Rahul Dravid vs Barry Richards

[PlayerComparisons]

Two very similar players

 

[kyear2]

With all due respect to the wall, this isn't close.

 

[Coronis]

Dravid. Better test record, better FC record, better county record.

 

[capt_Luffy]

With all due respect to the wall, this isn't close.

Exactly what I am saying, it's not particularly close.

 

[kyear2]

Exactly what I am saying, it's not particularly close.

Barry was seen in the pantheon in the pantheon of the Gods, never seen literally anyone rate Dravid that high.

And for someone watched his career, I don't even see him better than the 2nd tier guys.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barry was seen in the pantheon in the pantheon of the Gods, never seen literally anyone rate Dravid that high.

And for someone watched his career, I don't even see him better than the 2nd tier guys.

Barry was outscored by Glenn Turner in CC. Enough said really.

Dravid=Ponting, you can like it, hate it; don't give a damn, but that's it for me.

 

[kyear2]

Barry was outscored by Glenn Turner in CC. Enough said really.

Dravid=Ponting, you can like it, hate it; don't give a damn, but that's it for me.

Wait, wait.

Ponting > Dravid

You can like it, hate it, don't give a ****, but that's it for me.

See how that works?

 

[h_hurricane]

Barry Richards was a Mark Waugh who didn't get an opportunity to be a Mark Waugh.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wait, wait.

Ponting > Dravid

You can like it, hate it, don't give a ****, but that's it for me.

See how that works?

Perfectly fine. It works perfectly fine for me. We have discussed enough of this and nothing you provided me bulged me towards Ponting. Man, you are a good man, but we differ too much.

 

[kyear2]

Posted this is another thread, but more applicable here.

As I said there, this was a discussion between Baggy and SJS, JBMAC, Richard and others, and this was one of the responses.

At some point SJS also posted a culmination of Barry's tours and matches playing for SA XI's, ROW teams, WSC etc. He more than proved his worth over a career spamming two decades.

As the person who brought up the Richards-Gavaskar comparison, an explanation may be in order. One of the things that we can do when looking at the history of cricket is identify the successive players who were regarded as holding the title of best batsman/best fast bowler/best slow bowler in the world. In the case of batsmen, Hobbs was clearly seen as the world's best in the years immediately before and after World War I. Hammond succeeded him briefly at the end of the 1920's but was superseded by Bradman, who held the title until his retirement in 1948. After that it gets a bit complicated - Hutton, I suppose, could have been seen as the world's best in the late 1940's and early 50's, followed by Walcott, who had two great series in the middle of the decade, then May. Sobers was an easy consensus choice in the 1960's, but his reign ended in 1971. For the next five years at least (until Viv Richards emerged in 1976) most cricketers would have identified Barry Richards as the best batsman in the game. The commentaries written at the time are more or less unanimous on this point.

None of Richards' contemporaries other than Sobers and Viv Richards was ever generally regarded as the world's best batsman. That list includes Pollock, Greg Chappell and, yes, Gavaskar, who is four years his junior. The point is that when they were both active and in their prime most observers considered Richards to be a greater batsman than Gavaskar. For me the difference is not huge, because I would say that Hutton, Richards and Gavaskar are a class above any opening batsman since Hobbs (well, Sutcliffe). My assessment of Richards is based not only on his performance in first class matches, but also on what he did in Packer tours. As those who played in those matches will tell you, the intensity and level of cricket played were higher than in the vast majority of Tests.

As I said in another post or thread, the mantle of the greatest in the world was passed from Hobbs to Hammond, to Bradman to Hutton to Sobers (he includes some other names), to Richards to Richards to Tendulkar / Lara to Smith. This was echoed by books, journalists and players alike.
Some here might not like it, but he was revered by all who saw and played against him and he was definely up there with Sunny and Sachin, not Dravid.

 

[kyear2]

Perfectly fine. It works perfectly fine for me. We have discussed enough of this and nothing you provided me bulged me towards Ponting. Man, you are a good man, but we differ too much.

A large part of it is because of what we value in cricketers. Part of it is generational and a lot of it is possibly geographical.

I rate fast bowlers and aggressive batsmen. Because I also revered fast bowling, I also came to highly regard the men in the cordon that facilitated so much of what they did.

You like your ally don't put as much emphasis on progressive scoring or the ability to change gears, and such our batting ratings are somewhat different.

You disregard slip fielding and among the secondary disciplines much more highly rated lower / tail order batting. Again, what we grew up watching or reading.

I think that looking through the history of the game and the teams that dominated, especially since the 2nd world conflict, that it's clear which skills takes priority, and are more important, on that you also disagree.

With the above in mind it's clear why players like Ponting, coupled with the clear fact that there was a point in his career, where everyone believed he was on track to be in the discussion for the best batsman after Bradman, shows my preference for him. He could turn and dominate a game that was scarily reminiscent of what Richards could, and he more than Waugh or Dravid was seen to be on par with the big two of that vintage.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Anyone heard of George Hirst here!!? Ofcourse most have, you nerds! Was called the Greatest County cricketer by Lord Hawke. And really, for good reasons. A batting average of 35 and bowling of 18, over a period of 800 matches. Was included in several All Time English Teams made during 1977. A hard hitting talented batsman and genuinely fast bowler, he more than proved himself for Yorkshire in a variety of tricky situations over a glorious career. 14 Season doubles, only surpassed by the massive career of Wilfred Rhodes. But what did he do in Tests?? Averaged 22 with the bat and over 30 with the ball. Flopped HARD. Goodnight folks.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Again, Vijay Merchant vs Barry Richards is an interesting comparison.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone heard of George Hirst here!!? Ofcourse most have, you nerds! Was called the Greatest County cricketer by Lord Hawke. And really, for good reasons. A batting average of 35 and bowling of 18, over a period of 800 matches. Was included in several All Time English Teams made during 1977. A hard hitting talented batsman and genuinely fast bowler, he more than proved himself for Yorkshire in a variety of tricky situations over a glorious career. 14 Season doubles, only surpassed by the massive career of Wilfred Rhodes. But what did he do in Tests?? Averaged 22 with the bat and over 30 with the ball. Flopped HARD. Goodnight folks.

