Brian Lara vs Kumar Sangakkara

[subshakerz]

The batsmen who were no. 1 in the world and also held claim at some point to be noted by some level of consensus as the best batsmen persons have seen, with legit claim to be seen as the best since Bradman.

Bowlers who have been no 1 and have an argument to be the best.

All round players / all rounders who probably just missed in primary disciples, but combined have legitimately earned said places.

Considered Knott, but as some have said, probably wasn't quite in that absolute top grouping based on glove work. A couple others just missed.

Why is Barry there though? What evidence is there he was a better bat than Graeme Pollock?

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis just isn't the batsman those guys are. His agenda didn't always align with the team's and one always felt that if it came between the needs of the team or his average, he would choose the latter.

You are openly calling Kallis selfish here? I have issue with Kallis but I will always acknowledge him a consummate teamman.

 

[Coronis]

For batsmen, you have about 15, I have about 9.

I can't compare Sanga to what Sachin and Lara did in the '90's and vs the greats. Love Punter, he's not nearly in that conversation either. Chappell was special, no one though he was better than either Richards, and I don't see the argument for him to be the best since Don.
Hammond is an interesting case and he (for me) just falls a little sort. More than half the career came before the lbw rule, but more importantly, the one time he came up vs quality and not even great fast bowling in Martindale and Constantine, he was incredibly troubled. But taking into account his catching he still makes the above list as a cricketer. Kallis just isn't the batsman those guys are. His agenda didn't always align with the team's and one always felt that if it came between the needs of the team or his average, he would choose the latter.

Bowlers, you have 10, me 7, again not that big a difference and... Donald has his caveat, Lillee even in modern times only really played in 3 countries, and taking that into account, his numbers should have been better.

So I have 9 batsmen, 8 bowlers and 4 guys with combined contributions who were ATGs in primary to begin with.

Imo Marshall wasn’t that great because he played the his career after the change to the lbw law in the 70’s.

 

[Johan]

Cook Hammond, Sutcliffe's better

 

[kyear2]

Why is Barry there though? What evidence is there he was a better bat than Graeme Pollock?

Everyone who watched them.

Barry was also more tested around the world.

Barry also faced better bowlers in his unofficial tests and WSC than Pollock did in his tests.

There's a reason why everyone from that era rated him so insanely highly.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and lists.

Barry is a no brainer for mine. Easily top 10 batsman that's played the game for me.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Everyone who watched them.

Barry was also more tested around the world.

Barry also faced better bowlers in his unofficial tests and WSC than Pollock did in his tests.

There's a reason why everyone from that era rated him so insanely highly.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and lists.

Barry is a no brained for mine. Easily top 10 batsman that's played the game for me.

Yet Pollock was South African Cricketer of the Century.

Procter > G.Pollock though.

 

[kyear2]

Yet Pollock was South African Cricketer of the Century.

Procter > G.Pollock though.

Barry was seen as a mercenary though, Pollock stayed home.

Pollock was undoubtedly a great batsman though.

 

[subshakerz]

Everyone who watched them.

Barry was also more tested around the world.

Barry also faced better bowlers in his unofficial tests and WSC than Pollock did in his tests.

There's a reason why everyone from that era rated him so insanely highly.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and lists.

Barry is a no brained for mine. Easily top 10 batsman that's played the game for me.

Huh? Pollock by all reported I've seen gets rated with Sobers. Where does he get put behind Barry. Ive only seen them described as awesome together.

If Barry is a preference, fine. But don't pretend it's a consensus.

 

[subshakerz]

Barry was seen as a mercenary though, Pollock stayed home.

That has nothing to do with batting greatness.

 

[kyear2]

Huh? Pollock by all reported I've seen gets rated with Sobers. Where does he get put behind Barry. Ive only seen them described as awesome together.

If Barry is a preference, fine. But don't pretend it's a consensus.

Shouldn't have said everyone, that's my bad.

I will refer to the lists that's been bandied around of late, let's start with the more credible ones to the lesser.

CMJ
Richards : 28 / Pollock : 37

Gower
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 25

Woodcock
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 30

TMS
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 36

Broken cricket dreams
Richards : 19 / Pollock : 22

Nothing in the sport is consensus, Barry though does come out on top more often than not.
Barry made the Cricinfo 2nd team, Pollock I believe the 3rd, but more competition for middle slots.

I have seen way more people call Barry the best they've seen overall, never seen that written about Pollock.

Again, Pollock was also an ATG, so no slight against him.

