DrWolverine
U19 Captain
Test batsman
-
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 George Headley vs Graeme Pollock
- Thread starter DrWolverine
- Start date
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Aesthetically, I like Pollock's batting more, but Headley broke through as an ATG batter from a minnow nation (at the time) which is very rare.
sayon basak
International Debutant
Please no.
DrWolverine
U19 Captain
Sorry habit
sayon basak
International Debutant
Barry Richards' performance in Tests and WSC:-
Matches- 9
Runs- 1062
Average- 75.86
100's- 4
S.R.- 65.53
Nice.
Matches- 9
Runs- 1062
Average- 75.86
100's- 4
S.R.- 65.53
Nice.
kyear2
International Coach
Coronis
International Coach
Because I’m only counting tests.
kyear2
International Coach
Yeah, who cares about quality when you're trying to make a point.
Coronis
International Coach
What point? That in a discussion about test players in a test format I only consider tests? I am deeply sorry if that offends you.
kyear2
International Coach
Coronis
International Coach
It varies depending on era-specific conditions of course, but as a baseline I’d want at least 20 tests over a 5 year span for most historic players. More modern players the test number would increase but I’d still want about 5 years before rating them properly as a test player.
kyear2
International Coach
And one makes exceptions for special scenarios.
He didn't get injured or banned. His country (justifiably) was banned from international sport.
He has performances over the course of a decade, in 4 tests, 5 tests that were later demoted from tests, and 5 that included all the test players.
That period included some spectacular performances against the very best players in the world in various first class leagues, and he was universally heralded as one of the best ever, the best ever for those 6 years or so.
For you this isn't about quality, don't have a clue what it's about, but he has more than proven his class. Besides him, don't think there's another opener in test history who would have consistently done what he did to Lillee. Actually besides the other 2 that did, and possibly Bradman, don't think anyone else could.
This is some myopic, the rules are the rules stance that doesn't bear merit. Applying the word test wouldn't have made his performances in WSC more credible or impactful. It was certainly more credible than the "tests" that were actually played. That's how silly the argument is. Those nonsense and misleading matches matter, but these doesn't?
He deserves to be in the conversation, and outside of some here, the cricket community have definitely included him.
Coronis
International Coach
As I’ve repeatedly said, its about a test player who only played 4 tests in one series at home. Nobody denies that he was a quality player, least of all me.
He does not deserve to be in the conversation when discussing tests which for some unknown reasons you can’t get your brain around. You want to talk about First Class Cricket? Sure bring him up. You want to talk about World Series Cricket? Sure bring him up.
Get over the fact that he didn’t have a test career and thats why people don’t mention him when they’re talking about test batsmen. Everyone knows how good he was and you injecting him into discussions (in gigantic loving paragraphs) about tests all the time is just cringe.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Agree with most of this but to be fair at least this thread is actually meant to be partly about him. Someone starts a thread about Richards, talk about Richards.
It's far more annoying when he brings him up unprovoked, like the other day when someone said Gavaskar was the only modern ATG Test opener (or something like that), or your thread a month or two ago asking people to people compare a specific list of openers that he was apparently outraged Richards wasn't on.
Coronis
International Coach
Oh yeah of course. I was meaning in general like you say.
kyear2
International Coach
That the thing, some of you don't mention him. When the best players of the era were discussed, his name was at the forefront of any such lists. Because the understanding existed that while he was excluded from the test arena, that one, it was beyond his control and that there were alternative ways to measure his value.
As I've said before there's a disconnect and a hypocrisy where it's totally admissable to include him when discussing South African cricket and even the all time XI, but we should exclude him and say nothing when we're discussing top openers or a world XI. It makes no sense.
He's either ineligible from all discussions or eligible for all. And he played the test game and he was / is eligible.
The next and somewhat challenging step however, is how to best translate what he did in a way that's comparable to the careers of the test players.
You and especially @peterhrt had good a very good job of doing that. The worth he exhibited in 4 tests, 5 previously categorized tests and 5 test standard matches, are a small yet noteworthy validation that adds to what he did vs the very best of his generation on the various county competitions.
The notion that some here believe that he shouldn't be included, when he was very much being included in such exercises during his playing career, even long after his sole test series, seen and rated as the best batsman in the world half a decade after his last official test and even made the Cricinfo 2nd All Time XI (voting him the 4th best opener ever), is beyond me, not to mention myopic, arrogant and inflexible.
So I don't give a damn what you think is cringe.