Does Barry Richards deserve an exemption to be ranked among the greats of the game?

[kyear2]

He's not an ATG Test cricketer, because he didn't play enough Tests.

He's still an FC great though, obviously. I don't understand why the hell this concept is so hard to understand.

Don't think that proviso / stipulation is necessary though. First class cricket actually meant something at that time and he proved himself against almost everyone.

 

[Coronis]

Don't think that proviso / stipulation is necessary though. First class cricket actually meant something at that time and he proved himself against almost everyone.

Who’s to say Barry wouldn’t have turned out more like Glenn Turner?

For their respective county sides:

Richards 204 matches 342 innings 15607 @ 50.50 38 tons 91 fifties Hampshire (68-78)
Turner 284 matches 493 innings 22298 @ 52.09 72 tons 93 fifties Worcestershire (67-82)

 

[Qlder]

Wasn't Graeme Hick the next Bradman after county cricket efforts, and then failed at Test level. Not saying Barry Richards would have failed if he played 100 Tests but how do we know he wouldn't of averaged in the 40's?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Don't think that proviso / stipulation is necessary though. First class cricket actually meant something at that time and he proved himself against almost everyone.

And? That’s why he’s not a test great - he didn’t do it in tests. It’s not his fault but we can’t just claim a guy to be a test great if he doesn’t actually play any tests.

 

[Bolo.]

And? That’s why he’s not a test great - he didn’t do it in tests. It’s not his fault but we can’t just claim a guy to be a test great if he doesn’t actually play any tests.

Nobody seems to be arguing for rating him a test great though. The question is whether you can be a great without a proper test record to support it.

 

[Qlder]

Nobody seems to be arguing for rating him a test great though. The question is whether you can be a great without a proper test record to support it.

Barry Richards was not a Test great because he didn't play enough Tests. Pretty simple really. Keith Miller averaged 48 in FC cricket but that is never taken into consideration for being a great test allrounder and people only think he was as good a batsman as Imran (ridiculous)

 

[ataraxia]

Barry Richards was not a Test great because he didn't play enough Tests. Pretty simple really. Keith Miller averaged 48 in FC cricket but that is never taken into consideration for being a great test allrounder and people only think he was as good a batsman as Imran (ridiculous)

You can't support your argument by raising a point in favour of it which you disagree with lol

 

[SeamUp]

You're telling me you don't think 80 centuries at 54 and 61 centuries at 50 are similar records?

The average gap especially is basically the difference between Sobers and Sachin/Lara/pick your poison

I'm not saying we can't say Richards is better, but one is considered by many to be one of the top 5 openers ever and nailed on for South Africa's ATG XI opening spot, one makes SA's D/E XI

And I'm just saying that is interesting


Edit - I should point out plenty of people wouldn't have Richards in the SA ATG XI opening batsman spot due to the lack of tests, but he did get enough votes to come 6th in my greatest openers ever countdown(only behind the big 4 and Boycott), a list Jimmy Cook didn't get enough votes to even make (and it was a top 40 iirc)

I think that goes with the fact test cricket saw Barry at his peak or about to get to it and remembered his great feats whereas the world didn't get to see Jimmy Cook at his peak and doesn't have test match 100s behind his name. Then I guess it goes down to the contemporaries like I mentioned before. There was enough important and knowledgeable people in the game that have said how good Barry Richards was. Freakishly good and not just good.

I think there is that big grey area. A lot is said of how great Barlow, Richards, G. Pollock, Lindsay, Procter, P Pollock & even vd Bijl/Le Roux were and rightly so but for me guys like Lee Irvine, Jimmy Cook, Peter Kirsten, Ken McEwan, Clive Rice etc don't get enough accolades.

 

[peterhrt]

I think that goes with the fact test cricket saw Barry at his peak or about to get to it and remembered his great feats whereas the world didn't get to see Jimmy Cook at his peak and doesn't have test match 100s behind his name. Then I guess it goes down to the contemporaries like I mentioned before. There was enough important and knowledgeable people in the game that have said how good Barry Richards was. Freakishly good and not just good.

I think there is that big grey area. A lot is said of how great Barlow, Richards, G. Pollock, Lindsay, Procter, P Pollock & even vd Bijl/Le Roux were and rightly so but for me guys like Lee Irvine, Jimmy Cook, Peter Kirsten, Ken McEwan, Clive Rice etc don't get enough accolades.

Richards outperformed Cook comfortably in South Africa, where conditions generally favoured bowlers, averaging 58 in first-class matches to Cook's 43. Peter Kirsten averaged 42.

Three seasons with Somerset boosted Cook's numbers. His average of 72 in England is second only to Bradman. These three years saw high scoring in England generally. Gooch averaged 70, Gatting 61, Hick 57 and Haynes 54.

Rice was also rated higher in England than in his native country. During the early 1980s Wisden said he was the world's leading all-rounder, ahead of all his four famous contemporaries.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the best player to think about in this context is Mark Waugh.

He looked a million bucks.