 

[subshakerz]

Shouldn't have said everyone, that's my bad.

I will refer to the lists that's been bandied around of late, let's start with the more credible ones to the lesser.

CMJ
Richards : 28 / Pollock : 37

Gower
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 25

Woodcock
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 30

TMS
Richards : 15 / Pollock : 36

Broken cricket dreams
Richards : 19 / Pollock : 22

Nothing in the sport is consensus, Barry though does come out on top more often than not.
Barry made the Cricinfo 2nd team, Pollock I believe the 3rd, but more competition for middle slots.

I have seen way more people call Barry the best they've seen overall, never seen that written about Pollock.

Again, Pollock was also an ATG, so no slight against him.

You are doing literal junk polls here.

The Wisden Cricketers of the Century and ESPN lists both have Pollock ahead. As mentioned, he was voted SAs Cricketer of the Century.

I think you are reinventing history to make it seem Barry is a clear choice.

 

[kyear2]

You are doing literal junk polls here.

The Wisden Cricketers of the Century and ESPN lists both have Pollock ahead. As mentioned, he was voted SAs Cricketer of the Century.

I think you are reinventing history to make it seem they were close.

I just listed multiple lists and now I'm reinventing stuff?

I didn't introduce any of said lists and you were very willing to use them when they suited your purposes. But now you're picking and choosing which you want to use. Not to add making up stupid ass accusations.

You keep using Wisden cricketers of the century, and again, that was not exactly a fool proof way of proving anything, each voter got 5 votes, two of which were for all intents and purposes already taken up. Pollock had a grand total of 4 votes out of a 100.

I'm not going to get into another argument with you, there are more than sufficient posts by myself and others where you can read or ignore to your hearts content. Actually there's an entire thread.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, Barry had a career of like 8 years..... Pollock was smashing Lillee in his 40s. He has no case over Graeme Pollock afaiac

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, Barry had a career of like 8 years..... Pollock was smashing Lillee in his 40s. He has no case over Graeme Pollock afaiac

No case is a bit much. Considering how many thought that he was.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No case is a bit much. Considering how many thought that he was.

Graeme Pollock had a better record at home (the reason I rate Barry) and a career double his length. As I said, Barry based on English media hype, has as much of a case over Pollock as Lillee does over Marshall (actually, Lillee has more of a case really, it's more so Qadir and Chandrasekhar or Rohan Kanhai and Garry Sobers).

 

[Johan]

English media is ********

 

[subshakerz]

No case is a bit much. Considering how many thought that he was.

Here is Chappell talking about Richards and Pollock during their 1970 tour, and makes it clear at the end that Pollock was the best SA batsman then

 

[Coronis]

Here is Chappell talking about Richards and Pollock during their 1970 tour, and makes it clear at the end that Pollock was the best SA batsman then

Peer review only counts when it supports your own views iirc. Pollock also scored an important ton in one of the ROW’s wins against England in 1970, where Sobers was dominant.

imo Richards never established himself as the best batsman in the South Africa, let alone the world after Sobers poor last series. Chappell and Gavaskar were scoring buckets of runs internationally, Pollock and Richards were both about even domestically and Lloyd and Boycott (among others, Kanhai, Turner, Abbas) were also dominating in county.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Peer review only counts when it supports your own views iirc. Pollock also scored an important ton in one of the ROW’s wins against England in 1970, where Sobers was dominant.

imo Richards never established himself as the best batsman in the South Africa, let alone the world after Sobers poor last series. Chappell and Gavaskar were scoring buckets of runs internationally, Pollock and Richards were both about even domestically and Lloyd and Boycott (among others, Kanhai, Turner, Abbas) were also dominating in county.

Especially in County, Zaheer and Kanhai had all of Barry's USPs without his problem of throwing away wicket and Boycott and Turner's problem of slow scoring...... County record of Barry is not really that special overall.

 

[subshakerz]

Peer review only counts when it supports your own views iirc. Pollock also scored an important ton in one of the ROW’s wins against England in 1970, where Sobers was dominant.

imo Richards never established himself as the best batsman in the South Africa, let alone the world after Sobers poor last series. Chappell and Gavaskar were scoring buckets of runs internationally, Pollock and Richards were both about even domestically and Lloyd and Boycott (among others, Kanhai, Turner, Abbas) were also dominating in county.

Just to be clear, I am not saying Pollock is better just based on Chappell's opinion but countering this point that the common perception was that Richards was better at the time.

The rest you said I agree with.