Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[Coronis]

Don't want to go down this rabbit hole, and I know sensibilities weren't quite the same back then.

But why did England and Australia continue to play them?

Surely its like anything else, it continues until the issue comes to a head and its forced to be confronted. The d’Oliveira affair was certainly a big part of this, especially in cricket, and 1970 seemed to be the turning point for a fair few other sports due to this.

FIFA actually suspended SA in 1965 before the 66 World Cup (expelled in 76). Their Amateur Boxing Association was also expelled in 1968.

Ideally sports would remain apolitical, with exclusions applied to individual athletes regarding things they’ve actually said or done rather than every athlete for an entire country, but I can understand people trying to use sports as a catalyst for change for the greater good in the world.

 

[kyear2]

All three of these cricketers have their plus and minuses.

Smith is a machine, he just scores. His only detraction right now is longevity and how he will finish off his career. At this point him and Sachin are pretty close and imagine not that far from where Ponting was.

Lara was a genius, a mercurial genius but a genius. He was capable of the highest highs, but also some crashing lows. I maintain he's the best batsman I've ever seen and at his best I can't imagine anyone better. Period. He faced some of the greatest bowlers ever and came out pretty good vs unquestionably the two greatest spinners ever.

Viv gets pulled down because some think that somehow he was over rated because of his bravado and he was an older era Sehwag of sorts. Viv prospered in an era of pace unparalleled in any other. He didn't have easy matches, every team at some point of his career had an alpha performer, that plus no minnows. Yes he could go off script, but his technique was good and he could throttle down when required.
But he also put fear into bowlers and teams and influenced bowling lines and fields before he even took guard. His peak was insane and so we're his performances in WSC. You didn't score runs in that tournament if you weren't among the very best.

 

[peterhrt]

And honestly can see why. If I'm not mistaken (and I could be) he preferred to play domestic cricket in SA than ply his trade on the county scene.

That could have been (and in no way saying that it was the case) construed that he was supportive or in agreement with the government's stance. Again, not saying he was, but could have been looked at that way.

Having achieved plenty in Tests, Graeme Pollock felt he had nothing to prove in county cricket and was probably right. Turning out seven days a week in England would probably not have allowed him to continue playing in South Africa until the age of 43.

Apparently Pollock and Denys Hobson both did their bit to encourage multi-racial cricket in SA during the 1970s. The wider picture was the Gleneagles Agreement where, a few months before WSC launched, Commonwealth leaders agreed to take a united stance against apartheid by discouraging sporting links with South African teams and individuals. Some of those leaders viewed WSC as a means of letting South Africa back into international cricket through the back door. Packer feared losing his West Indies team and decided to tread carefully.

Pollock and Hobson were excluded from WSC not because they had never taken the field with non-white cricketers - they both had - but on the grounds that they weren't participating in county cricket to enable regular contact with those players. Pollock had played with and against non-white cricketers on a number of occasions, dating back to 1962 when he turned out for a Rhodesian side against a Commonwealth XI that saw Trevor Goddard accompanying Kanhai, D'Oliveira, Borde, Wes Hall and Chester Watson.

Just a year before WSC and Gleneagles, Pollock was dismissed in both innings by the Barbadian John Shepherd. Ismail Ebrahim took six wickets in the second innings for Pollock's team. Hobson also played twice against Shepherd that year.

Pollock didn't need WSC to cement his reputation any more than he needed county cricket. It was more of a blow to Hobson who by all accounts was a pretty good leg-spinner.

 

[kyear2]

Having achieved plenty in Tests, Graeme Pollock felt he had nothing to prove in county cricket and was probably right. Turning out seven days a week in England would probably not have allowed him to continue playing in South Africa until the age of 43.

Apparently Pollock and Denys Hobson both did their bit to encourage multi-racial cricket in SA during the 1970s. The wider picture was the Gleneagles Agreement where, a few months before WSC launched, Commonwealth leaders agreed to take a united stance against apartheid by discouraging sporting links with South African teams and individuals. Some of those leaders viewed WSC as a means of letting South Africa back into international cricket through the back door. Packer feared losing his West Indies team and decided to tread carefully.

