Brian Lara vs Kumar Sangakkara

[kyear2]

Talented cricketer? Yes
Great first class record? Yes
ATG cricketer? Played just 4 Tests. So unproven

He was more proven than most of the players who've played test cricket.

Not even including the fact that until odi's that first class cricket was literally the 2nd most important facet of the game and very much included in player ratings, and only just below test cricket.

Barry Richards was truly one of the ATGs . Do you know how good one has to be to be seen as an elite ATG with 4 test matches. Where there's an entire generation that swears he's the best they've seen and he was seen as the best batsman in the world for over half a decade while Gavaskar and Chappell was playing.

 

[subshakerz]

Michael Holding named his top 4 pacers of all time and didn't name Hadlee nor Imran. Didn't think they were as good as Marshall, Roberts, Steyn nor Lillee.

Irrelevant.

CMJ has him as a top 10 batsman, Dickie Bird the best he'd seen, Gower called him the best post war opener, Lillee compared him to Viv and Garry, he made Cricinfo's 2nd all time XI, Crowe has him as a top 50 list of all time, Bradman thought he was better than Hutton and Gavaskar. Your boy Kimber said Barry is an automatic on quality for an all time selection, what did he say, openers who can move the game forward are preferred because the pressure they create means more than just blocking out the new ball.

And you can find counters to all of that that put Pollock ahead. You know that, you ignore it.

Kimber didn't select Barry in his XI like you.

Nothing you present obscures the point that Pollock was considered neck to neck to Barry.

 

[subshakerz]

He was more proven than most of the players who've played test cricket.

Dude with a longer career nobody is saying he would be a Gatting.

But he could turn out to be a Mark Waugh.

Hence unproven.

 

[DrWolverine]

He was more proven than most of the players who've played test cricket.

No he wasn’t. The guy played 4 Tests and 5-6 Supertests.

only just below test cricket.

My point exactly. Unproven in test cricket.

Barry Richards was truly one of the ATGs . Do you know how good one has to be to be seen as an elite ATG with 4 test matches.

4 Tests matches and an all time great?

More like supremely talented cricketer who was unfortunate to not have played at the highest level

 

[DrWolverine]

But he could turn out to be a Mark Waugh.

or Graeme Hick

 

[kyear2]

Irrelevant.


And you can find counters to all of that that put Pollock ahead. You know that, you ignore it.

Kimber didn't select Barry in his XI like you.

Nothing you present obscures the point that Pollock was considered neck to neck to Barry.

Why?

Because it doesn't follow your thought process?

I can't find his all time anything, just going by the team he and Bumble are supposed to be selecting.

Oh, I personally disagree, but I have no issue with people seeing him and Pollock as neck and neck.

The only issue I have is people pretending Richards isn't ATG and on that level.

 

[kyear2]

No he wasn’t. The guy played 4 Tests and 5-6 Supertests.



My point exactly. Unproven in test cricket.





4 Tests matches and an all time great?

More like supremely talented cricketer who was unfortunate to not have played at the highest level

That's because you rate players on stat sheets.

And that's fine, thankfully the cricketing establishment sees it differently from the young people here.

 

[kyear2]

or Graeme Hick

No comparison between the two, which I've already explained at length and you would know if you were around then and understood who Hick was.

 

[DrWolverine]

That's because you rate players on stat sheets.

And that's fine, thankfully the cricketing establishment sees it differently from the young people here.

If you think just because a cricketer is talented, he would go on to become an great cricketer and rate him ahead of legends who achieved a lot, no more words

 

[Coronis]

The only issue I have is people pretending Richards isn't ATG and on that level.

For perhaps the hundredth time nobody has ever said he wasn’t a great batsmen. Also for the hundredth time when talking about tests (which is the case here unless otherwise specifically mentioned…) he doesn’t warrant a mention. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Michael Holding named his top 4 pacers of all time and didn't name Hadlee nor Imran. Didn't think they were as good as Marshall, Roberts, Steyn nor Lillee.

CMJ has him as a top 10 batsman, Dickie Bird the best he'd seen, Gower called him the best post war opener, Lillee compared him to Viv and Garry, he made Cricinfo's 2nd all time XI, Crowe has him as a top 50 list of all time, Bradman thought he was better than Hutton and Gavaskar.

