Just How Good Was Barry Richards?

[kyear2]

Some of the aforementioned comments.

 

[Migara]

Some of the aforementioned comments.

View attachment 42658View attachment 42659View attachment 42660

Argument is good. But, then you have to put them on Indian and Pakistani soil with spinners bowling at them. And many many many south africans have just capitulated against spin.

 

[kyear2]

And



Of course some hyperbole, but how many batsmen can take claim to being called the best since Bradman.

Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Smith, possibly Hutton and yes the second Richards, he was of that quality.

 

[Northerner]

Barry Richards was a great first class cricketer and i have no doubt he would have been a great test player too, the same applies to Graeme Pollock.

 

[Prince EWS]

Barry Richards was a great first class cricketer and i have no doubt he would have been a great test player too, the same applies to Graeme Pollock.

Mark Waugh too.

 

[Qlder]

Of course some hyperbole, but how many batsmen can take claim to being called the best since Bradman.

Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Smith, possibly Hutton and yes the second Richards, he was of that quality.

Graeme Hick was also called the best bat since Bradman before having to play 7-8 years of county cricket that killed his game for Test cricket...

 

[subshakerz]

Barry Richards deserves to be recognized as a great of the game. But not an ATG.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

Barry Richards deserves to be recognized as a great of the game. But not an ATG.

He's an ATG, just not an ATG Test bat. His legend and reputation ensures a place for him in the pantheon. Assuming both he and Tendulkar were holding forth on the art of batting, would you give Richards any less credence than Sachin?

 

[subshakerz]

He's an ATG, just not an ATG Test bat. His legend and reputation ensures a place for him in the pantheon. Assuming both he and Tendulkar were holding forth on the art of batting, would you give Richards any less credence than Sachin?

I would. Because he's unproven in the highest form of the game.

 

[kyear2]

Barry Richards deserves to be recognized as a great of the game. But not an ATG.

That's the thing. You change your criteria based on who it is.

You've said that once a batsman van lay claim to the best in the world, they are automatically in the upper tier.

Barry played 9 tests (5 were only retracted after) and 4 WSC matches. All of his non tests were against higher quality of bowling than Pollock's and possibly even Headley's tests. Twenty two is good enough, but fourteen isn't?

O'Reilly is ranked even higher, 27 tests, 19 vs England.

Anyways.

Greatest batsmen in the history of the test game. (Will hope to get this one right)

Hobbs - Hammond - Bradman - Hutton - Sobers - Richards - Richards - Tendulkar / Lara - Smith

Bowlers

Barnes - O'Reilly - Lindwall - Lillee - Marshall - Ambrose - Akram - McGrath - Steyn - Bumrah

Coincidentally, both lists have 10 names.

Think Hammond had the shortest reign (if at all) someone can correct me if wrong.

 

[peterhrt]

Barry played 9 tests (5 were only retracted after) and 4 WSC matches. All of his non tests were against higher quality of bowling than Pollock's and possibly even Headley's tests. Twenty two is good enough, but fourteen isn't?

For a long time there was no one set of Test or first-class stats. Different publications did their own thing. Wisden defied the ICC and carried on counting the E v RoW 1970 games. Here is an excerpt from a match report from the 1954-55 series in Australia. The series had been decided in England's favour before the fifth and final Test at Sydney. England batted first.

Compton's last 62 runs came in 80 minutes, after which interest centred on whether Lindwall could get his 100th wicket. After he had dismissed Evans, Bailey gave him his wicket, and Hutton then declared. Lindwall thus became the only fast bowler to achieve this distinction.

Bailey had deliberately left a straight ball and allowed himself to be bowled. It was Lindwall's hundredth wicket against England. The fact that he had taken another 72 wickets against four other countries seems not have been of consequence. Many statisticians still only counted England v Australia matches in their records. They would not have credited Headley with any Tests.

When Hutton established a new highest Test innings at The Oval in 1938 he believed he had beaten Bradman's record of 334, not Hammond's 336* against New Zealand. And when Bradman walked out to bat for the last time on the same ground ten years later, he had no idea he needed four runs to average 100. If he had known, he said, he reckoned he would have got them.

Bradman retired with an average of 89 in Ashes Tests. At the time the next highest averages were Paynter 84, Morris 79, Barnes 70, Sutcliffe 66 and Hutton 61. All bar Sutcliffe had played far fewer innings, but purely on average The Don was not as far ahead as might be assumed now. In any case folk were more likely to have been aware his number of Ashes centuries: 19, with Hobbs (12), Hammond (9) and Sutcliffe (8) following.

Statisticians started taking more interest in matches involving other countries with the 1958 series between West Indies and Pakistan. First Hanif played the longest innings ever recorded in first-class cricket, then Sobers scored 365* to beat Hutton's record. Six years later Trueman's 300th Test wicket was accompanied by much fanfare, with nobody caring that only 78 of them had come against Australia.

 

[Migara]

He's an ATG, just not an ATG Test bat. His legend and reputation ensures a place for him in the pantheon. Assuming both he and Tendulkar were holding forth on the art of batting, would you give Richards any less credence than Sachin?

I would. Richards never proved himself on square turners like Lara, Richards, Sobers or Barrington.