Pollock and Hobson were excluded from WSC not because they had never taken the field with non-white cricketers - they both had - but on the grounds that they weren't participating in county cricket to enable regular contact with those players. Pollock had played with and against non-white cricketers on a number of occasions, dating back to 1962 when he turned out for a Rhodesian side against a Commonwealth XI that saw Trevor Goddard accompanying Kanhai, D'Oliveira, Borde, Wes Hall and Chester Watson.

Just a year before WSC and Gleneagles, Pollock was dismissed in both innings by the Barbadian John Shepherd. Ismail Ebrahim took six wickets in the second innings for Pollock's team. Hobson also played twice against Shepherd that year.

Pollock didn't need WSC to cement his reputation any more than he needed county cricket. It was more of a blow to Hobson who by all accounts was a pretty good leg-spinner.

Your posts are pure gold.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes Benaud said Kanhai was the best batsman in the world in 1961.

With six years experience Graeme Pollock was considered a seasoned Test player. He and leg-spinner Denys Hobson agreed to play for Packer, but objections that they had not played county cricket and regularly taken the field with non-white cricketers led to their invitations being withdrawn.

Pollock relied more on timing than Sobers, who hit the ball very hard, and at his best made batting look easy. Oddly he was out of form more often than one might expect. Against the fastest bowling he was not quite as destructive as Sobers, but when pushing forty got a couple of quick hundreds in unofficial Tests against Sylvester Clarke, Ezra Moseley and Franklyn Stephenson. He also made good hundreds against Snow (twice) and Lillee.

Why do you reckon Pollock was out of form a lot?

At test level, he only had one poor series, which was a one-off while 20 or so, and can't really be used to judge.

At rebel level, he was streets above the next best bat, although he was admittedly aging out badly especially by the later series (43 IIRC for his last one, way past it for pace on spicy wickets, and only really picked cos people wanted to see him bat).

In domestic, when not on national duty, he almost never failed to top his province's run charts until he was in his late 30s. He admittedly played for a pretty weak province for most of his career, so this may not say that much. But he did maintain a monster domestic average over 27 years without many monster seasons, despite being a bit poor at the end.

I've also never heard of him being weak vs pace, other than his vision being fairly famously shot in the 80s, starting around 20 years into his domestic career, and not too far off 20 from test debut, which is long enough. He murdered pace from the limited footage I have seen, and the question mark about him should surely be against quality spin, which he faced very little of?

 

[peterhrt]

Why do you reckon Pollock was out of form a lot?

At test level, he only had one poor series, which was a one-off while 20 or so, and can't really be used to judge.

At rebel level, he was streets above the next best bat, although he was admittedly aging out badly especially by the later series (43 IIRC for his last one, way past it for pace on spicy wickets, and only really picked cos people wanted to see him bat).

In domestic, when not on national duty, he almost never failed to top his province's run charts until he was in his late 30s. He admittedly played for a pretty weak province for most of his career, so this may not say that much. But he did maintain a monster domestic average over 27 years without many monster seasons, despite being a bit poor at the end.

I've also never heard of him being weak vs pace, other than his vision being fairly famously shot in the 80s, starting around 20 years into his domestic career, and not too far off 20 from test debut, which is long enough. He murdered pace from the limited footage I have seen, and the question mark about him should surely be against quality spin, which he faced very little of?

It wasn't a lot, but reports of Pollock being out of form were more common than for other batsmen of his class. It didn't always prevent him scoring runs. Maybe because he relied on timing more than most, when the timing wasn't there he could look a bit awkward with his wide stooping stance.

One example was the England v Rest of the World series in 1970. Wisden: "So far the only disappointing performer for The Rest had been Graeme Pollock, but in the final Test at The Oval he played gloriously for 114."

Something similar happened when The Rest toured Australia a year and a half later. Signing off with a brilliant hundred after little else of note.

As you say, there is no arguing with the numbers and he scored plenty of runs against fast bowlers. Nobody beats his Test average of 69 against Australia and he got more hundreds against them than Sobers.

From the generations affected by Isolation, when pitches generally favoured bowlers, five batsmen reached 10,000 first-class career runs in South Africa. Barry Richards averaged 58, Graeme Pollock 56, Jimmy Cook 43, Peter Kirsten 42 and Eddie Barlow 39. (During three seasons at Somerset Cook averaged 72). This would suggest a gulf in class between the first two and the others, who were all good players.

