-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Barry Richards vs Geoffrey Boycott
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Johan
State Captain
think Hutton should be post-war regardless as he played 83% of his test career post-war
sayon basak
International Regular
I have a feeling that Barry wasn't intentionally run out by his fellow teammate.
sayon basak
International Regular
BazBall21
International Captain
His output is great so it isn't some propaganda plot. His only problem was having a rigid scoring tempo.
Johan
State Captain
I've a feeling Barry wasn't convicted for domestic violence and didn't make bluntly racist comments.
DrWolverine
State 12th Man
Botham
sayon basak
International Regular
Really?
Regarding popularity, Richards wasn't particularly well-liked within the game, sometimes coming over as mercenary and arrogant. He wasn't slow to complain about a lack of challenge, yet still expected to be paid handsomely. Being told how good he was by the media didn't help.
During the 1960s South Africa on average played fewer than three Tests per year. With WSC coming in 1977, it is debatable how many matches Richards actually missed out on.
During the 1960s South Africa on average played fewer than three Tests per year. With WSC coming in 1977, it is debatable how many matches Richards actually missed out on.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
It’s mainly Boycotts batting style that hurts him imo. Barry was an aggressive batsman like Viv.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
Geoffrey Boycott was a great batsman and one of the great openers of all time. Barry was an ATG and among the elite.
Barry is compared to Gavaskar and Hutton, not Geoffrey.
Cricket, especially batting has never been played or judged on spread sheets, and contrary to what Coronis and PEWS believes there's a reason that batsmen capable of accelerating the game are rated higher, and it has nothing to do with entertainment or hyperbole.
There are match winners and then there are accumulators, who play for themselves and their numbers.
@peterhrt listed some numbers the other day, the top performances of the top batsmen vs the best bowlers of their day.
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
To apply some context
These are the fc matches played against the top 10 bowlers of their time
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)
Some have been bringing up that Barry averaged a little behind Geoffrey in FC, but when they went up against the very best, Barry was the one slightly ahead. Not to mention that averaging 57 at a strike rate north of 60 is more impactful, difficult and meaningful than one scraped out at under 40. Talent wise, they weren't the same. Barry was a match winner, with Boycott, average came first.
Since the time of Hobbs we can trace back and identify who were the best batsmen in the world in some chronological order, during Boycott's career, the batsmen who held that distinction were Garfield Sobers, Barry Richards and Vivian Richards.
If one wants to use peer ratings, there have been some lists bandied around, now all weren't exactly great, but it helps to take a look at how they were rated.
In the book a league of their own Barry was referenced 17 times, Boycott, none.
On the other lists and using Sunny as reference as well.
In David Gower's list, Barry was 15th, Sunny 26th and Boycott didn't make the cut.
Woodcock's list, Barry again 15th, Sunny 23rd and and Boycott 62nd
CMJ's, credible for sure, Barry 28th, Sunny 26th and Boycott 53rd.
Martin Crowe named his top 100 players, broken down into eras. He named 10 from the 50's to 70's and 14 from the 70's to the 90's. Sunny and Barry made it in, Boycott to neither era.
Both Sunny and Barry made ESPN's top 50, again Boycott did not.
And even among us, two.of our esteemed posters have watched the great man live and both rate him among the very best ever.
Pererhrt from earlier this year.
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 apologise, but the notion that this is somehow close doesn't resonate with reality. Lillee rates him as one of the three best batsmen he bowled to, take a look at who that includes, and the either two are equally titans of the game in Sobers and Richards.
I know Barry has his detractors, between the 4 tests and those unwilling to look beyond them at what evidence was presented, and those who don't believe that strike rate and the associated versatility and benefits have any place in such discussions, but he was one of the colossuses of the game, and comfortably better than Geoffrey Boycott.
Barry is compared to Gavaskar and Hutton, not Geoffrey.
Cricket, especially batting has never been played or judged on spread sheets, and contrary to what Coronis and PEWS believes there's a reason that batsmen capable of accelerating the game are rated higher, and it has nothing to do with entertainment or hyperbole.
There are match winners and then there are accumulators, who play for themselves and their numbers.
@peterhrt listed some numbers the other day, the top performances of the top batsmen vs the best bowlers of their day.
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
To apply some context
These are the fc matches played against the top 10 bowlers of their time
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)
Some have been bringing up that Barry averaged a little behind Geoffrey in FC, but when they went up against the very best, Barry was the one slightly ahead. Not to mention that averaging 57 at a strike rate north of 60 is more impactful, difficult and meaningful than one scraped out at under 40. Talent wise, they weren't the same. Barry was a match winner, with Boycott, average came first.
