Brian Lara vs Kumar Sangakkara

[Coronis]

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.

Nah I’m just saying some people tend to ignore it when it doesn’t agree with their own opinions, but then bring it up when it does.

 

[peterhrt]

Contemporary opinion is often the best source, but it does vary from country to country. In August 1959 a publication from Lahore posed the question of who was then the world's greatest batsman. It provided a short-list of five: May, Cowdrey, O'Neill, Hanif and Sobers. The conclusion was:

This honour for the moment lies between Garfield Sobers and Hanif Mohammad. As a run-getting machine Hanif wins. As an exhibitionist, in the true cricketing sense, Garfield Sobers claims the honour.

During the early 1970s more cricket was played in England than anywhere else. Opinion there was unanimous. Barry Richards then the rest. There was occasionally discussion around the second best batsman. First Boycott, then briefly Lawrence Rowe, then Greg Chappell, and finally Viv Richards who took his namesake's crown in 1976. County cricket had dulled Sobers' edge, though he could still play outstanding innings. Pollock, staying at home in South Africa, got forgotten.

In South Africa Pollock was still considered number one. Ian Chappell said on one occasion that the Australian tourists of 1970 thought Richards was the world's best after he nearly scored a hundred before lunch against them, but later (quote above) argued that Pollock was ahead. After Richards averaged three figures for South Australia in 1970-71, Australian opinion favoured him, but his only subsequent appearances in the country before WSC were in minor matches. One minor match was all he managed in New Zealand. Most folk in the Caribbean and the sub-continent never saw South African cricketers so could only rate them, or not, on hearsay.

There is an assumption now that everyone thought Sobers was the best batsman in the world throughout the 1960s. They didn't. Claims were made on behalf of Kanhai then Pollock, not least in Australia. At one time Cowdrey attracted a few supporters in the English press who thought he had the best technique, and the same was said of Hanif whose high reputation was not confined to Pakistan.

 

[kyear2]

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

The infuriating thing about you is that in one breath most lists and opinions are junk lists, then in the next you're using another player as a reference.

For reference, that tour was the start of Barry's career, Graeme was well into his prime. It's from there that Barry went into his prime and was the best bat in the world for the next 6 year.

That was only the beginning.

 

[kyear2]

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.

No one is doubting Pollock's class or position as an ATG.

Why Barry was seen as the best and got more press than Pollock was because he went everywhere to challenge himself (and for obvious financial reasons), while Pollock primarily stayed in SA.

Sunny scored a bucket of runs only in 71 and for obvious reasons it didn't move the needle. His next massive year was during WSC, and gain it didn't move the needle for obvious reasons...

No one was dominant like Barry in FC, not only was he at his best vs the very best, but the way he did it. 8 hundreds before lunch, a triple in a day and that year in Australia cemented his legacy and dominance.
And again it was the triple and double hundreds vs Snow, Lillee, Procter etc.

There was no question that at that period between Sobers retiring and Richard's dominance (not that you think that's a thing either), that Barry was no. 1 in the world. Then WSC years later and in that particular season it was a bowling paradise and he stood out there as well, 9 years later.

 

[kyear2]

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.

The top performances of the top batsmen vs the best bowlers during Barry's era.

Barry Richards 356 v Lillee
Boycott 261* v Roberts and Holding
Greg Chappell 246* v Roberts
Zaheer 230* (and 104* in same match) v Underwood
Turner 228* v Procter
Gavaskar 228 v Chandrasekhar
Barry Richards 224 v Snow
Barry Richards 219 v Procter
Barry Richards 207 v Lillee
Zaheer 205* (and 108* in same match) v Underwood
Pollock 203* v Underwood

To apply some context

These are the fc matches played against the top 10 bowlers of their time

Barry Richards 6613 runs @ 57.50. 18 hundreds. (Snow)
Boycott 3921 @ 55.22. 14 hundreds. (Procter)
Zaheer 3198 @ 54.20. 12 hundreds. (Lillee)
Greg Chappell 4656 @ 52.90. 14 hundreds. (Lillee)
Turner 3811 @ 47.04. 11 hundreds. (Procter)
Pollock 3614 @ 46.33. 8 hundreds. (van der Bijl)
Gavaskar 2315 @ 42.09. 5 hundreds. (Chandrasekhar)

The continued notion that he was ordinary or that it's just British or Australian bias when there wasn't a discussion as to whom the best batsman in the world was for that period. And it wasn't flat or easy conditions, he played in the 3 counties and leagues that was most difficult to score runs. Dennis Lillee said he was one of the three best batsmen he ever bowled to, ranking him alongside only Viv and Garry.

