Who is South Africa's Greatest Batsman

[Dan]

Headley's a different case though, in that his 20 Tests came across 20-odd years. There's longevity there, just not in terms of the number of Tests.

Anyway, cbf with this part of the discussion, so I'll throw up another question. If Amla keeps going at the rate he's going now until he retires, would he overtake Kallis as a pure batsman?

 

[kyear2]

Everything. You're not great if you don't do it for a large portion of your career. Flash in the pans are not great are they

Pollock wasn't a flash in the pan. His opportunities in Test cricket was limited. He didn't stop playing cricket, just test cricket and his form hardly dipped. I personally find it interesting that Barnes and O'Reilly are rated higher than players with significantly longer careers but batsmen are down graded for shorter careers.
O'Reily cam be seen as greater than Mural, Kumble ext and Barnes greater than McGrath but not Kallis over Pollock.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Headley's a different case though, in that his 20 Tests came across 20-odd years. There's longevity there, just not in terms of the number of Tests.

Anyway, cbf with this part of the discussion, so I'll throw up another question. If Amla keeps going at the rate he's going now until he retires, would he overtake Kallis as a pure batsman?

Pollock wasn't a flash in the pan. His opportunities in Test cricket was limited. He didn't stop playing cricket, just test cricket and his form hardly dipped. I personally find it interesting that Barnes and O'Reilly are rated higher than players with significantly longer careers but batsmen are down graded for shorter careers.
O'Reily cam be seen as greater than Mural, Kumble ext and Barnes greater than McGrath but not Kallis over Pollock.

I didn't say Pollock and Headley were flashes in the pan. Was simply responding to you saying longevity has nothing to do with greatness, which I disagree with

 

[OverratedSanity]

Anyway, cbf with this part of the discussion, so I'll throw up another question. If Amla keeps going at the rate he's going now until he retires, would he overtake Kallis as a pure batsman?

The **** kind of question is that? Hash is already better

 

[Arachnodouche]

What is this glittering array of Sanga innings, pray tell?

I'd also have Graeme Smith instead of Amla in the poll.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What is this glittering array of Sanga innings, pray tell?

Rapid 230 against Shoaib Akhtar when he was pretty much at his peak

192 at Hobart. Needs no introduction. Probably his most famous innings, not necessarily his best

156 in 192 balls at wellington. Juicy pitch. Bond at his best. And the rest of SL's batsmen combined muster up just 92. One of the best counterrattacks I've ever seen

211 against Ajmal, Junaid to save the test, trailing by 300+, and were at one point 4 wickets down still trailing by 80

Pretty glittering imo. And these are just the very best which came to mind immediately, I'm sure I can come up with several more

 

[Leftarmtweaker]

Just nothing right about this post IMHO.

Why? Kallis averages 55 in test cricket, over 40 in one day cricket and 30 in T20 cricket. Obviously, players like Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock should be considered but their international careers were curtailed due to apartheid. But Kallis has all the tools of a great batsman. Patience, temperament and concentration plus a fabulous cover drive.

 

[watson]

What is this glittering array of Sanga innings, pray tell?

I'd also have Graeme Smith instead of Amla in the poll.

232 out of 470 in the first innings, then South Africa bowled out for 189 and 179. There aren't too many Test matches where a single innings has been more dominant.

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v South Africa at Colombo (SSC), Aug 11-15, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, a lack of great innings is the last thing that can be used to mark Sanga down. He's played some true masterpieces

 

[MrPrez]

Headley's a different case though, in that his 20 Tests came across 20-odd years. There's longevity there, just not in terms of the number of Tests.

Anyway, cbf with this part of the discussion, so I'll throw up another question. If Amla keeps going at the rate he's going now until he retires, would he overtake Kallis as a pure batsman?

Yup. But he won't.

The only answer to the OP is Kallis. If you say otherwise you're just being over-romantic to the older days.

 

[harsh.ag]

Barry Richards having less votes than Graeme Pollock is ridiculous. Better against both pace and spin.

 

[morgieb]

Barry Richards having less votes than Graeme Pollock is ridiculous. Better against both pace and spin.

Problem with Richards is that he only played one Test series.

 

[MrPrez]

The only answer is Kallis. Sorry, but calling Richards/Pollock better than Kallis is like calling Proctor a better bowler than Steyn/Donald. As much as he might have possibly proved to match their standards, there simply isn't enough proof to say that they would have been nearly as good as Kallis over a whole career of extensive Test cricket. And while I know the question wasn't "who is the better test batsman," Test cricket is the true test of legends. Else Ramprakash would be an ATG English batsman.

 

[harsh.ag]

The only answer is Kallis. Sorry, but calling Richards/Pollock better than Kallis is like calling Proctor a better bowler than Steyn/Donald. As much as he might have possibly proved to match their standards, there simply isn't enough proof to say that they would have been nearly as good as Kallis over a whole career of extensive Test cricket. And while I know the question wasn't "who is the better test batsman," Test cricket is the true test of legends. Else Ramprakash would be an ATG English batsman.

