Kamran Abbasi is a big idiot

[Richard]

I don't like Kamran Abbasi's articles. He usually states the obvious in the most glib, overwrought and exaggerated manner possible.

Allow him to join the club.

 

[Richard]

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't fly. Several domestic batsmen who have Barry RIchard-esque average flopped on international stage. Domestic cricket is of lower quality. End of. Lower quality is no the same benchmark as high quality.

Err, it's still a benckmark. Someone who outperforms someone at domestic level will almost certainly also do so at international. There are exceptions, but not enough to suggest that two people with roughly equal domestic records and totally differing international experience can't be counted as near enough the same.

Added to the fact that there's more to a batsman than an overall career-average.

Talent is meaningless and quite a vague term. Many people with more talent flopped way worse than people with half their talent.

It's certainly not meaningless and yes it's vague but so are a million others.

The more talent you have, the better you do. Simple as. Many people have the propensity to judge "talent" purely on physical talents rather than mental ones, but IMO they're just the same. Therefore, the more talented played will always out.

He wasn't on air directly (probably sitting behind waiting his turn to commentate or something coz he was on air) and he was like 'pfffft. There goes another one of those 'batsmen'...hah!'.

Because India's batsmen in said series were so utterly convincing, weren't they...?

 

[C_C]

Someone who outperforms someone at domestic level will almost certainly also do so at international.

Err no.
There are several international players of lower quality who performed better at FC level.

Added to the fact that there's more to a batsman than an overall career-average.

Ofcourse. But comparing a man who's proved himself at the very top level and established himself as one of the alltime greats with someone who has not is unfair to the former.
Reputation and acclaim is earnt - not dispensed freely. Its unfortunate that Richards didnt have the full scope to prove himself at the highest level but the fact remains that he, to borrow from academic example, was a 'no show' for the exam.

The more talent you have, the better you do. Simple as.

False. Results are far more about work ethic and motivation factors than simple talent in almost any field of human endavour. Work ethic and motivation arn't mental talents, they are just the willingness to perform and be the best.

Because India's batsmen in said series were so utterly convincing, weren't they...?

You had to hear it i suppose. The way he accentuated the word 'batsmen' sounded like he was mocking their claim to being batsmen - bear in mind he is doing it towards a player who's proven far more than he(Richards) has in cricket. The comment was not about Tendy's performance in that innings or series but about him as a batsman period.

 

[Richard]

Err no.
There are several international players of lower quality who performed better at FC level.

Yes, several. There are infinately more whose performances correlated at both levels.

Ofcourse. But comparing a man who's proved himself at the very top level and established himself as one of the alltime greats with someone who has not is unfair to the former.
Reputation and acclaim is earnt - not dispensed freely. Its unfortunate that Richards didnt have the full scope to prove himself at the highest level but the fact remains that he, to borrow from academic example, was a 'no show' for the exam.

And fortunately, qualifications aren't built solely on exams - there is other work involved, and in that Richards still performed admirably.

False. Results are far more about work ethic and motivation factors than simple talent in almost any field of human endavour. Work ethic and motivation arn't mental talents, they are just the willingness to perform and be the best.

Err, work-ethic and motivation are quite some talent in my book.

If you could teach people those things, well... The World would be full of fulfilled people. Unfortunately, it's not - because one hell of a lot of us are lazy.

You had to hear it i suppose. The way he accentuated the word 'batsmen' sounded like he was mocking their claim to being batsmen - bear in mind he is doing it towards a player who's proven far more than he(Richards) has in cricket. The comment was not about Tendy's performance in that innings or series but about him as a batsman period.

Err, I think not. Tendulkar was one of the most respected batsmen ever between 1990 and 2002. To suggest that anyone would ever mock his (or Dravid's, or Laxman's, or Ganguly's) claims to be batsmen in genuine seriousness I find ludicrous. No, I didn't hear the comment but I do think it could just be that mind of yours hearing what it likes to hear again.

 

[FRAZ]

Sorry but he has a point. .

I am regaining faith in your journalism Fusion !

 

[C_C]

Yes, several. There are infinately more whose performances correlated at both levels.

There is enough cases of atypical behaviour in this field to throw your correlation out of the window.

And fortunately, qualifications aren't built solely on exams - there is other work involved, and in that Richards still performed admirably.

Actually, they are. You have to prove yourself to be considered the best or amongst the best by same criterias. If you didnt get the opportunity, thats rather sad but the fact still remains that the tests you've excelled on are significantly easier than the tests these greats have excelled on.

Err, work-ethic and motivation are quite some talent in my book.

If you could teach people those things, well... The World would be full of fulfilled people. Unfortunately, it's not - because one hell of a lot of us are lazy.

Work ethic is most definately teachable - i am a testament to that. You however, cannot teach someone how to pick up line or length quickly. You either have it or you don't.

No, I didn't hear the comment but I do think it could just be that mind of yours hearing what it likes to hear again.

How ironic. You are defending someone ( i suppose color playing a part again, Richard ?) without having even HEARD the comment against someone who has.
And you think i got race- issues when you make comments like these.

 

[Richard]

There is enough cases of atypical behaviour in this field to throw your correlation out of the window.

Uh-uh. The vast majority of cricketers conform to such a pattern.

For someone to have a better domestic and worse international record than someone else is extremely unusual.

Actually, they are. You have to prove yourself to be considered the best or amongst the best by same criterias. If you didnt get the opportunity, thats rather sad but the fact still remains that the tests you've excelled on are significantly easier than the tests these greats have excelled on.

