Did Barry Richards do enough to be considered in an All Time Team

[vcs]

Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but.

Haha, so true.

 

[smash84]

(they were unlucky, let's keep it at that!),

This

 

[Himannv]

Interestingly, the same logic applies to Mike Procter among fast bowlers.

Procter was superlative in the little tests he played, he was superlative in WSC and simply awesome in FC. If Barry can be considered for an opening slot, then I see no reason why Procter can't be considered for a fast bowler's slot, even without considering Procter's decent batting prowess.

That's the main reason I personally think all of Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and Mike Procter should be kept out of discussion for an all-time world XI (they were unlucky, let's keep it at that!), but they should definitely be automatic choices when it comes to a South African All-Time XI.

Fair enough. Pollock is a more debatable option I reckon.

 

[hang on]

procter could have been the only man in sobers' league, had he played over a whole career. what a waste.

 

[Himannv]

His FC numbers are staggering actually.

 

[vcs]

That South African team could have been awesome, I reckon. They had everything.

 

[smash84]

That South African team could have been awesome, I reckon. They had everything.

except what mattered most.......international test status

 

[ankitj]

With all due respect to the OP I think the more interesting question is whether Graeme Pollock did enough

Makes it to my all time XI most of the time. Impressive thing about him was his big strokeply with a simple, minimalist technique. And a genuinely nice guy too. Played a few great, great knocks in the limited opportunity he got, one of which made it to Wisden 100 best knocks of all time.

Must watch: http://www.espncricinfo.com/legends-of-cricket/content/site/451900.html?headline=42677

 

[Cevno]

Nope.

Would have to then consider the likes of Vijay Merchant and Madhavan Sathashivam too for sure. Richards was more recent and played in Australia and England so is a bit more hyped up.
But ultimately it is all down to speculation for the most part and can't pick for a all time team based on that.

 

[wpdavid]

It really depends what do you want to call him, he is not a great test cricketer, but purely as a cricketer he has to be one of the greats based on what one saw of him, what his peers and historians thought of him and what he achieved in first class cricket. If you watch him play, he is to someone who batted like Greg Chappell and had an aggression of someone like Viv Richards. It is a shame that world couldn't get to see more of him.

‪Barry Richards - ESPN Legends Of Cricket No. 24 (Part 1)‬‏ - YouTube

I know this has already been quoted, but it pretty much sums things up wrt Barry Richards. His minimal test career prevents him from appearing in my all time XI, but you can't really argue with the sort of judges we saw on the ESPN clips. Making a comparison with football, many observers will happily rate guys like Best, Weah & de Stefano as ATGs despite not playing in world cups, so on that basis, why shouldn't people do the same with Richards?

 

[Sanz]

Nope.

Would have to then consider the likes of Vijay Merchant and Madhavan Sathashivam too for sure. Richards was more recent and played in Australia and England so is a bit more hyped up.
But ultimately it is all down to speculation for the most part and can't pick for a all time team based on that.

First of all, reading the cricket archives is not speculation, it is part of history. Reading the opinion of his peers from all over the world isn't speculation either, it is also called expert opinion and if all experts agree on one thing, it is almost certain that their opnion is right.

Secondly Ofcourse performance against England/Australia should get more value because they were the premier sides in the 60s-70s and had a well established first class cricket.

Lastly, Bringing Merchant and others into this discussion is irrelevant IMO and not the right comparison. How did Merchant perform against the best of the best and what did the historians and his peers think of him ? (And btw Merchant is a great IMO, I rate him ahead of Sehwag as a cricket opener).