This is again, in no way a slight to Pollock. What was it, 8 hundreds before lunch, triple hundred in a day? Has there been an opener who could do what he did, vs the bowlers that he did?

 

[subshakerz]

No one is doubting Pollock's class or position as an ATG.

Why Barry was seen as the best and got more press than Pollock was because he went everywhere to challenge himself (and for obvious financial reasons), while Pollock primarily stayed in SA.

Sunny scored a bucket of runs only in 71 and for obvious reasons it didn't move the needle. His next massive year was during WSC, and gain it didn't move the needle for obvious reasons...

No one was dominant like Barry in FC, not only was he at his best vs the very best, but the way he did it. 8 hundreds before lunch, a triple in a day and that year in Australia cemented his legacy and dominance.
And again it was the triple and double hundreds vs Snow, Lillee, Procter etc.

There was no question that at that period between Sobers retiring and Richard's dominance (not that you think that's a thing either), that Barry was no. 1 in the world. Then WSC years later and in that particular season it was a bowling paradise and he stood out there as well, 9 years later.

If he isn't considered better in his own country, he probably aint the better bat, sorry.

 

[subshakerz]

The top performances of the top batsmen vs the best bowlers during Barry's era.

Barry Richards 356 v Lillee
Boycott 261* v Roberts and Holding
Greg Chappell 246* v Roberts
Zaheer 230* (and 104* in same match) v Underwood
Turner 228* v Procter
Gavaskar 228 v Chandrasekhar
Barry Richards 224 v Snow
Barry Richards 219 v Procter
Barry Richards 207 v Lillee
Zaheer 205* (and 108* in same match) v Underwood
Pollock 203* v Underwood

To apply some context

These are the fc matches played against the top 10 bowlers of their time

Barry Richards 6613 runs @ 57.50. 18 hundreds. (Snow)
Boycott 3921 @ 55.22. 14 hundreds. (Procter)
Zaheer 3198 @ 54.20. 12 hundreds. (Lillee)
Greg Chappell 4656 @ 52.90. 14 hundreds. (Lillee)
Turner 3811 @ 47.04. 11 hundreds. (Procter)
Pollock 3614 @ 46.33. 8 hundreds. (van der Bijl)
Gavaskar 2315 @ 42.09. 5 hundreds. (Chandrasekhar)

The continued notion that he was ordinary or that it's just British or Australian bias when there wasn't a discussion as to whom the best batsman in the world was for that period. And it wasn't flat or easy conditions, he played in the 3 counties and leagues that was most difficult to score runs. Dennis Lillee said he was one of the three best batsmen he ever bowled to, ranking him alongside only Viv and Garry.

This is again, in no way a slight to Pollock. What was it, 8 hundreds before lunch, triple hundred in a day? Has there been an opener who could do what he did, vs the bowlers that he did?

If we rewarding FC this much, would you consider Proctor the player of the 70s?

 

[kyear2]

The following have been named by fellow players (and an umpire) as the best batsman they have seen. Since 1945 only. Additional names/nominators welcome.

Viv Richards: Botham, Robin Smith, Thorpe, Willis, Merv Hughes, Dujon, Hunte, Marshall, Richie Richardson, Roberts, Shastri, Vengsarkar, Saeed Anwar, Imran, Inzamam, Mohd Yousuf, Zaheer Abbas, Aravinda de Silva

Tendulkar: Harvey, Hayden, Warne, Donald, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Hanif, Qadir, Muralitharan, Flower

Hutton: Appleyard, Cowdrey, John Edrich, Graveney, Trueman, Waite, Ramadhin

Barry Richards: Gooch, Bob Taylor, Dicky Bird, Lillee, Graham McKenzie, Graeme Pollock, Procter

Sobers: Illingworth, Underwood, Greg Chappell, Walters

Gavaskar: Hutton, Asif Iqbal, Mudassar Nazar

Lara: Alec Stewart, Herschelle Gibbs, Wasim Akram

Greg Chappell: Thomson

Harvey: Davidson

Weekes: Sobers

To be called the best batsman someone has seen is special praise and a high bar.

 

[kyear2]

If he isn't considered better in his own country, he probably aint the better bat, sorry.

One stayed at home, supporting the domestic leagues, while the other was seen as a mercenary plying his trade across the globe. How is this hard for you to grasp?

 

[subshakerz]

One stayed at home, supporting the domestic leagues, while the other was seen as a mercenary plying his trade across the globe. How is this hard for you to grasp?

So you are saying decades on his own countrymen just don't know how good Barry was, but you do. Got it.

