Graeme Pollock vs Barry Richards

[peterhrt]

There were some rumblings about ROW 70, that unless you're playing for your country, you will not be motivated to give off your best. Also, that some players may have felt that there were so many star-studded ROW players that even if they failed, others would pick up. However, there were selection changes to ensure the best team was fielded (e.g. Engineer replaced by Murray), so competitive cricket was paramount.

All-rounders played a large part from both teams (Sobers, Barlow, Procter, Intikhab, even Lloyd) and (Illingworth, D'Oliveira, Greig)

The question of which team was the best at the time between W.Indies and S.Africa was never answered as the W.Indies had a slight edge in batting and the S.Africans a slight edge in bowling (as per stats)

Sobers said he wouldn't have played the 1970 series had he known Test status would be revoked. That didn't stop him playing unofficial matches for RoW in Australia the following year. Wisden reckoned the 1970 RoW side was the strongest to play in Engand since Bradman's Australians in 1948.

The great West Indian side of the 1960s peaked in 1963. Their four-man attack of Hall, Griffith, Sobers and Gibbs was far too good for England's batsmen, none of whom made a century during the series. Only Dexter faced them with confidence, although there were gutsy knocks by Phil Sharpe. Two years later West Indies recorded their first series win against Australia then beat England easily again in 1966.

That was followed by South Africa winning a series against Australia for the first time and repeating the feat in 1970. The South Africans had won in England in 1965 a few months after losing at home to the same opponents. Three dire Ashes series with ten draws further diminished the reputation of England and Australia while West Indies continued playing positive cricket. 1967 would have been the time for West Indies and South Africa to meet.

 

[Bert]

That was followed by South Africa winning a series against Australia for the first time and repeating the feat in 1970. The South Africans had won in England in 1965 a few months after losing at home to the same opponents. Three dire Ashes series with ten draws further diminished the reputation of England and Australia while West Indies continued playing positive cricket. 1967 would have been the time for West Indies and South Africa to meet.

The S.Africans were considered the best team when they beat Australia 4-0 by substantial margins in 69-70. Which begged the question how would they fare against W.Indies knowing full well that they could not play against each other. It was hypothetical discussion.

So when the top S.Africans (Richards, Barlow, G.Pollock, Procter, P.Pollock) were compared against the top W.Indians (Sobers, Kanhai, Lloyd, Gibbs, Murray) in ROW 70, the difference in total performances was not overwhelming. W.Indies in total had a razor thin edge in batting and S.Africans in total had a razor thin edge in bowling.

Sobers, at the tail end of his career led the batting and bowling aggregates for both sides - a feat that was never achieved in a 5 Test series up to that time, IIRC.

 

[peterhrt]

The S.Africans were considered the best team when they beat Australia 4-0 by substantial margins in 69-70. Which begged the question how would they fare against W.Indies knowing full well that they could not play against each other. It was hypothetical discussion.

By 1970 West Indies had lost three of their last four series and drawn the other in New Zealand. Their next series would be a first home defeat to India.

The problem was the bowling. Their final Test of 1969 featured a attack of Sobers, Holder, Shillingford, John Shepherd and an out-of-sorts Gibbs who was averaging 42 during his past three series. The South Africans' sternest Test would have been in England in 1970, where they would have been favourites. They had never won a series in Australia but would have fancied their chances in 1971-72.

 

[Bolo.]

Ya, you cant read much into team strength from the performance of a few players in a single series. Besides the fact that half the team is missing, you have way too much variance in individual performances for various reasons. Sobers and Barlow had crazy series with the ball, that you wouldnt back them to repeat. G Pollock was injured, and scored about 100 runs in the first 4 games. Gibbs was in a slump at that very specific point in career. P Pollock only played one game (and I think was the only specialist bowler besides Gibbs to play at all).