How good was Basil D'Oliveira?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But he was, from all accounts, a lesser player by the time he jumped ship for England, and certainly by the time he played for England. Very much worth noting.

 

[fredfertang]

To my mind one characteristic all the top batsmen share is the ability to make it look like they have all the time in the world to play their shots - in fairness to D'Oliveira their was a bit of that about him - he was certainly much better to watch than most of his contemporaries - in fact all save Ollie Milburn - but then he was a bit special - a bit like Matthew Hayden but built on more luxurious lines

 

[Marius]

Yeah, that Peter Oborne book is one of the best cricket books I have ever read.

Don't think we can say how good Dolly would have been, as has been mentioned I think its generally accepted that Barry Richards is the 2nd best batsman ever produced by SA, after Graeme Pollock.

I wonder how many "non-whites" would have played for South Africa if it hadn't been for apartheid?

 

[Goughy]

I wonder how many "non-whites" would have played for South Africa if it hadn't been for apartheid?

TBH, knowing the strength of the 'white' players during apartheid (ie best team in the World) and the general standard of 'non-white' cricket (a few good players but it had little depth) the answer to the question would be 'not many'.

 

[Marius]

TBH, knowing the strength of the 'white' players (ie best team in the World) and the general standard of 'non-white' cricket (a few good players but it had little depth) the answer to the question would be 'not many'

Agreed. Even if you look at the current side, there are three non-whites out of the starting XI (all there on merit in my opinion), and this is nearly 30 years after cricket started putting money and support into non-white cricket.

 

[wpdavid]

TBH, knowing the strength of the 'white' players during apartheid (ie best team in the World) and the general standard of 'non-white' cricket (a few good players but it had little depth) the answer to the question would be 'not many'.

Very probably true by 1970 when they had just become No. 1, and also very likely around the time of their very good side in the late 1950's. Less certain imo around the side's transitional period in the early 1960's unless BD really was a complete one-off. And who knows who else missed out in the decade or so after WW2? Actually, TTBoy may have some idea - I think he's read far more into this than the rest of us.

 

[Dissector]

I think it's a stretch to call South Africa the no.1 team in 1970 just because they thrashed Australia at home. They never won in Australia and obviously never played the West Indies, India or Pakistan.

 

[wpdavid]

I think it's a stretch to call South Africa the no.1 team in 1970 just because they thrashed Australia at home. They never won in Australia and obviously never played the West Indies, India or Pakistan.

Given the strength (or lack of) of those sides at the time, I don't think it's an unreasonable view. However, absolutely agreed that things would have been far more questionable by the mid1970's.

 

[Dissector]

England had a pretty good side which would re-take the next Ashes. It's far from given that SA would have beaten England in England in 1970. I think this was a period where there no clear no.1 side. South Africa was in the mix but really played too little test cricket to be considered no.1.

 

[Goughy]

Very probably true by 1970 when they had just become No. 1, and also very likely around the time of their very good side in the late 1950's. Less certain imo around the side's transitional period in the early 1960's unless BD really was a complete one-off. And who knows who else missed out in the decade or so after WW2? Actually, TTBoy may have some idea - I think he's read far more into this than the rest of us.

Its pretty much acknowledged, that whilst there was some talent, D'Oliveira was special compared to his peers. The gulf beween the cricket in the 2 boards was dramatic as was the facilities and money.

Interestingly, here is D'Oliveira playing against Graeme Pollock before either made their Test debuts.

 

[wpdavid]

Its pretty much acknowledged, that whilst there was some talent, D'Oliveira was special compared to his peers. The gulf beween the cricket in the 2 boards was dramatic as was the facilities and money.

Interestingly, here is D'Oliveira playing against Graeme Pollock before either made their Test debuts.

Fascinating team-sheets: not least for the presence of Hall & Kanhai.
Was R Gripper the father of the guy who played for Zim?

 

[Goughy]

Fascinating team-sheets: not least for the presence of Hall & Kanhai.
Was R Gripper the father of the guy who played for Zim?

He was.

Also for a guy that played 7 Tests for WI, Im amazed I cant find a picture of Chester Watson (who also played in this game)

 

[Richard]

England had a pretty good side which would re-take the next Ashes. It's far from given that SA would have beaten England in England in 1970. I think this was a period where there no clear no.1 side. South Africa was in the mix but really played too little test cricket to be considered no.1.

West Indies were in a complete rut in 1970; I can't see any real evidence to suggest England would have beaten them that summer either. And Pakistan were certainly a no-chance either.

That South African side could quite justifiably be called the best Test team in history; it's quite a stretch to suggest they weren't even the best in The World at the time.

 

[fredfertang]

That South African side could quite justifiably be called the best Test team in history; it's quite a stretch to suggest they weren't even the best in The World at the time.

They hammered Australia in 1969/70 and undoubtedly were the best team in the world at that time - the late 60's Aussie XI was by no means the best ever but in 1968 England couldn't beat them so I don't think 1970 would have been much different to 69/70

Best Team in history? - well no top class spinner of course but then plenty put forward Bradman's Invincibles for that accolade and they had the same "failing"

 

[Dissector]

If I am not mistaken 1970 series was the first SA played in 3 years. Since when do you get to be no.1 after one home series? To earn that title you need to win test series consistently at home and abroad.

 

[Richard]

It's not a "title" - it's simply a case of it being very obvious that the South Africans had a far better collection of players than anyone else at that time, whether they played against them or not.

 

[Richard]

They hammered Australia in 1969/70 and undoubtedly were the best team in the world at that time - the late 60's Aussie XI was by no means the best ever but in 1968 England couldn't beat them so I don't think 1970 would have been much different to 69/70

And of course that Australian team had just won in India, something their successors couldn't do for another 35 years.

Best Team in history? - well no top class spinner of course but then plenty put forward Bradman's Invincibles for that accolade and they had the same "failing"

Yeah, West Indies of 1980-1983 likewise, though they always had holes which the SA team didn't really (in fact it had a surplus). A top-class spinner isn't a requirement for a good attack if your seamers are good enough.

 

[Dissector]

Except that it's not obvious because most of those players had very little test experience.

 

[Richard]

So? They were still very obviously very good.

 

[fredfertang]

They had a team full of great players who through no fault of their own couldn't carry on what they started - Graham Pollock and Barry Richards were great batsman by any standards and likewise Mike Proctor was a great allrounder - Peter Pollock and Eddie Barlow were top class too - and they all had youth on their side - there aren't many nobrainers in cricket but the quality of that side is certainly one.