Best left handed batsman of all time

[bagapath]

I'm convinced that he was clearly a greater batsman than Gavaskar, since he was at least as sound technically and a much more brilliant strokeplayer as well. Richards did not have the chance to demonstrate this in Test cricket, and as such is rarely mentioned when openers for various all-time teams are chosen.

not taking anything away from barry richards but it is one thing to assume that a terrific first class cricketer would have succeeded in test cricket and a totally different thing to say a 4 test wonder would have been better than someone who scored 10000 runs in tests. not that you said it explicitly but i kind of got that sense from your post. i know it is not richards' fault that SA got banned from international cricket; and it is most definitely not sunil gavaskar's fault either. as a test opener sunny should only be compared with trumper, hobbs, sutcliffe, hutton, boycott, greenidge, hayden, sehwag and smith. there are many other good/very good openers other than these but they were either not good enough for comparison with gavaskar or didnt play enough to be judged properly; barry richards belongs there.

g.pollock is a different case though. played 20 odd tests, scored 2000 plus runs and seven centuries at a 60+ avg over 5+ years of international cricket. surely one of the best middle order bats of all time. still i dont believe most of the cricket fraternity would rate him above sobers and lara. CMJ's list is one useful example.

 

[Sanz]

that's not a function of pollock's inherent quality itself but his reputation driven by the biased accounts of his admirers.

I think it is a big stretch to accuse fans, cricketers and Journalists from all over the world of bias.

 

[Matt79]

that's not a function of pollock's inherent quality itself but his reputation driven by the biased accounts of his admirers.

As opposed to the biased account of Lara's admirers?

Pollock played enough Tests to have an idea of how he performed at that level. And given his longevity and consistent success in the FC scene, there's little ground to suggest he wouldn't have continued to succeed at a similar level.

 

[bagapath]

As opposed to the biased account of Lara's admirers?

Pollock played enough Tests to have an idea of how he performed at that level. And given his longevity and consistent success in the FC scene, there's little ground to suggest he wouldn't have continued to succeed at a similar level.

lara also touched 60+ batting avg after 16 tests and once again after 31 tests (with 3000 runs behind him). he could do what pollock did. he also scored 30+ hundreds a triple century and one unbeaten quadruple century. cant think of any reason to not admire lara; hence i dont think "biased" would ever fit in before "lara's admirers"

 

[bagapath]

I think it is a big stretch to accuse fans, cricketers and Journalists from all over the world of bias.

you guys are assuming most of the cricket fraternity would rank pollock above sobers and lara. i dont think it would happen. so this argument about whether that is a biased view or not is irrelevant.

 

[Matt79]

lara also touched 60+ batting avg after 16 tests and once again after 31 tests (with 3000 runs behind him). he could do what pollock did. he also scored 30+ hundreds a triple century and one unbeaten quadruple century. cant think of any reason to not admire lara; hence i dont think "biased" would ever fit in before "lara's admirers"

I'm not saying that Lara's admirers are biased - well at least no more biased than Pollock's fans. Both are basing their opinions on what they've seen of his batting, or otherwise on the opinions of others who saw their batting.

Not buying into whether Pollock or Lara are better, just reacting to the suggestion that Pollock is rated so highly because of bias.

 

[steve132]

you guys are assuming most of the cricket fraternity would rank pollock above sobers and lara. i dont think it would happen. so this argument about whether that is a biased view or not is irrelevant.

That's not the assumption or the issue at stake here. The argument is not Pollock versus Sobers and Lara, but Sobers, Lara and Pollock versus everybody else.

I believe this trio would be the left handers who would obtain the most votes in any poll of cricketers, journalists and fans. For the record, I consider Sobers to be clearly the greatest batsman of the three, and I think that he would win any such poll very comfortably, as is the case with the current poll. Lara would probably win more votes than Pollock - and I don't disagree with that judgment - but Pollock would almost certainly do better than Woolley, Harvey, Border, Sangakkara or Gilchrist.

 

[bagapath]

TPollock would almost certainly do better than Woolley, Harvey, Border, Sangakkara or Gilchrist.

of that lot harvey and border would not be too happy with that i guess. harvey, after 23 tests, the same as pollock, averaged more than him. all superstars no doubt, woolley more as all rounder though.

 

[MrIncredible]

Mistakenly voted for Sobers, is there ne way to change my vote to Lara???

 

[Richard]

not taking anything away from barry richards but it is one thing to assume that a terrific first class cricketer would have succeeded in test cricket and a totally different thing to say a 4 test wonder would have been better than someone who scored 10000 runs in tests.

It's very possible he would have been AFAIC. However, all we'll ever know is that it's possible.

To deny that it was possible would be foolish IMO. To say "it didn't happen and I don't care about any level below Test cricket" would be equally foolish; to say "Gavaskar got the chance, Richards didn't" is about all that makes sense.

That is not, of course, to say that one who considers Gavaskar > Richards is foolish, just to say that the idea that it's a clear-cut thing is foolish. Going either way is fair enough IMO.

 

[Richard]

Mistakenly voted for Sobers, is there ne way to change my vote to Lara???

CW polls work on the premise that people are going to vote for what they aim to vote for; this belief, though it has been proven many times not to apply, is rather a sound one.

 

[Sanz]

you guys are assuming most of the cricket fraternity would rank pollock above sobers and lara. i dont think it would happen. so this argument about whether that is a biased view or not is irrelevant.

Has been addressed pretty eloquently by matt79 and Steve132.

 

[Richard]

Garry Sobers FFS.

 

[MrIncredible]

Wow is Sobers that much better a batsman than Lara?? Or maybe we r a bit clouded by Sobers' other exceptional abilities??

 

[Burgey]

Wow is Sobers that much better a batsman than Lara?? Or maybe we r a bit clouded by Sobers' other exceptional abilities??

I would have Sobers ahead of Lara tbh, but having said that I'm obviously influenced byt he views of those who saw him play, not having done so myself.

Still not enough AB love here. Honestly, look at what he did and the era(s) he did it. Love him.

 

[MrIncredible]

Love him too. Probably underated because he wasnt as 'flashy' as the others on the list and certainly a great of all time. Would rate him behind Lara and Sobers but certainly not by ne big margin.

 

[Top_Cat]

Garry Sobers FFS.

Why are you correcting people when it's not even his name?

 

[SJS]

Wow is Sobers that much better a batsman than Lara?? Or maybe we r a bit clouded by Sobers' other exceptional abilities??

Because he was a much better batsmen. There are tens of thousands of people around the world who saw both of them bat and dozens who played against Sobers and watched Lara closely. The opinion is almost unanimous amongst this lot.

 

[MrIncredible]

I see that but i dont really understand y. In the end i will concede that Sobers is probably a better bat than Lara but by that much. Sobers after all did average sumthin like 20 odd vs New Zealand of his time

 

[Goughy]

If you love your left handers then the 1970 Eng vs ROW series would have been one to watch (should have Test status for my liking)

Sobers dominating and Lloyd and Pollock amongst the runs

Rest of the World cricket team in England in 1970 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia