Just How Good Was Barry Richards?

[sledger]

Mark Waugh too.

And Michael Carberry.

And Vikram Solanki.

 

[Prince EWS]

And Michael Carberry.

And Vikram Solanki.

Vusi Sibanda.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't get the point that you're trying to make.

That even in the sample of WSC tests and ROW tests you provided, his performance was probably still slightly overblown by some people here (literally in the post I was quoting)

I'd heard his WSC runs being described as coming against the highest level of competition and it turns out it's just a normal good test level attack rather than some formidable collection of ATG quicks he was facing. And the ROW tests he didn't even do that well.

 

[peterhrt]

Would have been great to see barry richards and grame Pollock face chandra bedi and prasanna in mumbai and Kolkata imran and safraz in lahore and karachi. Unfrounately it was crickets loss

Barry Richards faced Bedi in the County Championship and said he was the most challenging bowler of any type he played against, whether the ball was turning or not. Bedi dismissed him three times in first-class cricket. He never faced Chandra or Prasanna. Graeme Pollock once scored a double hundred against a Kent side including Underwood.

 

[Migara]

This indirectly ties into one of my observations while taking a deep dive into Barry.

1. While the quartet presented their unique challenges, and while not minnows, as is oft portrayed when discussing one of the names above. The SC wasn't the ultimate challenge of batsmen during that era, and spin is never quite the measuring stick for opening batsmen. The real challenges at the time would have been England, Australia and South Africa, conditions and bowlers. But he did face his fair share of Underwood and I would presume, on a sticky or two.

2. Forget Pollock for a second, the second best player on those teams was probably Procter. The challenge with rating him that highly though was his lack of exposure to the SC conditions, and he played his trade in the most helpful conditions of the era. But yeah, he was elite and box office. He also has more competition as a bowling all rounder from Imran and Hadlee and the like, but he was up there.

Yet, if some one failed against spin, then he is not ATG. It is simple as that.

 

[trundler]

Neither Richards nor Procter had unparalleled FC success to justify putting them ahead of other top players they played with let alone calling them the greatest of their disciplines. Boycott had a better FC record in the same era, for a much longer period in fact. Hadlee outperformed Procter in CC and Imran did just as well. At best, those guys could've had careers as good as their peers who did play tests but they also could've had test careers resembling M Waugh or George Hirst. Procter being the magical perfectly balanced all rounder in tests when he didn't outperform "standard" ATG bowling ARs in FC is a far-fetched claim as is Barry Richards being the perfect super duper attacking opener for similar reasons.

 

[Coronis]

Neither Richards nor Procter had unparalleled FC success to justify putting them ahead of other top players they played with let alone calling them and greatest of their disciplines. Boycott had a better FC record in the same era, for a much longer period in fact. Hadlee outperformed Procter in CC and Imran did just as well. At best, those guys could've had careers as good as their peers who did play tests but they also could've had test careers resembling M Waugh or George Hirst. Procter being the magical perfectly balanced all rounder in tests when he didn't outperform "standard" ATG bowling ARs in FC is a far-fetched claim as is Barry Richards being the perfect super duper attacking opener for similar reasons.

Hell Glenn Turner outperformed him in CC too.

But yeah there’s just too many what if’s to properly rate them. Clearly, both were very talented players and its unfortunate they weren’t able to ply their trade at the highest level due to circumstances beyond their control. You can rate them as FC cricketers based on their accomplishments and against other player’s FC records but including them in a test discussion is nonsensical.

 

[peterhrt]

It would be good if someone could produce a set of records for all matches against top-class opposition, irrespective of current status. Raw Test stats have never been fit for purpose when assessing players. The ICC has always been a political organisation, with cricketing reality not always being reflected.

In 1934 Ceylonese Derrick de Saram scored a century for Oxford University against the Australian tourists. He was picked by England to tour West Indies, but declined the invitation because he preferred to represent Ceylon. A couple of years earlier Ceylon had played India in two internationals and drawn both matches. Due to the war an application to join the ICC was postponed until 1946, when it was rejected. Ceylon had just drawn another game against India who fielded ten players shortly to appear in official Tests against England, Australia and West Indies. At the close Ceylon were leading by 153 with three wickets in hand. Sathasivam gave his wicket away off the last ball of the match having made 111.

ICC's rejection of Ceylon had little to do with cricket and all to do with votes. Founding members England, Australia and South Africa already had two votes each, the other three members one. When Pakistan applied to join, they and India were urged to combine as one team. One fewer vote. There was no cricketing logic to counting performances against India by English, Australian and West Indian players, but not by Ceylon's. Especially as many statisticians did not count any of them anyway.

In 1965 Ceylon beat India by four wickets in Ahmedabad. Sri Lanka have never won an official Test in India. Again there seems little logic in only counting Ceylonese/Sri Lankan international performances from 1982 when the ICC finally got its act together.

 

[Coronis]

It would be good if someone could produce a set of records for all matches against top-class opposition, irrespective of current status. Raw Test stats have never been fit for purpose when assessing players. The ICC has always been a political organisation, with cricketing reality not always being reflected.

In 1934 Ceylonese Derrick de Saram scored a century for Oxford University against the Australian tourists. He was picked by England to tour West Indies, but declined the invitation because he preferred to represent Ceylon. A couple of years earlier Ceylon had played India in two internationals and drawn both matches. Due to the war an application to join the ICC was postponed until 1946, when it was rejected. Ceylon had just drawn another game against India who fielded ten players shortly to appear in official Tests against England, Australia and West Indies. At the close Ceylon were leading by 153 with three wickets in hand. Sathasivam gave his wicket away off the last ball of the match having made 111.

ICC's rejection of Ceylon had little to do with cricket and all to do with votes. Founding members England, Australia and South Africa already had two votes each, the other three members one. When Pakistan applied to join, they and India were urged to combine as one team. One fewer vote. There was no cricketing logic to counting performances against India by English, Australian and West Indian players, but not by Ceylon's. Especially as many statisticians did not count any of them anyway.

In 1965 Ceylon beat India by four wickets in Ahmedabad. Sri Lanka have never won an official Test in India. Again there seems little logic in only counting Ceylonese/Sri Lankan international performances from 1982 when the ICC finally got its act together.

Its also even difficult to assess across different FC records. A lot of FC competitions have had different rules in different countries, pre 1988 County Cricket was only 3 day matches, Sheffield Shield was timeless until 1926-27 and 4 day matches afterwards.

A 3 day county match is a completely different game to a 5 day test I feel.

 

[kyear2]

That even in the sample of WSC tests and ROW tests you provided, his performance was probably still slightly overblown by some people here (literally in the post I was quoting)

I'd heard his WSC runs being described as coming against the highest level of competition and it turns out it's just a normal good test level attack rather than some formidable collection of ATG quicks he was facing. And the ROW tests he didn't even do that well.

WSC was, as I've stated was Test standard. What I have consistently said was that it was a higher standard than the tests that were concurrently being conducted.

His ROW tour to England was actually better than some other openers of the era for their first tour, and he had some decent performances, especially before the back injury.

The 14 matches is what makes him eligible for these discussions, it's not the sole base for judgement. Just like O'Reilly's isn't.

In an era where Sobers was winding down, but Chappell and Gavaskar were also starting their careers, It was Barry who was widely acknowledged as the best batsman in the world.

I don't think that level of quality can be ignored. The 14 test and test quality matches where he averaged over 60, is just part of what was his legacy.

 

[kyear2]

Yet, if some one failed against spin, then he is not ATG. It is simple as that.

What? Really?

 

[peterhrt]

Its also even difficult to assess across different FC records. A lot of FC competitions have had different rules in different countries, pre 1988 County Cricket was only 3 day matches, Sheffield Shield was timeless until 1926-27 and 4 day matches afterwards.

A 3 day county match is a completely different game to a 5 day test I feel.

Yes, it's one of the reasons why Boycott and Turner look better on paper now in County Cricket than they were perceived at the time. As always Boycott divided opinion. Supporters said he carried a weak Yorkshire which alone had rejected overseas players. Critics claimed his slow batting, and refusal ever to sacrifice his wicket, or contemplate declaring before he had reached three figures, cost his team any chance of bowling out the opposition twice. Barry Richards was criticised for the opposite - not valuing his wicket highly enough. Kanhai and Zaheer got the balance about right.

 

[ankitj]

WSC was, as I've stated was Test standard. What I have consistently said was that it was a higher standard than the tests that were concurrently being conducted.

Did he ever face an attack comparable to West Indian attacks that Gavaskar faced and scored at least a couple of memorable knocks? I see you scrutinize Gavaskar's record against greatest pace attack ever assembled down to the grounds he played in. If you did the same to Barry Richards, how would he fare?

 

[kyear2]

Did he ever face an attack comparable to West Indian attacks that Gavaskar faced and scored at least a couple of memorable knocks? I see you scrutinize Gavaskar's record against greatest pace attack ever assembled down to the grounds he played in. If you did the same to Barry Richards, how would be fare?

