Barry Richards vs Michael Atherton

[ataraxia]

Yeah @PlayerComparisons this is beyond your remit, gtfo

 

[capt_Luffy]

Eh I don't like a view that means, in a situation where arbitrarily half the polls specify "test" and the other half don't, which is which is actually meant to change people's votes, often to a wild degree. It means that votes are determined as much by terminology as opinion.

In other words, I think that constantly switching one's thinking from the plane of "rating a player on how they would perform in a hypothetical test based on test and FC performance" to "rating a player on test performance" and back is Not Good.

Eh, I don't really buy that. Agree that it's quite pointless and frustrating for no apparent reason; but the point stands. Atherton performed much better in Tests, Barry didn't. That was the question. And really, they aren't that rare also. Think of L&L's best Test batsmen poll. If it was batsmen only, the Barry would had made it. Point being, the terminology is the determinant here. Michael Bevan is a better cricketer than Michael Vaughan; but he isn't a better Test cricketer, far from it actually.

 

[sayon basak]

Guess this poll is close because of different interpretations. It's not close on any side of the spectrum.

 

[Migara]

Barry is untested.
Michael is average.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Atherton had the better test career, but Richards was the better test batsman. Pretty simple.

 

[kyear2]

Atherton had the better test career, but Richards was the better test batsman. Pretty simple.

Correct, really not that complicated.

 

[Prince EWS]

Barry Richards played only 4 tests.

Never knew this.

 

[Coronis]

Never knew this.

You wouldn’t, from some of the posts here.

 

[sayon basak]

Never knew this.

I don't doubt that.

 

[kyear2]

What a laugh

I think someone phrased it perfectly. Atherton may have had a better test career, but B A Richards was clearly the better batsman. If you want to include the ROW and WSC matches (which were definely of test quality), it validates it further.

Everyone almost without exception who saw him best rates him the best opener, they've seen, that included Sunny. Of those who saw him bat, they rate him along with IVA and Sobers. There's no greater compliment.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Then Barry was a more talented Test batsman, not a better one. Don't think it's controversial to say Simon Jones was a more talented bowler than Flintoff, can't see many saying he was the better Test bowler. How to judge a batsman ignoring everything they achieved on the criteria set is a bit baffling to me.

 

[CartyDurham]

Richards

 

[docaberjohn]

Bradman said that Barry was the finest player of quick bowling ever. Mc Gilvray said that Barry was the only player he saw that could be mentioned in the same breath as Bradman.

I saw Barry carve Jeff Thomson all round the park , when hampshire played the Aussies.

He averaged just under 110 in a sheffield shield season, scoring a century against all opponents, and a triple century in a day ( they only played 5 and a half hours a day then rather than 6). The only other batsman with figures close to that is Bradman

My late father , who was born before the first world war, saw bradman and barry, and said that they both had more time to play their shots than anyone he'd seen.

Having seen lara and Tendulkar, I would rate Barry as better than them.
The better the opposition, the better he played

 

[kyear2]

Bradman said that Barry was the finest player of quick bowling ever. Mc Gilvray said that Barry was the only player he saw that could be mentioned in the same breath as Bradman.

I saw Barry carve Jeff Thomson all round the park , when hampshire played the Aussies.

He averaged just under 110 in a sheffield shield season, scoring a century against all opponents, and a triple century in a day ( they only played 5 and a half hours a day then rather than 6). The only other batsman with figures close to that is Bradman

My late father , who was born before the first world war, saw bradman and barry, and said that they both had more time to play their shots than anyone he'd seen.

Having seen lara and Tendulkar, I would rate Barry as better than them.
The better the opposition, the better he played

How about Barry's name sake, and Steve Smith?

And did you also see Sobers?