He had an awesome start to his Test career.

He absolutely dominated domestic FC cricket.

If he got "Barry'd" and had his career cut very short but continued to plunder runs in the County Championship, people would no doubt say "Oh he would have averaged mid 50s long term, trust me, I watched him."

They'd have been wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong about Barry Richards, but it does mean there's a doubt over the combination of domestic cricket + early test success + eye Test. Mark Waugh is basically just his basement. But it's a basement I can't ignore.

 

[Starfighter]

I think the best player to think about in this context is Mark Waugh.

He looked a million bucks.

He had an awesome start to his Test career.

He absolutely dominated domestic FC cricket.

If he got "Barry'd" and had his career cut very short but continued to plunder runs in the County Championship, people would no doubt say "Oh he would have averaged mid 50s long term, trust me, I watched him."

They'd have been wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong about Barry Richards, but it does mean there's a doubt over the combination of domestic cricket + early test success + eye Test. Mark Waugh is basically just his basement. But it's a basement I can't ignore.

I think people would raise the argument that County Cricket was not quite as strong when Waugh was scoring his runs - not sure how you'd objectively judge that though.

I agree there's doubt, and I'm on record as being no fan of the eye test. Do I think Richards could've done very well and been an ATG test player? Yep, good chance, very good even. But I've people seen people on here suggest his 70 test average is representative of his batting - which was scored against an attack who's leading bowler was so ill he could barely get out of bed and had one decent bowler and the others not more than honest triers. I think the unknowns are a bit more than some want to admit.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think people would raise the argument that County Cricket was not quite as strong when Waugh was scoring his runs - not sure how you'd objectively judge that though.

I agree there's doubt, and I'm on record as being no fan of the eye test. Do I think Richards could've done very well and been an ATG test player? Yep, good chance, very good even. But I've people seen people on here suggest his 70 test average is representative of his batting - which was scored against an attack who's leading bowler was so ill he could barely get out of bed and had one decent bowler and the others not more than honest triers. I think the unknowns are a bit more than some want to admit.

I think his runs in WSC carries much more weightage than anything he had done in Test cricket.

 

[SeamUp]

I think his runs in WSC carries much more weightage than anything he had done in Test cricket.

It may have done but ask Ian Chappell about that partnership between Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in Durban vs Australia. Stuff of legend.

 

[SeamUp]

Richards outperformed Cook comfortably in South Africa, where conditions generally favoured bowlers, averaging 58 in first-class matches to Cook's 43. Peter Kirsten averaged 42.

Three seasons with Somerset boosted Cook's numbers. His average of 72 in England is second only to Bradman. These three years saw high scoring in England generally. Gooch averaged 70, Gatting 61, Hick 57 and Haynes 54.

Rice was also rated higher in England than in his native country. During the early 1980s Wisden said he was the world's leading all-rounder, ahead of all his four famous contemporaries.

Btw, I wasn't comparing Barry Richards' benchmark to those players. Because we didn't play international cricket in the 70s and 80s those players maybe didn't get into world view.

Re: Rice I think his legendary status is well known in SA, he captained the Mean Machine and SA Rebel teams. But when we talk the great all-arounders of the 80s... I think he could easily be in there for example.

 

[StephenZA]

I think there is that big grey area. A lot is said of how great Barlow, Richards, G. Pollock, Lindsay, Procter, P Pollock & even vd Bijl/Le Roux were and rightly so but for me guys like Lee Irvine, Jimmy Cook, Peter Kirsten, Ken McEwan, Clive Rice etc don't get enough accolades.

The difference between the first and second group is isolation and politics. The first group had reputations, on an internationally level and were playing Tests when the country was banned. Ending there careers. Adding to the aura. The second group was never seen internationally, not really. They either didn't ever play or if they did play where never seen in their prime.

But from all the footage, all the accolades and all the things we do know. G. Pollock and Richards were considered once in a generation, if not multi-generation talents. The same could be said for Procter and Rice as allrounders. Nobody knows for sure if they would have used that talent, but considering their success everywhere they could play, likely they would have. The rest were potentially great players, but never that unique generational talent player that stands above everyone else. Kirsten and Cook would likely have been a great Test batsmen, similar for vd Bijl and P. Pollock as bowlers. But nobody thinks that they would have been definitely greater than the ABdV, Smith or Kallis. But G. Pollock and Richards, they likely would have been, they would have been contending with the best ever.

 

[trundler]

The difference between the first and second group is isolation and politics. The first group had reputations, on an internationally level and were playing Tests when the country was banned. Ending there careers. Adding to the aura. The second group was never seen internationally, not really. They either didn't ever play or if they did play where never seen in their prime.

But from all the footage, all the accolades and all the things we do know. G. Pollock and Richards were considered once in a generation, if not multi-generation talents. The same could be said for Procter and Rice as allrounders. Nobody knows for sure if they would have used that talent, but considering their success everywhere they could play, likely they would have. The rest were potentially great players, but never that unique generational talent player that stands above everyone else. Kirsten and Cook would likely have been a great Test batsmen, similar for vd Bijl and P. Pollock as bowlers. But nobody thinks that they would have been definitely greater than the ABdV, Smith or Kallis. But G. Pollock and Richards, they likely would have been, they would have been contending with the best ever.

