Jacques Kallis vs Graeme Pollock vs Barry Richards

[subshakerz]

I would also agree than Pollock as a batsman was better, he objectively can't be greater though.

Pollock > Kallis in this case is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

The thing about Barry though, Greenidge is arguably a top 8 opener. I don't think anyone who watched them bat together in county cricket thought Greenidge was objectively better or that Barry wasn't in his class.

Brett Schutz was better than Donald according to many but no one rates him even above Morkel.

 

[Coronis]

The thing about Barry though, Greenidge is arguably a top 8 opener. I don't think anyone who watched them bat together in county cricket thought Greenidge was objectively better or that Barry wasn't in his class.

So? He didn’t have a proper test career. Calling him a better test batsman than Kallis or Greenidge is stupid.

 

[kyear2]

Pollock > Kallis in this case is the exception that proves the rule.

It's not. You just don't like him lol

 

[subshakerz]

Oh I know he was praised but it wasn’t on the level I’d expect from such a dominant pacer through his career who was so far ahead of his contemporaries. Compared to Ashwin now who isn’t nearly as dominant over his peers I hear much more about him than I did about Steyn.

That's because Steyn would look ordinary between his great tests.

 

[subshakerz]

So? He didn’t have a proper test career. Calling him a better test batsman than Kallis or Greenidge is stupid.

Sometimes you just know...

 

[Coronis]

Sometimes you just know...

I know that Mike Procter would have been a better test allrounder than Imran, but he didn’t actually do it, so I don’t go spouting Mike Procter is a better test allrounder than Imran.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If Mark Waugh's test career had ended after a year, you'd have had idiots talking about him like Barry Richards. He is the prime example why, shockingly, having a test career matters because you actually get a full picture of the player.

 

[subshakerz]

I know that Mike Procter would have been a better test allrounder than Imran, but he didn’t actually do it, so I don’t go spouting Mike Procter is a better test allrounder than Imran.

Maybe if he played 20 odd tests we could have a conversation.

 

[subshakerz]

If Mark Waugh's test career had ended after a year, you'd have had idiots talking about him like Barry Richards. He is the prime example why, shockingly, having a test career matters because you actually get a full picture of the player.

George Headley and Pollock are the exceptions who get ATG status based on peer rating with a small test sample that confirms people's rating. Doesn't happen all the time.

 

[Coronis]

Maybe if he played 20 odd tests we could have a conversation.

I specifically started this conversation in reference to Barry Richards.

 

[subshakerz]

I specifically started this conversation in reference to Barry Richards.

Ok fair enough bro.

 

[Bolo.]

Players with good numbers in a truncated career will always benefit from not having their weaknesses be as apparent as players who were in the firing line for a decade and a half.

If anyone has watched Richards or Pollock bat live and prefers them over Kallis that's fair enough. For everyone else, the answer should be Kallis if you aren't biased af.

I struggle to see what having watched them live would contribute.

Nobody has seen enough in tests to conclude that Barry or Pollock are > Kallis.

You don't need to have watched any FC to conclude that both are ahead in the format. Significantly so when it comes to Pollock, whether or not he has Barry's number.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not. You just don't like him lol

Really? Pollock being an ATG isn't a sole opinion.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Steyn definitely got his plaudits.

Kallis didn't because he was boring.

Steyn didn't got the plaud he deserved. Of course he had that talent to be in the league of Hadlee, Marshall etc (He is the only one of his era to have such a reputation, despite being great even Anderson doesn't qualify in that league).
And coming to Kallis,
Even Cricketers like Hutton, Barrington, Boycott etc were more boring than Kallis.
Hutton even got booed at times. But that dosen't reduce their caliber. Kallis is defininetly there with these legends.
and about the pluads, that's called underrated. Some Cricketers get underrated just like Hashim Amla or Dudley Nourse.
Moreover his colossal statistics speaks for himself. There may be greats with not so great statistics, but there aren't non-greats with GOAT statistics.
Pieterson plauded Kallis as the greatest batsmen in his opinion. (I'm not saying Pieterson's opinion is the most correct one, but that definitely means recognition or plauding)

 

[trundler]

Amla and Steyn most definitely got their plaudits. C'mon now. Donald too. Pollock in ODIs is the only one who didn't and that one's sorta understandable too because of his WC record.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Amla and Steyn most definitely got their plaudits. C'mon now. Donald too. Pollock in ODIs is the only one who didn't and that one's sorta understandable too because of his WC record.

Amla never got the recognition he deserved. During his days, while Kohli was being considered as the next Tendulkar and when he was breaking all possible records except what Viv Richards had achieved such as the fastest to xxxx runs etc, at that time Amla used to consistently break that Viv Richards's records. Have you ever heard him compare with any legend during those times or even at times being compared with the Fab Four? before his peak ended his career progression looked even better than Kohli!

Steyn definitely got recognition. But did he get enough praises to be in the league of Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee etc ? His records meant such.
Hadlee in 86 Tests , took 431 wickets. Steyn had almost a similar record before his longevity was cut short by injuries, further adding unlike Hadlee Steyn had to share his wicket tally with greats like Pollock, Ntini and Morkel. Still he dosen't even rarely gets compared in that league. That is called underrated.

 

[trundler]

Amla never got the recognition he deserved. During his days, while Kohli was being considered as the next Tendulkar and when he was breaking all possible records except what Viv Richards had achieved such as the fastest to xxxx runs etc, at that Amla used to consistently break that Viv Richards's records. Have you ever heard him compare with any legend during those times or even at times being compared with the Fab Four? before his peak ended his career progression looked even better than Kohli!

This is because of Amla's horrific WC record. He doesn't have any tons against non minnows.

But did he get enough praises to be in the league of Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee etc ? His records meant such.

Yes he did.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

This is because of Amla's horrific WC record. He doesn't have any tons against non minnows.

Kohli also didn't have such an impressive World Cup record, particularly never par with the reputation he gets.
And still he is being considered the among the top 3 in ODIs along with Richards and Tendulkar.
Amla averages 51 against England, 45 against Pakisthan and 57 against Sri Lanka. These are non-minnows.

In case of Tests, he hold many achievements such as the only South African to score a 300 as such. Definitely one of the best of his era.

Yes he did.

Not to the league I mentioned. Even Harsha Bhogle Quoted about this

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Yeah Steyn was better than McGrath and on par with Marshall and Hadlee but he is somehow clubbed with Ambrose and Imran.