ATG tbh

 

[kyear2]

Anyone heard of George Hirst here!!? Ofcourse most have, you nerds! Was called the Greatest County cricketer by Lord Hawke. And really, for good reasons. A batting average of 35 and bowling of 18, over a period of 800 matches. Was included in several All Time English Teams made during 1977. A hard hitting talented batsman and genuinely fast bowler, he more than proved himself for Yorkshire in a variety of tricky situations over a glorious career. 14 Season doubles, only surpassed by the massive career of Wilfred Rhodes. But what did he do in Tests?? Averaged 22 with the bat and over 30 with the ball. Flopped HARD. Goodnight folks.

1. This comp is for who was the better batsman, not specifically test.

2. There's a little bit of arrogance here on your part. The gentleman was a top 25 cricketer as named by Cricinfo, he was also good enough to make the SA all time team as well as the World all time 2nd team. He was seen almost universally as the best batsman in the world between the reigns of Sobers and the other Richards. He mixed technique and aggression like no one since (we're told) pre war Hobbs.

You personally just don't think he deserves it, and nothing is capable of changing that because your mind is made up.

And yes, I'm equally entrenched and he's the prototype of player I believe is preferred. Technically correct, aggressive batsman who can win a game in a session, and is a first date slip fielder. I mean, what more can one ask.

 

[kyear2]

EW Swanton writing in 1962: As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.

This was the general view of cricket historians up to that time, who tended to agree on most things. Some also placed Trumper in the same high bracket as a batsman, claiming he was the best of all on a bad wicket. When Sobers matured, he was added to the pantheon as a cricketer, but not necessarily purely as a batsman.

Since then Bradman and Sobers have pulled away from the others in perception as cricketers, with the Australian out in front as a batsman. This was confirmed in the Wisden Top 100 exercise at the turn of the century.

In terms of contemporary reputation and perceived mastery (not simply Test numbers) during the past fifty years or so, perhaps the leading batsmen have been Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar. Viv and Tendulkar maybe slightly ahead. I think they were better batsmen than Sobers who could take time to settle and didn't always move his feet early on. Once in he exercised the same command. A personal view is that the two Richards were most able to make the best bowling look rubbish.

 

[Coronis]

1. This comp is for who was the better batsman, not specifically test.

2. There's a little bit of arrogance here on your part. The gentleman was a top 25 cricketer as named by Cricinfo, he was also good enough to make the SA all time team as well as the World all time 2nd team. He was seen almost universally as the best batsman in the world between the reigns of Sobers and the other Richards. He mixed technique and aggression like no one since (we're told) pre war Hobbs.

You personally just don't think he deserves it, and nothing is capable of changing that because your mind is made up.

And yes, I'm equally entrenched and he's the prototype of player I believe is preferred. Technically correct, aggressive batsman who can win a game in a session, and is a first date slip fielder. I mean, what more can one ask.

Sobers was still complete quality up until his test career ended, averaging 52 in tests in the 70’s. Richards as we all know had that marvellous 1976. So what was he the best batsman in the world for one glorious English summer? Ahead of Chappell and Gavaskar who were already into the full swing of their test careers? His 1975 summer was nothing exceptional tbh.

18 matches 1456 @ 56 3 tons

you could argue Lloyd had a better year. and Kanhai and Boycott most certainly did.

Lloyd 17 matches 1390 @ 63.18 6 tons
Boycott 18 matches 1891 @ 72.73 6 tons
Kanhai 12 matches 1053 @ 87.75 3 tons

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you've actually watched Barry Richards bat, I'll respect your opinion on him and if you want to rank him higher than gavaskar or dravid, you've every right to.

The others who are doing it through anecdotes and just fc stats can gtfo though. You don't have enough personal experience with his batting to justify those claims. It's a fantasy you've built in your head. I'll happily mock how dumb you are for it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

1. This comp is for who was the better batsman, not specifically test.

2. There's a little bit of arrogance here on your part. The gentleman was a top 25 cricketer as named by Cricinfo, he was also good enough to make the SA all time team as well as the World all time 2nd team. He was seen almost universally as the best batsman in the world between the reigns of Sobers and the other Richards. He mixed technique and aggression like no one since (we're told) pre war Hobbs.

You personally just don't think he deserves it, and nothing is capable of changing that because your mind is made up.

And yes, I'm equally entrenched and he's the prototype of player I believe is preferred. Technically correct, aggressive batsman who can win a game in a session, and is a first date slip fielder. I mean, what more can one ask.

Test is the Highest level of cricket. If someone fails there or doesn't even have a proper record, ofcourse there will be more scrutiny.

I think OS concluded perfectly.

 

[Coronis]

Another very large note; Dravid has a better record in the Plunket Shield.