 

[kyear2]

So you are saying decades on his own countrymen just don't know how good Barry was, but you do. Got it.

I see you're being deliberately slow.

But let's try this. One was seen as the consensus best batsman in the world for about 6 years. All of them didn't know how good Richards was, but you do. Got it.

Dennis Lillee dated one as the equal to Viv and Sobers, but I'm sure you bowled to them as well. And not like you value peer ratings or anything right?

The same Pollock and Procter also called Barry the best they've seen, not to add Dickie Bird.

He made Cricinfo's AT World 2nd XI, Mark Nicholas has him in his all time team opening with Sunny.

I mean, @fredfertang and @peterhrt both have him among the top 3 batsmen they've seen. Hundreds before lunch, triples in a day, his WSC exploits.
Played the best fast bowlers as easily as any opener ever has, and in some of the toughest conditions. Guy's top 10 for me.
As usual you're free to disagree.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The top performances of the top batsmen vs the best bowlers during Barry's era.

Barry Richards 356 v Lillee
Boycott 261* v Roberts and Holding
Greg Chappell 246* v Roberts
Zaheer 230* (and 104* in same match) v Underwood
Turner 228* v Procter
Gavaskar 228 v Chandrasekhar
Barry Richards 224 v Snow
Barry Richards 219 v Procter
Barry Richards 207 v Lillee
Zaheer 205* (and 108* in same match) v Underwood
Pollock 203* v Underwood

To apply some context

These are the fc matches played against the top 10 bowlers of their time

Barry Richards 6613 runs @ 57.50. 18 hundreds. (Snow)
Boycott 3921 @ 55.22. 14 hundreds. (Procter)
Zaheer 3198 @ 54.20. 12 hundreds. (Lillee)
Greg Chappell 4656 @ 52.90. 14 hundreds. (Lillee)
Turner 3811 @ 47.04. 11 hundreds. (Procter)
Pollock 3614 @ 46.33. 8 hundreds. (van der Bijl)
Gavaskar 2315 @ 42.09. 5 hundreds. (Chandrasekhar)

The continued notion that he was ordinary or that it's just British or Australian bias when there wasn't a discussion as to whom the best batsman in the world was for that period. And it wasn't flat or easy conditions, he played in the 3 counties and leagues that was most difficult to score runs. Dennis Lillee said he was one of the three best batsmen he ever bowled to, ranking him alongside only Viv and Garry.

This is again, in no way a slight to Pollock. What was it, 8 hundreds before lunch, triple hundred in a day? Has there been an opener who could do what he did, vs the bowlers that he did?

Way too wobbly stats overall, can't making much of anything out of it really without working out things like how good the rest of the bowling line-up were and the pitch conditions; also the choice of the 10 bowlers is to specifically align with Barry's peak not Pollock's; and especially the HS one is pretty non significant. But as my point stands, based on these stats, Zaheer Abbas is as good as Barry Richards and better than almost anyone else. Don't think you will agree to that....

 

[subshakerz]

I see you're being deliberately slow.

But let's try this. One was seen as the consensus best batsman in the world for about 6 years. All of them didn't know how good Richards was, but you do. Got it.

Dennis Lillee dated one as the equal to Viv and Sobers, but I'm sure you bowled to them as well. And not like you value peer ratings or anything right?

The same Pollock and Procter also called Barry the best they've seen, not to add Dickie Bird.

He made Cricinfo's AT World 2nd XI, Mark Nicholas has him in his all time team opening with Sunny.

I mean, @fredfertang and @peterhrt both have him among the top 3 batsmen they've seen. Hundreds before lunch, triples in a day, his WSC exploits.
Played the best fast bowlers as easily as any opener ever has, and in some of the toughest conditions. Guy's top 10 for me.
As usual you're free to disagree.

Yeah there was no consensus as you are stating. Michael Holding felt Barry wasnt up to the tougher bowlers in WSC, didn't rate him s highly. Plenty of others put Pollock right up there.

Mark Nicholas calls Barry his favorite that's why he is there.

Putting someone top 10 based on FC is lunacy. If him, why not Proctor?

 

[Coronis]

Way too wobbly stats overall, can't making much of anything out of it really without working out things like how good the rest of the bowling line-up were and the pitch conditions; also the choice of the 10 bowlers is to specifically align with Barry's peak not Pollock's; and especially the HS one is pretty non significant. But as my point stands, based on these stats, Zaheer Abbas is as good as Barry Richards and better than almost anyone else. Don't think you will agree to that....

Big triple on a Shield pitch in Australia. Pretty shocking tbh!