Van Der Bijl's FC record is probably the best of the lot and I've heard him being rated as a McGrath/Ambrose level talent.

 

[StephenZA]

Van Der Bijl's FC record is probably the best of the lot and I've heard him being rated as a McGrath/Ambrose level talent.

I think he had the potential to be great, but whether he would have reached McGrath/Ambrose levels debatable at best... he was a favourite in SA and Natal. Only played one or two seasons of county. And he didn't have the aura right from the beginning of his career. He never became a truly professional cricketer, I don't think.

Edit: I think when they compare to McGrath or Ambrose, they comparing style rather than he would have achieved the same heights.

 

[SeamUp]

I think he had the potential to be great, but whether he would have reached McGrath/Ambrose levels debatable at best... he was a favourite in SA and Natal. Only played one or two seasons of county. And he didn't have the aura right from the beginning of his career. He never became a truly professional cricketer, I don't think.

Edit: I think when they compare to McGrath or Ambrose, they comparing style rather than he would have achieved the same heights.

Like a lot of cricketers then, they had to think about their careers outside cricket. Think he was one of them along with Irvine and even P Pollock that seemed to retire a tad early when you consider a lot of the guys we spoke about above retired late 30s and into their 40s. Rice was 45 at Natal I think.

Vince was actually chosen for the cancelled 1971/72 tour of Australia like Clive Rice

How good would they have become? The great question.

Barry Richards
Eddie Barlow (withdrew and replaced by Short but if things were normal I'm sure he wouldn't have had to worry about work)
Ali Bacher
Graeme Pollock
Lee Irvine
Dassie Biggs
Dennis Lindsay
Mike Procter
Peter Pollock
Pat Trimborn
Grahame Chevalier

(The newbees on the block along with Biggs who came in for Tiger Lance)
Arthur Short
Hylton Ackerman (World XI squad when the tour was cancelled)
Clive Rice
Peter de Vaal
Vince van der Bijl

It's something I'm trying to put together now in the SA Domestic History thread and using rebel series on order of potential new caps. There was more limelight on the 80s games but in the 70s lots of guys who didn't play in the 80s would have got caps like those above in reserve, Andre Bruyns, would they have gone to Lee Irvine to keep or Gavin Pfuhl/Tich Smith, Lorrie Wilmot, Donald Mackay-Coghill, Douglas Neilson, Pelham Henwood which Rhodesians (Duncan Fletcher, Brian Davison, Richie Kaschula, Paddy Clift etc)

 

[Coronis]

Like a lot of cricketers then, they had to think about their careers outside cricket. Think he was one of them along with Irvine and even P Pollock that seemed to retire a tad early when you consider a lot of the guys we spoke about above retired late 30s and into their 40s. Rice was 45 at Natal I think.

Vince was actually chosen for the cancelled 1971/72 tour of Australia like Clive Rice

How good would they have become? The great question.

Barry Richards
Eddie Barlow (withdrew and replaced by Short but if things were normal I'm sure he wouldn't have had to worry about work)
Ali Bacher
Graeme Pollock
Lee Irvine
Dassie Biggs
Dennis Lindsay
Mike Procter
Peter Pollock
Pat Trimborn
Grahame Chevalier

(The newbees on the block along with Biggs who came in for Tiger Lance)
Arthur Short
Hylton Ackerman (World XI squad when the tour was cancelled)
Clive Rice
Peter de Vaal
Vince van der Bijl

It's something I'm trying to put together now in the SA Domestic History thread and using rebel series on order of potential new caps. There was more limelight on the 80s games but in the 70s lots of guys who didn't play in the 80s would have got caps like those above in reserve, Andre Bruyns, would they have gone to Lee Irvine to keep or Gavin Pfuhl/Tich Smith, Lorrie Wilmot, Donald Mackay-Coghill, Douglas Neilson, Pelham Henwood which Rhodesians (Duncan Fletcher, Brian Davison, Richie Kaschula, Paddy Clift etc)

iirc Graeme Pollock quoted this as one of the reasons he didn’t go to county cricket - had a good job outside cricket and his family in SA.

I think he had the potential to be great, but whether he would have reached McGrath/Ambrose levels debatable at best... he was a favourite in SA and Natal. Only played one or two seasons of county. And he didn't have the aura right from the beginning of his career. He never became a truly professional cricketer, I don't think.

No he was originally a teacher.

Shortly after retiring, he was going into business and was offered a chance to play for Middlesex in 1980. His new employers gave him 6 months leave (massive shout out for that). He took 85 wickets @ 14.72 in 20 matches. Middlesex won both the County Championship and Gillete Cup that year.

 

[peterhrt]

After his successful stint with Middlesex, several English writers said there was little to choose between van der Bijl and Joel Garner.