 

[kyear2]

Interesting opinions. First let me say that the only reason that I have this dilema is because opener is the weakest position on any All Time Team. Hutton is my number one guy. Perfect technique who before the war was challenging Bradman as the best batsman in the world, who at 22 broke Bradmans world record. He missed his best years to the war, has a devastating injury during the war which left him with one arm 3"s shorter than the other. Over his career he faced every one from O'Reilly to the fared combos of Lindwall and Miller and Ramadin and Valentine. After him it gets hazy Hobbs played in a weak era where LBW rules were charitable at best and the fact that he scored 100 hundreds after 40 spoke volumes about his oposition. Gavaskar played againts great players but his reputaion vs the West Indies were nhanced during WSC series and at one point againts a mostly spin attack. His rather slow strike rate also goes againts him. But he is the best of the rest and a brilliant player. Sehwags technique vs high class fast bowlers still remain to be fully examined and Greenidge's numbers just dont hold up againts the others.

 

[kyear2]

With regard to Richards himself, the comparison with Pollock is two fold. Pollock played in more test matches, but all were still againts Australia and after isolation he prefered to stay in S.A. while Richrds enhanced his reputation by plying his wares the World over and exposing him self to the best attacks first class cricket had to offer. WSC also offered him a chance to prove what he was truly capable of, and his stats showed : World Series Cricket Player Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
The main difference between Pollock and Headley was that Headley's 20 test was spread over 10 years which was much harder that 2 series againts the same team in your prime. This is why Headley is rated higher.
Ps. The WSC stats also show why Greg Chappel is the best Australian bat since Bradman and among the top 8 middle order batsmen of all time.

 

[ankitj]

One hypothetical question - Would Barry Richards be rated as highly as he is if he finished with an average of ~30 from 4 tests rather than 70+, assuming all of his other achievements remained same? Everyone knows 4 tests is absolutely nothing to go by, but somehow does it play a role in everyone's sub-conscious in rating him?

 

[Howe_zat]

After him it gets hazy Hobbs played in a weak era where LBW rules were charitable at best and the fact that he scored 100 hundreds after 40 spoke volumes about his oposition.

I agree with you re: Hutton, but this strikes me as illogical to say the least. You could just as easily say the same thing about Tendulkar.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs scored 100 first class hundreds after the age of 40. In this era that is not possible. Test cricketers today fade quickly after 35- 37, thats testament to the class of the opposition.
With regard to the lbw rule of the day. Hobbs and Sutcliffe we renowned for difficult pitches, strictly only using their pads to everything pitched out side off, forcing the bowlers to bowl on thier legs where they were whipped through the offside. They were a factor in the changing of the rules. Aditionally there was no second new ball, and the balls were practically seamless. Yes, it was overwhelmingly a batsman game then.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree with you re: Hutton, but this strikes me as illogical to say the least. You could just as easily say the same thing about Tendulkar.

Yeah, circular logic at its best.

 

[fredfertang]

One hypothetical question - Would Barry Richards be rated as highly as he is if he finished with an average of ~30 from 4 tests rather than 70+, assuming all of his other achievements remained same? Everyone knows 4 tests is absolutely nothing to go by, but somehow does it play a role in everyone's sub-conscious in rating him?

Richards batting was wonderful to watch - he had so much time in which to play the ball - I'd been watching him for a few years before I realised he'd had any sort of Test career so it certainly wouldn't have changed my view if he'd averaged 30 in those four Tests

 

[Anil]

they were unlucky, let's keep it at that

no they practised apartheid, let's keep it that...

 

[smash84]

With regard to Richards himself, the comparison with Pollock is two fold. Pollock played in more test matches, but all were still againts Australia and after isolation he prefered to stay in S.A. while Richrds enhanced his reputation by plying his wares the World over and exposing him self to the best attacks first class cricket had to offer. WSC also offered him a chance to prove what he was truly capable of, and his stats showed : World Series Cricket Player Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
The main difference between Pollock and Headley was that Headley's 20 test was spread over 10 years which was much harder that 2 series againts the same team in your prime. This is why Headley is rated higher.
Ps. The WSC stats also show why Greg Chappel is the best Australian bat since Bradman and among the top 8 middle order batsmen of all time.

That link that you post shows some great bowlers and batsmen there?

Interestingly Barry Richards played only 5 matches? Why not more? Also Imran has the best average and SR but he also has only 5 matches. Anybody know why these guys played less?