Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ?

[Avada Kedavra]

I have obviously heard a lot about players like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. Everyone who has seen them play includes them in the top echelon of players to have played the game. Whilst I am prepared to accept that they were great batsmen, I cannot see why they should be rated over players who excelled at test cricket .

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Simply because the Test careers of Richards and Pollock were severely limited by South Africa's exclusion from international cricket due to apartheid. Taken together, their outstanding first-class records and brilliant, if short, Test records suggest that it would be very unlikely that they would not be among the all-time greats had they not been prevented from playing more Tests through no fault of their own.

 

[Maximus0723]

No it's not.

Hence why they are so overrated.

 

[zaremba]

It's a relevant factor that needs to be taken into account, along with others.

 

[wpdavid]

I have obviously heard a lot about players like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. Everyone who has seen them play includes them in the top echelon of players to have played the game. Whilst I am prepared to accept that they were great batsmen, I cannot see why they should be rated over players who excelled at test cricket .

Graeme Pollock played a fair number of tests didn't he?

Beyond that, it's not unreasonable to compare their domestic records to those of their contempories and try and make some sort of judgment. It'll never be an exact science, but so what? fwiw I wouldn't include Richards in my all time XI for the reason you stated, although I'd happily include him in my favourite XI based on what I saw of him playing for Hants.

 

[fredfertang]

Barry Richards averaged the best part of 80 in the WSC "supertests" he played in - although he just played Australia and not the WSC West Indians - still pretty impressive though

 

[Goughy]

I dont think it is fair to judge people on the FC records but with guys like Pollock, Richards (B), Proctor etc FC records are only a small part of what we use to judge them. We read accounts, we draw on our memories we talk to people that know them etc.

Of course noone can ever say that Richards was a better Test player than Greenidge as Greenidge accomplished so much more but many can say that Richards was a better batsman than Greenidge based on watching them and assessing their ability.

I dont think a lot of these guys are being judged on their FC records but rather on how good they were from watching them play.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Graeme Pollock played a fair number of tests didn't he?

Beyond that, it's not unreasonable to compare their domestic records to those of their contempories and try and make some sort of judgment. It'll never be an exact science, but so what? fwiw I wouldn't include Richards in my all time XI for the reason you stated, although I'd happily include him in my favourite XI based on what I saw of him playing for Hants.

Fair enough.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Graeme Pollock played a fair number of tests didn't he?

Beyond that, it's not unreasonable to compare their domestic records to those of their contempories and try and make some sort of judgment. It'll never be an exact science, but so what? fwiw I wouldn't include Richards in my all time XI for the reason you stated, although I'd happily include him in my favourite XI based on what I saw of him playing for Hants.

Yeah Pollock played about 20 tests. While only a fool would scoff at a record like that, is it reasonable to compare him to, say, a Lara or a Border ? I understand that it isn't Pollock's fault that he didn't get to play more tests but....

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Simply because the Test careers of Richards and Pollock were severely limited by South Africa's exclusion from international cricket due to apartheid. Taken together, their outstanding first-class records and brilliant, if short, Test records suggest that it would be very unlikely that they would not be among the all-time greats had they not been prevented from playing more Tests through no fault of their own.

I do realise that it was due to circumstances beyond their control that they didn't play more tests. Their short test records do suggest that they could have been great players, but then they could also have declined sharply if they had played say, 50 tests more. Someone like Hussey is a good example. He averaged something like 80 after 20 tests if I am not mistaken. Look at what his average his now...

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I do realise that it was due to circumstances beyond their control that they didn't play more tests. Their short test records do suggest that they could have been great players, but then they could also have declined sharply if they had played say, 50 tests more. Someone like Hussey is a good example. He averaged something like 80 after 20 tests if I am not mistaken. Look at what his average his now...

Yes, they could, but like it said, it was unlikely. Besides, averaging as much as Hussey did on today's pitches (yawn, Zzz etc) isn't quite as improbable.

Goughy's argument is probably the best counter to that above.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game?

I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject.

 

[Goughy]

It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game?

I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject.

Yes. Hick especially

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was kinda hoping for more than a three word answer, tbf.

 

[fredfertang]

.. and then I start thinking about the likes of Gower and Botham and what they might have achieved with the steely resolve of a Boycott ............ and then I realise the answer must be what Boycott achieved

but Barry Richards was different - I have never seen anyone, not even Gower, seem to have as much time in which to play his shots - only batter I've ever seen who did actually leave me thinking that if he really didn't want to get out then he wouldn't be

 

[Richard]

Anyone who concludes that Test cricket is the only way to rate players and that the domestic First-Class game has little to no part to play - and that this is the case for all players throughout history - doesn't understand how the game has worked down the ages. There were times - and it isn't anywhere near so long ago as you might think - when some of the better First-Class cricket was superior to not a little Test cricket.

Just because for the last ~20 years Test cricket has been the obvious and ultimate format of the game - and a player (exceptionally rare though these cases are) who succeeded at Test level and didn't do anywhere near so well at domestic FC level can have that near enough discounted - doesn't mean it's always been the way.

Even in the 1960s and 1970s, some of the better domestic cricket was of a higher standard than Tests. Of course for any player until those of very recently, domestic FC cricket has a huge part to play in an assessment of how good or otherwise a player is - regardless of whether the player has had a decent shot at a Test career or not. To suggest otherwise is IMO foolhardy.

 

[fredfertang]

Excellent point Richard - if I hadn't done it 27 times before its at this point I'd trot out my usual homily on the subject of a certain English fast bowler from days gone by

 

[bagapath]

Even in the 1960s and 1970s, some of the better domestic cricket was of a higher standard than Tests.

can you explain this a bit, please?

it is going to be a shock to the world if you manage to make a convincing argument that while lillee, gavaskar, sobers, g.chappell, roberts, barrington, bedi, chandra, prasanna, gibbs, lloyd, kanhai, i.chappell, knott, holding and underwood were winning accolades for what they were doing in tests, a higher standard of cricket was played in the first class arena.

 

[Redbacks]

He never made that suggestion.

Even now, a bowler taking a bag of wickets against a full strenght NSW batting line up would be facing a line up better than some test sides. It's just a lot less common for these type of circumstances to present themselves.

 

[Jono]

Which test sides?