards as an ATG due to how few Tests he played should look at his performances in WSC when facing the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Lillee. Averaging almost 80 (in a competition in which only Viv Ricards and Greg Chappell were the only others to average over 50) speaks volumes.

I think it's perfectly fair to consider him one of the all time great batsmen. But a lot of the arguments come up in discussions specifically about test batsmen (for instance in stuff like ATG test XIs) and imo it is flat out insulting to cricketers like Gavaskar/hutton/greenidge etc. to even consider selecting Richards ahead of any of them. We can be respectful of his talent and bemoan the fact that he didnt get more chances to show it on the biggest stage without needing to insert him awkwardly into discussions involving test cricketers.

 

[nick-o]

I guess this was targeted at me somewhat, since I recently denigrated the idea of Barry Richards as an ATG, so I should respond.

Maybe it's just semantics, but there is an immense difference between "He was an ATG" and "He could have been an ATG."

I have no problem accepting that if the fates had been different "he could have been an ATG" -- it's something we can never know. It's tragic in its way, but that's how things turned out.

But there is no way that "he was an ATG."

And this where I get riled up: claiming he was an ATG based on 4 test matches and 5 Packer Supertests; but then at the same time, just a day or two ago, criticizing people for "cherry-picking stats." I mean, 4 test matches: how's that for cherry-picking, eh?

OK, he was a lovely batsman to watch and I can see why he'd be someone's favorite; my favorite from that era would be Procter, so I do understand. But he was not an ATG, certainly not in the sense the phrase is used here.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Those CW members who are reluctant to acknowledge Barry Richards as an ATG due to how few Tests he played should look at his performances in WSC when facing the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Lillee. Averaging almost 80 (in a competition in which only Viv Ricards and Greg Chappell were the only others to average over 50) speaks volumes.

Mike Procter is the first one to be recognized as True ATG.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

It’s sad for Barry that he couldn’t represent South Africa more in internationals,he is most likely the best opener(best not greatest due to lack of international matches) since Len huttons retirement and most likely the best opener from 1960-till now(best not greatest cause of lack of internationals)

 

[subshakerz]

One reason I rate Imran the bowler so highly (top 5 for me) was because the more you look into his record, the more it becomes clear he was something special. Not only the best bowling peak, the best against the WI and the best in WSC.

The batting stats also show a clear dividing line between ATG level and others.

 

[Immenso]

I was looking at Lillee's stats from the 1970 ROW XI series, 24 wickets at 20.08.

Against a batting lineup of
Gavaskar
Other Opener (Ackerman or Engineer)
Zaheer
G Pollock
Kanhai
Sobers
Greig

Plus decent lower orders of Engineer, Intikhab, P Pollock etc.

Which is just wow. This would have been young pre-back injury tearaway Lille.

So, I added up his stats of his test record, this ROW series, plus WSC.
Surprisingly, it actually makes his career record slightly worse. I suppose playing 18 extra 'tests' against the very best batsmen in the world can do that.

But he would have been the first to 400 'test' wickets.

Lillee's adjusted record would be:

Tests +ROW + WSC	Matches	Wickets Taken	Bowling Average
Dennis Lillee	88	446	24.16

 

[Immenso]

Graeme Pollock.
If add 8 ROW XI 'tests' from 1970 and 1971 to his record (He didn't play WSC):

Tests + ROW matches	Matches	Runs	Average	100s	50s
G Pollock	31	2715	53.24	9	12

 

[Immenso]

Barry Richards.

If add 5 ROW XI 'tests' v England from 1970 and 5 WSC Supertests to his record:

Tests + ROW + WSC matches	Matches	Runs	Average	100s	50s
B Richards	14	1319	62.81	4	4

 

[Immenso]

Sobers:

Sobers (Batting)	M	I	NO	Runs	Ave	100s	50s
TESTS	93	160	21	8032	57.78	26	30
ROW 1970	5	9	0	588	73.50	2	3
ROW 1971	5	9	2	341	48.71	1	0
TOTAL	103	178	23	8961	57.81	29	33

Sobers (Bowling)	M	Runs	Wickets	Ave	5w	10w
TESTS	93	7999	235	34.03	5	0
ROW 1970	5	452	21	21.52	1	0
ROW 1971	5	435	9	48.33	0	0
TOTAL	103	8886	265	33.53	6	0

 

[Line and Length]

@nick-o says: "And this where I get riled up: claiming he was an ATG based on 4 test matches and 5 Packer Supertests; but then at the same time, just a day or two ago, criticizing people for "cherry-picking stats." I mean, 4 test matches: how's that for cherry-picking, eh?"

We obviously consider 'cherry picking' to be two separate things. I consider it 'cherry picking' when sections of a player's career are produced (eg performances against certain teams or statistics from a particular time frame) to support an opinion. In Barry Richards' case, it can hardly be called 'cherry picking' if we are considering his entire Test career - albeit only 4 Tests.
Add his WSC figures to his 4 Tests and Richards scored over 1000 runs at 75.86
If it was good enough for Bradman to consider Richards an ATG, it is good enough for me.