Barry Richards having less votes than Graeme Pollock is ridiculous. Better against both pace and spin.

Didn't mention Kallis.

Yes, Ramparakash would have scored 554 runs in 5 WSC Tests, and would have been called the better batsman when in a pairing with the great Gordon Greenidge.

There is a reason why Barry Richards is the only batsman regarded so highly who has played just 1 Test series. People aren't idiots. Bradman had him in his all time team.

 

[MrPrez]

Didn't mention Kallis.

Yes, Ramparakash would have scored 554 runs in 5 WSC Tests, and would have been called the better batsman when in a pairing with the great Gordon Greenidge.

There is a reason why Barry Richards is the only batsman regarded so highly who has played just 1 Test series. People aren't idiots. Bradman had him in his all time team.

And I wasn't replying to you in particular.


You're creating strawmen. I never claimed Ramprakash was deserving of ATG status, nor that he was as good as Richards. I was simply highlighting that while it may seem easy to judge players and how they would have done in test cricket based upon variables such as their performances in other competitions, you never truly know until the same players play extensive amounts of Test cricket. Faf Du Plessis averaged mid-30s in FC cricket when he was called up by the Proteas, and now has a Test Average of 50. Ramprakash was the most prolific English Domestic batsman over decades yet was never anything beyond mediocre at Tests. Test cricket is a different kettle of fish, and while it is clear that Richards would have been class, we can't know whether he would have been some freak of nature or just a high quality batsman. I just can't see how anybody could substantiate Richards being better than Kallis, a man who averaged 55+ over 100+ Tests and was comparable to the likes of Tendulkar and Ponting - two batsmen whose names usually come up in ATG team discussions.

 

[harsh.ag]

You're creating strawmen. I never claimed Ramprakash was deserving of ATG status, nor that he was as good as Richards. I was simply highlighting that while it may seem easy to judge players and how they would have done in test cricket based upon variables such as their performances in other competitions, you never truly know until the same players play extensive amounts of Test cricket.

Well, of course, and who said it was easy? We never do it. Ever. Richards is the only exception.

 

[kyear2]

Richards is an exception, He made Cricinfo's 2nd XI, CW 2nd XI, Lillee, rates him the equal of Viv and Sobers. He was seen to be superior to his county opening partner, ATG Gordon Greenridge.

Barry Richards was special.

 

[akilana]

Barry Richards having less votes than Graeme Pollock is ridiculous. Better against both pace and spin.

Not surprised. Have seen plenty of people rate G Pollock ahead of B Richards. From what little I have read, he was just as good as Barry but Barry gets rated higher due to his style and elegance.

 

[Prince EWS]

I may have already said it in this thread but I think the best argument against rating players like Richards or even Pollock up there with or above Kallis is more someone like Mark Waugh than Mark Ramprakash.

Anyone who watched Mark Waugh score runs will agree that, like Richards, he looked special. He just looked like he had more time than mere mortals and the grace and ease of his strokeplay was a sight to see. Like Richards, Mark Waugh absolutely dominated non-Test FC cricket, averaging 59 in county cricket, 53 in the Sheffield Shield and a whopping 71 in non-Test FC games for Australia.

Mark Waugh even had an amazing start to his Test career -- he scored a ton on debut after seven Tests he was still averaging over 60 -- so if he'd ended it there for an unfortunate reason I have little doubt people would talk about him in the same way they talk about Richards. The daily grind of Test cricket is unlike every other level of the sport though, and no matter how special a player is and how much we rate our own ability as judges by the eye, it doesn't always translate to ultimate greatness.

There's little to no chance Barry Richards would've pulled a Ramprakash, but there's still a reasonable chance he may have pulled a Mark Waugh and been very good rather than great. If people want to romanticise what could have been then I don't take issue with that, but for me he'd need to actually do it rather than just being likely in many's estimations. The burden of proof lies with the player.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There have been lots of players who looked special , dominated FC, and were tipped to be great batsmen and actually ended up being great batsmen. If you say there was a chance Barry Richards would've been a Mark Waugh, I say there was at worst just as big a chance he'd have been a Tendulkar/Lara type genius who actually fulfilled his potential.

It remains a "what if", but the stuff he did in WSC which had high quality attacks, and more importantly, was competitive cricket comparable in quality and intensity (for the most part) to test cricket, leads me to believe he'd have coped just fine.

However, I don't see how Pollock's lack of cricket compared to guys like Kallis automatically makes him worse. 23 test doesn't sound like much, and was no where close to a full career even back then, but it's surely a significant enough amount of tests to gauge how great he was. It's not like he played one series like Barry. He toured Australia and England with great success, ripped apart both those teams when he played them at home, in a career which spanned 7 years. His case really doesn't come under "what could have been" at all imo. It was an already great career before it was cut short by circumstances.