South Africans vs 1966-85 XI

[aussie tragic]

The final question on the 1966-85 World XI is should any of the following South Africans restricted from playing Test Cricket have made the XI in your opinion. If so, please state who they would replace and why (or why not)?

Barry Richards
Tests: 4 Games, 508 runs @ 72.57 (2/2)
FC: 339 Matches, 28,358 runs @ 54.74 (80 centuries)

Mike Procter
Tests: 7 Games, 226 runs @ 25.11 (0/0); 41 wkts @ 15.02, SR 36.92
FC: 401 Matches, 21,936 runs @ 36.01 (48 centuries); 1417 wkts @ 19.53, SR 46.2

Clive Rice
FC: 482 Matches, 26,331 runs @ 40.95 (48 centuries); 930 wkts @ 22.49, SR 52.3

Note: Graeme Pollock, Peter Pollock and Eddie Barlow are not included as they are 1946-65 World XI nominees.

CW 1966-85 World Test XI

1. Sunil Gavaskar (50.67)
2. Gordon Greenidge (49.14)
3. Viv Richards (54.02)
4. Greg Chappell * (53.86)
5. Gary Sobers (59.10) (bowl: 32.62)
6. Ian Botham (36.13) (bowl: 26.37)
7. Alan Knott + (32.75)
8. Richard Hadlee (24.98) (bowl: 22.54)
9. Malcom Marshall (17.77) (bowl: 22.11)
10. Dennis Lillee (13.71) (bowl: 23.92)
11. Derek Underwood (11.56) (bowl: 25.83)

 

[silentstriker]

Nope, its all guesswork. Could Barry Richards have made it if he had played tests? Yea, probably. But he didn't so you can't guess it. There are plenty of people who have outstanding FC records but fall apart at the test level.

You never know which ones those will be, so you can't justify them in an all time side.

 

[aussie tragic]

I have placed this poll as promised during the "should they or shouldn't they be considered" discussion at the start of the selection process, however IMO using FC records to decide if people would have been great Test players is flawed.

However, this is not so simple as these 3 succeeded at every opportunity given and their FC records are extremely impressive. In addition, they also did well during the Packer WSC as follows:

Barry Richards: 5 Games, 554 @ 79.14

Mike Procter: 4 Games, 182 runs @ 30.33; 14 wkts @ 16.07

Clive Rice: 3 Games, 151 runs @ 30.20; 7 wkts @ 24.14

Having said all that, I'm afraid I can't place the potential of Barry Richards over the proven records of Viv Richards, Chappell & Sobers and I can't pick Procter & Rice over Botham or Hadlee (or Sobers).

Shame we didn't get the opportunity to see more of their talents

 

[shortpitched713]

Mike Procter in for Dennis Lillee is the only one I could think of, but I doubt anyone would agree with me.

 

[aussie tragic]

"Dravid", who would you drop to fit Barry Richards in?

 

[silentstriker]

I'm afraid I can't place the potential of Barry Richards over the proven records of Viv Richards, Chappell & Sobers

Especially considering that Chapell, Richards and Sobers are three of the best batsmen of all time. All three would probably be in the top six all time.

 

[Goughy]

Barry Richards ahead of CGG. They played together for an eternity and Barry was always considered the better player. Barry Richards is possibly the best opener to have walked on the face of the earth (possibly only, its still open for discussion). However, he is generally regarded as a superior player to Greenidge.

There are few that saw both that would take Greenidge over Richards.

 

[aussie]

yea i'd go Richards over Greenidge as well.

 

[silentstriker]

Barry Richards ahead of CGG. They played together for an eternity and Barry was always considered the better player. Barry Richards is possibly the best opener to have walked on the face of the earth (possibly only, its still open for discussion). However, he is generally regarded as a superior player to Greenidge.

There are few that saw both that would take Greenidge over Richards.

His FC average is great, but not exceptional. A lot of people have FC averages a lot higher. He has a good amount of centuries, but again not exceptional considering the number of FC games played.

Could he have averaged 45+ in test cricket? Yea, I think so. But I just have to extrapolate his FC record, and kind of go by what people tell me (and his FC record is awesome, but not all time exceptional).

 

[PhoenixFire]

His FC average is great, but not exceptional. A lot of people have FC averages a lot higher. Since I wasn't alive when Barry Richards was playing, I can't really say that.

People get carried away with Averages and strike rates and so on. The only real factors are technique, footwork, timing and so on. They judge on how good the batsman is.