Again, you're picking and choosing who you want to believe.

just lol

 

[DrWolverine]

Also for the hundredth time when talking about tests (which is the case here unless otherwise specifically mentioned…) he doesn’t warrant a mention. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[subshakerz]

That's because you rate players on stat sheets.

At least they're not FC sheets.

 

[subshakerz]

The only issue I have is people pretending Richards isn't ATG and on that level.

Why is Richards an ATG and Proctor not?

 

[DrWolverine]

I am sure very few(if any) on this site actually watched Ken Barrington play so the better way to judge him is to analyse his figures in a detailed manner

 

[Coronis]

@JBMAC sorry to drag you in but did you see much of Barrington?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Exactly, who was the 400 against compared to the 153*.

And they are filtered to show how he did vs the very best bowlers. That's the point.

Yes Abbas averaged well and the three cores there were all against the spinners of the group.

I know the argument is Barry played 4 tests, even being gracious, he played 14 test level matches. But he was better than those guys. He's better than Greenidge, Gooch, Hayden, Boycott and the rest of the post war guys, not named Sunny (that's another argument)

Analogous to this scenario is Dr. J, and people do include his ABA numbers when rating his career.
Quality is quality and as Bumble said, he's one of the absolute ATGs.

This is one of the two hills I'm willing to die on.

Tendulkar has quite a few high scores against a platitude of ATGs, ranging from McGrath, Warne, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Murali.... You got the idea. None really holds a candle to his 136 vs Saqlain and some other Pakistani spinner not very well known.

Like, that just shows he was Great to spin. Abbas played plenty against and in Australia and especially England, where he is one of the best Ever County bats. His record is only bad against WI.

I mean, I kinda get it, but also think like, Okay. Barry's RoW series was just alright really.

Don't know really enough about Basketball stats to comment, sorry. If you can talk in football analogies, I am all ears.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Barry Richards' famous triple vs Lillee is on YouTube btw. It's a truly great knock but the square boundary is like 40m long because the boundary flags were put way in for some reason. You can make up your own minds on the innings. It feels like an under 18s game at times.

He was more proven than most of the players who've played test cricket.

Christ alive, it's one thing to say he was a great player despite not getting to show it much in test cricket but this is honestly one of the wildest claims I've ever heard and considering the stuff you come up with at times that really is something.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barry Richards' famous triple vs Lillee is on YouTube btw. It's a truly great knock but the square boundary is like 40m long because the boundary flags were put way in for some reason. You can make up your own minds on the innings.



Christ alive, it's one thing to say he was a great player despite not getting to show it much in test cricket but this is honestly one of the wildest claims I've ever heard and considering the stuff you come up with at times that really is something.

Think of it this way: some 3198 players have played Test cricket. Only some 1599 players have batted for more than 11 innings. You could definitely say Barry is more proven than most of, if not all, the players in the other lot; hence most players who have played Test cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Barry Richards' famous triple vs Lillee is on YouTube btw. It's a truly great knock but the square boundary is like 40m long because the boundary flags were put way in for some reason. You can make up your own minds on the innings. It feels like an under 18s game at times.



Christ alive, it's one thing to say he was a great player despite not getting to show it much in test cricket but this is honestly one of the wildest claims I've ever heard and considering the stuff you come up with at times that really is something.

Also good to remember it was prior to Lillee’s test debut. In that Shield season he took 21 wickets in 8 games, at an average of 36.09. Alongside a washed up McKenzie and a 41 year old Tony Lock in his final season of FC it looks a much better attack on paper than it was at the time.

 

[kyear2]

If you think just because a cricketer is talented, he would go on to become an great cricketer and rate him ahead of legends who achieved a lot, no more words

The premise on the forum seems to be that I've designated that he's an ATG, it that I alone place him as a contender for AT teams.

He's an established ATG regardless of how much the people here want to believe he's not.

He was the best bat in the world for longer than most, and in fact the vast majority of cricketers have never had that distinction, and certainly not for 5 or 6 years.

I also don't assume I know everything and read everything I can get my hands on. I listen to posters and former players, not only online but thankfully in real life. I'm not trying to create something, like Luffy and Flower a few weeks ago. The guy was an ATG.