Since the time of Hobbs we can trace back and identify who were the best batsmen in the world in some chronological order, during Boycott's career, the batsmen who held that distinction were Garfield Sobers, Barry Richards and Vivian Richards.
If one wants to use peer ratings, there have been some lists bandied around, now all weren't exactly great, but it helps to take a look at how they were rated.
In the book a league of their own Barry was referenced 17 times, Boycott, none.
On the other lists and using Sunny as reference as well.
In David Gower's list, Barry was 15th, Sunny 26th and Boycott didn't make the cut.
Woodcock's list, Barry again 15th, Sunny 23rd and and Boycott 62nd
CMJ's, credible for sure, Barry 28th, Sunny 26th and Boycott 53rd.
Martin Crowe named his top 100 players, broken down into eras. He named 10 from the 50's to 70's and 14 from the 70's to the 90's. Sunny and Barry made it in, Boycott to neither era.
Both Sunny and Barry made ESPN's top 50, again Boycott did not.
And even among us, two.of our esteemed posters have watched the great man live and both rate him among the very best ever.
Pererhrt from earlier this year.
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 apologise, but the notion that this is somehow close doesn't resonate with reality. Lillee rates him as one of the three best batsmen he bowled to, take a look at who that includes, and the either two are equally titans of the game in Sobers and Richards.
I know Barry has his detractors, between the 4 tests and those unwilling to look beyond them at what evidence was presented, and those who don't believe that strike rate and the associated versatility and benefits have any place in such discussions, but he was one of the colossuses of the game, and comfortably better than Geoffrey Boycott.
kyear2
International Coach
Exactly, Hutton easily the greatest post war opener imo.
Last edited:
Johan
State Captain
pretty convincing stuff, I think I can rate Barry highly as a batter now but not as a test batter, same way I rate Grace and Merchant highly as batters but don't really think them against test batters is a fair comparision.
Coronis
International Coach
Very difficult concept to grasp but you did it! Time for you to convince!
kyear2
International Coach
But that's the thing though, he was a test batsman. He played test cricket. After that one can only judge him on what he did.
And it's not like he's not included in all time and even contemporary teams. In 1975, he was the first name on a then current test XI, because quite frankly, he was the best player in the game and that was irrefutable. He made Cricinfo's second team along with Gavaskar, Imran, Hutton, Lara etc. Not to add that he makes our all time South African XI.
If one accepts that he did play test cricket and accordingly eligible, it's just a matter of trying to judge his quality. That's not even to mention that when he played the ROW series, that they were rated as tests, and the WSC were undeniably test quality. Considerably more so than the corresponding tests that were being simultaneously conducted. That brings us up to 14 "tests" a decade apart, and not too far from the 19 tests O'Reilly had vs England, or the 19 Headley had before the war.
This isn't even unique to him, O'Reilly (along with Barnes) were seen as the GOATs before WW2, he had 19 tests vs England, why I reference England, 1. The only test standard team he faced and 2. There was a time that tests outside of those weren't acknowledged, especially NZ. Do we think that his rating as the 3rd greatest spinner of all time or his contemporary rating was based off of those tests? It was primarily for his first class record, which was near flawless.
Again, this doesn't only work for individuals, the Invincibles weren't seen as the greatest team ever at that point based on the test series alone, they for that name because they win every first class match as well. It's very much ingrained into the legacy of that team.
Prior to the advent of odi',s, the 2nd most consequential and pertinent form of cricket was first class and it played a role in how players were indeed rated.
But speaking of odi's, it also plays a role in how players are rated and selected. Wasim isn't by any stretch of anyone's imagination the 3rd best bowler ever, but there he is on Cricinfo's and Wisden's all time test teams, and his rating as an odi bowler no doubt influenced that selection. It certainly did for Wisden's which factored in odi and first class performances, hence the presence of Wasim and Grace. Not to add that Barnes too, a player highly rated by many here and again, joint GOAT before the war, too only played 20 tests vs England.
So no, it's not new, nor is he the first that ww would lean on first class performances to evaluate. Headley's reputation in Australia is based primarily on his first class performances while over there on tour.
At the end of the day, once a player qualifies it comes down to quality and few openers, Hutton, Hobbs, Sunny, had that level of quality. And none of them had the skill set that he possessed nor could do what he could.
I don't bring him up because I was born in SA or he was my favorite player growing up like many do. It's because he is deserving of the recognition. He was brilliant.