Yes Sunny had some great knocks, and I want to make clear that I think he's a top 10 batsman of all time and a certified ATG, even if not in the best after Bradman conversation. But he was also kinda hit and miss and he generally struggled on faster decks and especially against Lillee. The surfaces he generally scored on (against us especially) were ones similar to the ones he had at home.

Barry has a stellar record against D.K and most of the top bowlers of his era, and this was generally in Australia, South Africa or England, all surfaces that pacers would have found some assistance.

The skill of the man is also what he was capable of, hundreds before lunch, once against prime Lillee and barely missing out on one in tests.

With regards to if he faced anything similar to what Sunny faced in the Caribbean? No. Even though it included an aging Roberts, it was still possibly the greatest attack ever. But he faced attacks and bowlers magnitudes better than the Luke's of Bradman, Hutton and even more modern contemporaries, especially from the 2000's.

Barry did face some good attacks, and again it was his dominance. Think ORS or Coronis said that he wasn't as dominant domestically, but @peterhrt also showed a table highlighting how he did when facing the best bowlers of the era, that's when he elevated his game. In various innings he took Lillee apart, how many test batsmen are capable of doing that? I would hazard a guess of two.

At the end of the day, this was the guy who was regarded as the best bat in the world for at least half a decade, and the likes of Bradman, Lillee and Dickie bird called the best opener they'd seen, and in Lillee's case, bowled to.

 

[kyear2]

I referenced these two posts a little earlier.

Ten of the best bowlers of this time were: Lillee, Thomson, Roberts, Holding, Snow, Underwood, Bedi, Chandra, Procter, van der Bijl. Two each from Australia, West Indies, England, India and South Africa. Hadlee and Imran were still developing.

Batting figures below taken from innings when one or more of these ten was bowling for the opposition. Non-Test first-class matches plus WSC Supertests. Bowler who dismissed each batsman most often in brackets.

Barry Richards 6613 runs @ 57.50. 18 hundreds. (Snow)
Boycott 3921 @ 55.22. 14 hundreds. (Procter)
Zaheer 3198 @ 54.20. 12 hundreds. (Lillee)
Greg Chappell 4656 @ 52.90. 14 hundreds. (Lillee)
Turner 3811 @ 47.04. 11 hundreds. (Procter)
Pollock 3614 @ 46.33. 8 hundreds. (van der Bijl)
Gavaskar 2315 @ 42.09. 5 hundreds. (Chandrasekhar)

Highest scores in the matches featured in the earlier post:

Barry Richards 356 v Lillee
Boycott 261* v Roberts and Holding
Greg Chappell 246* v Roberts
Zaheer 230* (and 104* in same match) v Underwood
Turner 228* v Procter
Gavaskar 228 v Chandrasekhar
Barry Richards 224 v Snow
Barry Richards 219 v Procter
Barry Richards 207 v Lillee
Zaheer 205* (and 108* in same match) v Underwood
Pollock 203* v Underwood

That's quite the list of performances.

 

[Qlder]

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?

If you think Richards actually played 9 Tests with the 5 from ROW series being real tests before change of status,, then that would make his record:

9 Tests, 15 Inn, 1 no, 765 runs @ 54.64, HS 140, 2 100's, 3 50's

Not bad for a 9 test opener, but hardly earth shattering?

 

[Coronis]

If you think Richards actually played 9 Tests with the 5 from ROW series being real tests before change of status,, then that would make his record:

9 Tests, 15 Inn, 1 no, 765 runs @ 54.64, HS 140, 2 100's, 3 50's

Not bad for a 9 test opener, but hardly earth shattering?

Kamindu Mendis > Barry Richards

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think that level of quality can be ignored. The 14 test and test quality matches where he averaged over 60, is just part of what was his legacy.

Wait how come you are willing to include those WSC tests for Richards record and not Imran when I pointed it out to you?

 

[kyear2]

If you think Richards actually played 9 Tests with the 5 from ROW series being real tests before change of status,, then that would make his record:

9 Tests, 15 Inn, 1 no, 765 runs @ 54.64, HS 140, 2 100's, 3 50's

Not bad for a 9 test opener, but hardly earth shattering?

During that era, and for an opener? And you factor in his acting rate?

And then you add WSC?

I'll just say that there must be a reason why everyone rates him the best.

 

[kyear2]

Wait how come you are willing to include those WSC tests for Richards record and not Imran when I pointed it out to you?

Jesus Christ, not every thing is about Imran.

And I go out of my way to avoid him and the drama he brings.

For what can only be the 450th time, I rate him exactly the same the forum does. Exactly.... Behind only 5 pacers and the two GOAT spinners.