 

[subshakerz]

Smith will always come with an asterisk for me. Record heavily inflated by bashing on very easy home conditions, and relatively little exposure to worldclass pace attacks with somewhat mixed results.

 

[Slifer]

Smith will always come with an asterisk for me. Record heavily inflated by bashing on very easy home conditions, and relatively little exposure to worldclass pace attacks with somewhat mixed results.

What??? Tell us you're just trolling with this....

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Smith has played in a really hard era. Him and Williamson are the only players averaging 50+. It shows how hard the era is when a player as good as Kohli is averaging just under 50.

 

[kyear2]

No one's going to break the tie?

 

[Slifer]

No one's going to break the tie?

Lol lol I voted for Smith to make it a three way tie.....

 

[kyear2]

Lol lol I voted for Smith to make it a three way tie.....

Possibly deservingly so.

 

[Slifer]

Possibly deservingly so.

Yeah because inspite of what others might think, Smith is in that group for 2nd best after the Don. He's had great series home and away vs great attacks, has an excellent record home and away etc. As for consistency, like Sachin he too averages 40+ vs all comers home and away (not counting 2 measly tests in Bangladesh). Obviously, his career isn't over yet, but if he hung it up right now he's definitely in that conversation.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

England, NZ, Aus, Ind, Sa have all had very good bowlinf attacks at different times in Smith’s career.

WI, SL, Pak, Bang at home can be really tough batting challenges as well.

 

[Slifer]

England, NZ, Aus, Ind, Sa have all had very good bowlinf attacks at different times in Smith’s career.

WI, SL, Pak, Bang at home can be really tough batting challenges as well.

Agreed.

 

[subshakerz]

England, NZ, Aus, Ind, Sa have all had very good bowlinf attacks at different times in Smith’s career.

WI, SL, Pak, Bang at home can be really tough batting challenges as well.

Smith is elite against spin, talking pace. Compared to other greats, he faced less really top ones.

For him it is basically SA who have that high class pace attack and his record is somewhat mixed against them.

Smith cashed in at home against crap attacks on historically flat wickets which gave his average a significant boost.

 

[Nintendo]

Smith is elite against spin, talking pace. Compared to other greats, he faced less really top ones.

For him it is basically SA who have that high class pace attack and his record is somewhat mixed against them.

Smith cashed in at home against crap attacks on historically flat wickets which gave his average a significant boost.

He also averaged 65+ in SA during a series steyn, morkel etc played in, 2019 ashes, etc. but go off Queen. Did viv face elite pace attacks that often, just as an example? Botham was past it by the time he dominated him, most of his best efforts vs AUS came after Lillie and thommo where past it, and he only had one great series vs hadlee (not saying VIV is bad or anything, btw).

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Attacks with Imran and Hadlee look good on paper but the support bowlers in those attacks were pretty weak. The Indian and Australian attacks since 2018 are better than those attacks.

 

[kyear2]

Attacks with Imran and Hadlee look good on paper but the support bowlers in those attacks were pretty weak. The Indian and Australian attacks since 2018 are better than those attacks.

Umm, not sure I agree with this take, and it cuts both ways.

With Regards to Hadlee, he did a disproportionate amount of overs compared to other greats and Vivian was never one to see off bowlers.
Re Imran, he did have decent to good support throughout his career.

And on the flip side, who has Smith faced as skilled, consistent and brilliant as those two. And to respond to the "Lillee was past it" argument, he and Thompson was quick in '76 and that the the genesis of the legend of Viv.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Umm, not sure I agree with this take, and it cuts both ways.

With Regards to Hadlee, he did a disproportionate amount of overs compared to other greats and Vivian was never one to see off bowlers.
Re Imran, he did have decent to good support throughout his career.

And on the flip side, who has Smith faced as skilled, consistent and brilliant as those two. And to respond to the "Lillee was past it" argument, he and Thompson was quick in '76 and that the the genesis of the legend of Viv.

I don't think you could really argue that India in 2017 and England in 2019 were better bowling units and bigger challenges than whatever New Zealand or Pakistan ever threw at Viv; Hadlee and Imran or not. They were greats, but as with SL with Murali, there's only so much a single player can do; especially Hadlee, Imran had decent support. This is not to criticize Viv, but Smith played better attacks more often. He also faced Steyn I believe.