 

[silentstriker]

People get carried away with Averages and strike rates and so on. The only real factors are technique, footwork, timing and so on. They judge on how good the batsman is.

By that definition, Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time and Bradman is mediocre, and Lara stinks.

Your criteria is good, but only if it produces runs.

And as for Greenidge, if people who saw both of them say they would take Richards over Greenidge, thats fair enough and they could very well be right...but judging as an outsider who was not alive to see either of them play, I just can't take a test player and judge him to be an inferior player to an FC player.

No matter what. I don't know how he would have done at the Test level over a decade or more. No one does. You can guess, but you don't know.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Mike Procter in for Dennis Lillee is the only one I could think of, but I doubt anyone would agree with me.

Agreed, and agreed with Richards over Greenidge.

 

[TT Boy]

Only if it produces runs.

And as for Greenidge, if people who saw both of them say they would take Richards over Greenidge, thats fair enough and they could very well be right...but judging as an outsider who was not alive to see either of them play, I just can't take a test player and judge him to be an inferior player to an FC player.

No matter what.

From what I’ve read and Richards has acknowledged this himself that he sometimes found cricket too easier and slightly tedious but giving a challenge he would always rise to the top. Evident in what he achieved in World Series Cricket in 1977.

 

[PhoenixFire]

By that definition, Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time and Bradman is mediocre, and Lara stinks.

Your criteria is good, but only if it produces runs.

And as for Greenidge, if people who saw both of them say they would take Richards over Greenidge, thats fair enough and they could very well be right...but judging as an outsider who was not alive to see either of them play, I just can't take a test player and judge him to be an inferior player to an FC player.

No matter what. I don't know how he would have done at the Test level over a decade or more. No one does. You can guess, but you don't know.

I agree that runs are the most important outcome of having good footwork etc, but I was just saying that people get caught up in stats too much. A player like Stan McCabe for instance, was reagrded by many people, to have more talent than Bradman, but just not the application of others.

 

[silentstriker]

I agree that runs are the most important outcome of having good footwork etc, but I was just saying that people get caught up in stats too much. A player like Stan McCabe for instance, was reagrded by many people, to have more talent than Bradman, but just not the application of others.

Right, I understand that. But I think if you have sloppy footwork but somehow manage to score in all conditions anyway, why should that be held against you?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Because it means you are not a good batsman. And the whole point is, is that basically, unless you're a freak, then you won't score loads of runs.

 

[silentstriker]

Because it means you are not a good batsman. And the whole point is, is that basically, unless you're a freak, then you won't score loads of runs.

I don't think that flies, Lara doesn't have texbook technique, and neither did Bradman. Seriously, who cares about footwork if you don't score runs? And two people scoring the same amount of runs int he same conditions against same bowlers - one has 'bad' technique, and the other has 'good' technique -- who cares?

 

[JBH001]

I dunno guys, I honestly do not think Richards did enough to be considered, and in any case it would be unfair on Greenidge too.

Come to that, the Aussie side against which he scored all those runs was a pretty average side in any case with only an ageing Garth McKenzie a pace bowler of any substance. I know a lot is made of WSC and all that and the quality of the players - but the players did not represent their countries, and a part of me thinks that players give of their best when they represent their nations in officially sanctioned competitions. Therefore, I take those much trumpeted performances with a sprinkling of salt.

So, I go for speculation. Richards stays out - and wtf?! Proctor for Lillee? Yeah, right!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I don't think that flies, Lara doesn't have texbook technique, and neither did Bradman. Seriously, who cares about footwork if you don't score runs? And two people scoring the same amount of runs int he same conditions against same bowlers - one has 'bad' technique, and the other has 'good' technique -- who cares?

I understand where you're coming from, but those sorts of people could be even better, had they got good techniques. You can have a good technique, a rubbish eye and no timing, so you'll never be good. But you can also have a crap technique, a good eye and timing (like Bradman and Lara), but you can learn technique.

 

[silentstriker]

I understand where you're coming from, but those sorts of people could be even better, had they got good techniques. You can have a good technique, a rubbish eye and no timing, so you'll never be good. But you can also have a crap technique, a good eye and timing (like Bradman and Lara), but you can learn technique.

But you are going off on a tangent there. They could be better or worse - who knows? Could Bradman have averaged 150 if he had better technique? Or would he have averaged less because he already had the perfect technique for him?

Technique is extremely important, but to say it somehow overrides runs and strike rates is just something I can't fathom.