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

[kyear2]

To all who saw him Barry Richards ranks as one of, if not the best Batsman of his time. These list would include such greats as Viv Richards, Greg Chappel, Boycott and Gavaskar. His talent and technique were unquestioned and possibly unrivalled. Unfortunately he played in only four tests and againts one team, which automatically raises questions as to how he would have fared consistently vs top class bowlers. He did perform creditably in first class cricket, but his only true test was in WSC, where once agin he shone. But was this all enough.

 

[Sanz]

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

 

[Burgey]

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

This.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No.

 

[Bun]

no

 

[silentstriker]

No. There are lots of players who are prolific at first class level (Mark Ramprakash?) but do not have it in them at the Test level. I'm not saying Barry Richards was that, because IMO he wasn't clearly but all that matters is output.

 

[fredfertang]

No

But he's the most frustrating of all those who aren't because his potential was unfulfilled - I've never seen anyone make batting look as easy as Richards did and had a test career not been denied to him I think there must be every chance he'd have ended up second only to Bradman

 

[shivfan]

No, you can't pick someone based on potential alone....

Barry Richards was potentially a great player, but since he didn't play Test cricket, he can't be included in that list.

 

[fredfertang]

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

 

[marc71178]

I think the answer is yes to be honest, because of his WSC exploits - include him in the ranks of the greats.

Where he ranks amongst them is impossible to say though.

 

[hang on]

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

excellent point. was thinking of bringing that up along with the headley's case and the hypothetical case of hussey had he retired after 24 or so tests.

 

[Himannv]

I honestly feel the answer is yes. He did enough to be "considered" for an opening slot but there are simply others with better qualifications for the slot than him.

 

[hang on]

I honestly feel the answer is yes. He did enough to be "considered" for an opening slot but there are simply others with better qualifications for the slot than him.

so, where would he be in a shortlist for the all time opening slot? ranked, please!

 

[Himannv]

so, where would he be in a shortlist for the all time opening slot? ranked, please!

In my opinion personally:

Jack Hiobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Len Hutton
Herbert Sutcliffe
Barry Richards

In the order they were mentioned. Not including the likes of Grace and Trumper here because I find it harder to rank them and have no idea where to place them.

 

[hang on]

fair enough a ranking. so, richards would be ahead of hayden and sehwag and boycott?

 

[Athlai]

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

 

[Himannv]

fair enough a ranking. so, richards would be ahead of hayden and sehwag and boycott?

For me, yes. Marginally ahead in the case of Boycott.

 

[weldone]

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

awta

 

[Himannv]

Dont know if the timing of this thread was a coincidence, but today is his birthday.

 

[weldone]

I honestly feel the answer is yes. He did enough to be "considered" for an opening slot but there are simply others with better qualifications for the slot than him.

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.