Best South African opener?

[capt_Luffy]

Was this the rebel tours or county stuff? IIRC pollock was more successful vs the rebel sides which included Sylvester Clarke and Franklyn Stephenson.

Was recently checking Barry's rebel numbers and it's very underwhelming. Played only a few, less than 10 IIRC, but it's in low 30s

 

[kyear2]

Exactly this. I think his output in WSC, somewhat County and especially Curie Cup is just enough for me to rate him over Mitchell and Smith, who both have plenty of flaws. But don't see a case over Kallis or Ponting, let alone Gavaskar.

Because you don't want to.

Yet the ones who watched them both had little doubt.

Cricket is cricket and he played the best of his time and performed more than adequately against them. Brilliantly actually.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And I'm telling you he wasn't.

There was the British hype machine, but no one thought he was as good as those two.

Last night I even took a peek at his Cricinfo bio, it was well known what he was.

You want to believe it sucks ass because it doesn't favor any of the batsmen you prefer.

At no point in the 70's was Sunny seen as better than Barry, and certainly not in the first half, possibly there could have been a reason for that.

You're more than happy to accept peer ratings when it's for Hobbs and especially Trumper.

You're just inconsistent as **** when it's for one of your guys.

Because you don't want to.



Yet the ones who watched them both had little doubt.



Cricket is cricket and he played the best of his time and performed more than adequately against them. Brilliantly actually.

Ok

 

[Coronis]

Because you don't want to.

But you do want to so that makes it cool.

Believe in the myth of Barry rather than the facts of Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

You tell us lots of things tbh.

You were around back then.

What do you recall?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah @Coronis what do you recall of Hick pre 1991, though you weren't born for 4 more years???

 

[Coronis]

You were around back then.

What do you recall?

Obviously I wasn’t. However in my time observing sports, there has always been bias in both peer and media ratings. Fortunately we live in an age where statistical analysis and ratings are appreciated more and more, so that the former does not dominate the latter, and deserving yet underappreciated athletes are starting to be properly recognised for their achievements, both in historical and current review.

 

[peterhrt]

Hick was a better player pre-1991 than he was afterwards. It wasn't just about Test cricket. During his first-class career he was averaging 64 at the end of the 1990 English season, age 24, with over 15,000 runs and 56 hundreds. The subsequent average excluding Tests was 51.

With his front-foot technique there were suspicions he might have problems with the short ball, but a commanding 172 for Worcestershire against a hostile four-pronged West Indian attack in 1988 put that theory to bed for the time being. Between 1988 and 1990 there was no clear-cut leading batsman in the world and Hick was in the conversation, though nobody suggested he had reached the highest class.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah @Coronis what do you recall of Hick pre 1991, though you weren't born for 4 more years???

Why does he need to be born to be around?

 

[kyear2]

Performances mainly in FC games though. He played single digit tests+WSC games.

It was based on his performances vs the best test bowlers of his day, it was based on his performances vs touring test squads, which was 70 btw, it was based on his performances in WSC, it was based on how he performed alongside test players, it's based on how he was rated by said test players, how the bowlers he faced rated him in comparison to his test contemporaries.

Do you think the voters who voted him into Cricinfo's 2nd XI don't know what they're doing? That Gower and Crowe just pulled their ratings if him out of their asses? That Dickie Bird calling him the best batsman he'd seen, or Bradman the best opener just came from nowhere? Lillee and Thompson rated him the best opener they faced, Procter the best along with Sobers period. They all deemed his performances against them, and how he played them as better than most.

It's bat and ball.

 

[kyear2]

But you do want to so that makes it cool.

Believe in the myth of Barry rather than the facts of Bradman.

What do I not believe in?

Please explain. Barry faced much more, and better, hell great bowlers than Bradman did and in tougher conditions.

And I've never claimed Bradman wasn't the best batsman ever.

Do I believe he's twice as good as Hobbs? Hell no, and neither did anyone of that period either. Why don't you mention that part?

 

[kyear2]

Yeah @Coronis what do you recall of Hick pre 1991, though you weren't born for 4 more years???