Yeah there was no consensus as you are stating. Michael Holding felt Barry wasnt up to the tougher bowlers in WSC, didn't rate him s highly. Plenty of others put Pollock right up there.

Mark Nicholas calls Barry his favorite that's why he is there.

Putting someone top 10 based on FC is lunacy. If him, why not Proctor?

This part also irks me. Its literally only Richards who gets this treatment from kyear.

 

[kyear2]

Way too wobbly stats overall, can't making much of anything out of it really without working out things like how good the rest of the bowling line-up were and the pitch conditions; also the choice of the 10 bowlers is to specifically align with Barry's peak not Pollock's; and especially the HS one is pretty non significant. But as my point stands, based on these stats, Zaheer Abbas is as good as Barry Richards and better than almost anyone else. Don't think you will agree to that....

Really dude?

So the stats are wobbly.


How many batsmen that you're aware of in the history of the game can score a triple and multiple doubles vs Dennis Lillee, John Snow and Mike Procter. The WSC hundreds were wobbly as well?

And how are the HS comps not significant?

When Hutton scored his triple did you ask who besides O'Reilly, Sobers 274 vs Lillee, did you check to see who else was in the lineup? You're just being obtuse now.

And again, your point was who was better at that time, obviously it would be when they were both playing.

You're literally just looking for excuses and trying to be contrarian at this point.

And Abbas was near useless vs quality fast bowling. Context dude.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Really dude?

So the stats are wobbly and the peer rating (something you value dearly) are junk lists.

How many batsmen that you're aware of in the history of the game can score a triple and multiple doubles vs Dennis Lillee, John Snow and Mike Procter. The WSC hundreds were wobbly as well?

And how are the HS comps not significant?

When Hutton scored his triple did you ask who besides O'Reilly, Sobers 274 vs Lillee, did you check to see who else was in the lineup? You're just being obtuse now.

And again, your point was who was better at that time, obviously it would be when they were both playing.

You're literally just looking for excuses and trying to be contrarian at this point.

And Abbas was near useless vs quality fast bowling. Context dude.

In this instance, they are. The stats are way too highly filtered to be really reflective and peer reviews way to subjective and influenced by style, nostalgia and other less noble factors.

Like literally HS sucks. Lara's 400* can't hold a candle to his 153* in a million years. The context of runs in best knocks is way more valuable than just scores.

Both of those knocks are well documented, I have enough context on what makes them Great. I have none for any of those knocks of Barry. And yes, I do infact do that and ask about the rest of the line-up.

Not at all. You are literally comparing a post peak Pollock to in peak Barry. It's not really hard to see that.

Abbas has an average of 55 against these 10 bowlers you picked and most are pacers. I literally used your stats. And calling him "useless" against quality pace is taking the liberty too far given his Australia and England records.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah there was no consensus as you are stating. Michael Holding felt Barry wasnt up to the tougher bowlers in WSC, didn't rate him s highly. Plenty of others put Pollock right up there.

Mark Nicholas calls Barry his favorite that's why he is there.

Putting someone top 10 based on FC is lunacy. If him, why not Proctor?

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. And note, WSC Barry that actually was one of two batsmen that cycle that didn't struggle and scored a tough hundred in an innings where everyone else struggled. Not to add past his absolute peak and was almost a decade removed from Australia cricket at that level. Not even sure how much Holding would have even seen, encountered or bowled to him.

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

Is it possible that Barry was a favorite of Nicholas because of how damn good he was?

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.

 

[kyear2]

Big triple on a Shield pitch in Australia. Pretty shocking tbh!




This part also irks me. Its literally only Richards who gets this treatment from kyear.

I have Procter in my top 40 as an ATG. Of course he was up there.

I've never seen anyone call Procter the greatest bowler they've seen though.

He was a great bowling all rounders, but even then he's behind Imran and Hadlee. But ATG he was.

 

[kyear2]

In this instance, they are. The stats are way too highly filtered to be really reflective and peer reviews way to subjective and influenced by style, nostalgia and other less noble factors.

Like literally HS sucks. Lara's 400* can't hold a candle to his 153* in a million years. The context of runs in best knocks is way more valuable than just scores.

Both of those knocks are well documented, I have enough context on what makes them Great. I have none for any of those knocks of Barry. And yes, I do infact do that and ask about the rest of the line-up.

Not at all. You are literally comparing a post peak Pollock to in peak Barry. It's not really hard to see that.

Abbas has an average of 55 against these 10 bowlers you picked and most are pacers. I literally used your stats. And calling him "useless" against quality pace is taking the liberty too far given his Australia and England records.

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.

 

[DrWolverine]

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