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

Avada Kedavra · 23-12-2009, 07:27 AM

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 · 23-12-2009, 07:49 AM

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 · 23-12-2009, 07:50 AM

No it's not.

Hence why they are so overrated.

zaremba · 23-12-2009, 07:57 AM

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

wpdavid · 23-12-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 .

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 · 23-12-2009, 12:47 PM

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 · 23-12-2009, 01:40 PM

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 · 23-12-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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 · 23-12-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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 · 23-12-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 23-12-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra

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 · 23-12-2009, 02:17 PM

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 · 23-12-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes. Hick especially

BoyBrumby · 23-12-2009, 02:32 PM

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

fredfertang · 23-12-2009, 02:35 PM

.. 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

23-12-2009, 07:27 AM	#1 (permalink)
Avada Kedavra Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 1,221	Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ? 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 .

23-12-2009, 01:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
Goughy International Coach Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: All Over Posts: 14,638	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. __________________ If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads) Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

23-12-2009, 02:17 PM	#12 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,629	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. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The CW50 - No.20-11	The Sean	Cricket Chat	113	13-12-2009 01:49 AM
Sim a match	Pratters	Cricket Chat	342	31-12-2006 03:03 PM
Fm 2007	bugssy	General Sports Forum	94	01-12-2006 02:41 AM
*Official* New Zealand in Zimbabwe & Zimbabwe/New Zealand/India ODI Tri-Series	James	Cricket Chat	1876	23-09-2005 04:21 PM

23-12-2009, 07:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jungle Jumbo International Vice-Captain Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: England Posts: 4,898	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.

23-12-2009, 07:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
Maximus0723 State Regular Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NY Posts: 921	No it's not. Hence why they are so overrated.

23-12-2009, 07:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
zaremba Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: chez les Ashes Posts: 8,729	It's a relevant factor that needs to be taken into account, along with others.

23-12-2009, 12:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
fredfertang Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: high dudgeon Posts: 9,728	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

23-12-2009, 02:32 PM	#14 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,629	Was kinda hoping for more than a three word answer, tbf.

23-12-2009, 02:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
fredfertang Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: high dudgeon Posts: 9,728	.. 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

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)