Dear God, how young are you people.

 

[Thala_0710]

It was based on his performances vs the best test bowlers of his day, it was based on his performances vs touring test squads, which was 70 btw, it was based on his performances in WSC, it was based on how he performed alongside test players, it's based on how he was rated by said test players, how the bowlers he faced rated him in comparison to his test contemporaries.

Do you think the voters who voted him into Cricinfo's 2nd XI don't know what they're doing? That Gower and Crowe just pulled their ratings if him out of their asses? That Dickie Bird calling him the best batsman he'd seen, or Bradman the best opener just came from nowhere? Lillee and Thompson rated him the best opener they faced, Procter the best along with Sobers period. They all deemed his performances against them, and how he played them as better than most.

It's bat and ball.

I get that. That's why despite him not playing much at the international level, I rate him above good players like Smith and Mitchell. You have to be incredibly special to get such a rating anyway despite playing such limited no of tests (which I agree Barry was).
Now, most cricketers don't use objective criteria, stats, longevity etc to rate players. They play against them a couple of times, watch them bat a couple of times etc which is fine. The eye test is very important. But, using purely that leads to a lot of bias and it gives undue advantage to your flair players. To this day many SL players say that Aravinda is the greatest SL batsman. They say that because of his natural talent and shot making ability. Almost none of us would agree that he is even close to Sangakkara, because of the career they both had at the international level, due to the lack of which I won't rate Barry above certified ATGs like Ponting, Kallis, Sunny etc even if Cricinfo or some cricketers decide to do so. It's not like all cricketers and experts have any consensus amongst them anyway. They are affected by bias like the rest of us too, even more so for cricketers in many cases who pick their teammates, not just because they are friends, but because they see them while playing in the nets etc and generally rate guys based on natural talent and ability much more than we do, rather than actual performances.

 

[kyear2]

I get that. That's why despite him not playing much at the international level, I rate him above good players like Smith and Mitchell. You have to be incredibly special to get such a rating anyway despite playing such limited no of tests (which I agree Barry was).
Now, most cricketers don't use objective criteria, stats, longevity etc to rate players. They play against them a couple of times, watch them bat a couple of times etc which is fine. The eye test is very important. But, using purely that leads to a lot of bias and it gives undue advantage to your flair players. To this day many SL players say that Aravinda is the greatest SL batsman. They say that because of his natural talent and shot making ability. Almost none of us would agree that he is even close to Sangakkara, because of the career they both had at the international level, due to the lack of which I won't rate Barry above certified ATGs like Ponting, Kallis, Sunny etc even if Cricinfo or some cricketers decide to do so. It's not like all cricketers and experts have any consensus amongst them anyway. They are affected by bias like the rest of us too, even more so for cricketers in many cases who pick their teammates, not just because they are friends, but because they see them while playing in the nets etc and generally rate guys based on natural talent and ability much more than we do, rather than actual performances.

While I understand your point. It's basically saying we can't trust peer ratings.

Fine, but why is that different from let's say Trumper and co?

At the end of the day though, his reputation was built on over a decade of results and performances, performances against the top bowlers of his day, ATG bowlers at that.

His performances in FC vs Lillee, Snow, Procter, Underwood etc. His performances in WSC, where he was one of only 3 successful batsmen, his performances vs touring Test teams where he averaged just about 70, his performances vs the WI quicks.

They've all been listed, it wasn't that he just looked pretty.

But speaking of which, his ability to destroy an attack, a good attack unlike any other.

8 hundreds before lunch, a triple in a day, even 90 odd before lunch in his sole test series.

He has the receipts, and valid ones at that.

There aren't many batsmen who has a list of players and pundits who call them the best batsman they've seen or played against. He has such a list.

There aren't many batsmen who can lay claim to an extended stretch where they were acclaimed as the best batsman in the world, ridiculous few actually. Since Hobbs, less than a dozen, he's one of said batsmen.

The dismissal of his record and accolades is honestly a little ridiculous. And to condense the totality of his accomplishments to 4 tests is at the very least disingenuous.

 

[kyear2]

And the Mitchell votes are honestly a joke.