Yet if both have excelled at these lower-level tests there's no reason to assume that both wouldn't succeed at the higher-level ones, too.

Work ethic is most definately teachable - i am a testament to that. You however, cannot teach someone how to pick up line or length quickly. You either have it or you don't.

Line-and-length is about the most un-teachable thing in history. It has little to do with work-ethic. As I say, though - if work-ethic was teachable, the unfulfilled human would not exist. There is such thing as a hopeless-case.

How ironic. You are defending someone ( i suppose color playing a part again, Richard ?) without having even HEARD the comment against someone who has.
And you think i got race- issues when you make comments like these.

Where on Earth did I mention race or colour? I love the way you accuse me of jumping-to-conclusion when you've just done exactly that.

What I said was you often like to believe someone is insulting someone else so you can have a go at them. It's perfectly possible, to me, having more experience than just this single one of Barry Richards, that he was doing precisely nothing of the sort.

 

[C_C]

Where on Earth did I mention race or colour? I love the way you accuse me of jumping-to-conclusion when you've just done exactly that

You must think i have a short memory about your allegations about my supposed racist tendencies and in that case, i'd like you to further clarify what exactly you meant by this :

No, I didn't hear the comment but I do think it could just be that mind of yours hearing what it likes to hear again.

Don't try to play dumb please. We all know what you insinuated there in light to our previous convo along these lines.

The vast majority of cricketers conform to such a pattern

Please do not argue with me about patterns - if there are enough exceptions to a rule, a rule ceases to exist. Same with correlations and all that. You'd think i'd know atleast this much about just how much sample cases can lie outside the median to make the median irrelevant.

For someone to have a better domestic and worse international record than someone else is extremely unusual.

I'll give you a few well known examples where someone with an inferior FC record has outperformed the other in tests :

Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan,
Graeme Hick and Graham Thorpe
Mark Ramprakash and Alec Stewart
Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh
Mike Gatting and David Gower
Sanath Jayasurya and Marvan Attapattu
Geoff Boycott and Ken Barrington
Courtney Walsh and Glenn McGrath
Mikey Holding and Andy Roberts
Brian Statham and Freddy Trueman
Anil Kumble and Shane Warne

As you can see, there are sufficient high profile examples to very much question this rule of 'better FC player = better Test player' notion and further enforces the notion that FC cricket cannot be used to compare in test arena.

As I say, though - if work-ethic was teachable, the unfulfilled human would not exist.

For something to be teachable means it can be learnt and followed by someone not previously given to it. I myself am a testament to that - i had no work ethic, i was forced to grow one. It doesn't ahve to succeed in 100% cases since nothing does.
And unfulfilled human has a lot to do with unrealistic expectations than work ethic.

Yet if both have excelled at these lower-level tests there's no reason to assume that both wouldn't succeed at the higher-level ones, too.

I am assuming nothing. You are the one assuming that they both would've succeeded equally well in test cricket. Fact is one is unproven, the other is an alltime great.

 

[Dasa]

RIchard, Barry Richards and most of the SAf commentators were very poor and very biased during both the SAf vs Ind series and the SAf vs Pak series. They could hardly find a good word to say about the opposing teams.

 

[Stumped]

RIchard, Barry Richards and most of the SAf commentators were very poor and very biased during both the SAf vs Ind series and the SAf vs Pak series. They could hardly find a good word to say about the opposing teams.

maybe there were no good words to be said?....jj

 

[PY]

Whenever I've heard Barry Richards, I've loved his commentary and thought it to be very insightful. I'd be disappointed if he'd let that slip.

And I've always thought Barry Richards to be one of the best players of all time and he's one of my faves that is for sure. Look at what he did accomplish in such a short time on the international stage. I don't think it's too much to say he was up with Tendulkar in terms of ability and peak performance but his total achievements obviously pale in comparison but that wasn't really his fault as such.

 

[Fiery]

Whenever I've heard Barry Richards, I've loved his commentary and thought it to be very insightful. I'd be disappointed if he'd let that slip.

And I've always thought Barry Richards to be one of the best players of all time and he's one of my faves that is for sure. Look at what he did accomplish in such a short time on the international stage. I don't think it's too much to say he was up with Tendulkar in terms of ability and peak performance but his total achievements obviously pale in comparison but that wasn't really his fault as such.

John Wright writing about Barry Richards:

"The best batter I've ever seen. The first year I was in England I watched him knocking up before a game and the ball just zinged off the blade with natural timing. Playing Derek Underwood, a great bowler, he swept him where fine leg would be so they moved slip there and he played the next one where slip had been. They say that in South Africa he played an over using the edge of his bat. Watching him bat, I felt like I was in the presence of an artist"

 

[PY]

I read this on Cricinfo.

A couple of times he put G Pollock in the shadows and Bradman regarded Pollock as the greatest left-hander he'd ever seen and Sobers was the only one who could compare to Pollock. I know it's difficult to say that Richards would've been better than Pollock or Tendulkar but I think he showed enough to warrant an inclusion in the group.

Let's not forget that the CC had some pretty decent fast bowlers in the time Richards played in.

 

[wpdavid]

maybe there were no good words to be said?....jj

even when they beat SA? Sounds unlikely.

Shame to hear that about Richards, who I've always enjoyed when he's been in England. Obviously it's crazy to suggest he wasn't a good enough bat to comment on SRT, but it would be a pity if his commentary was as poor as has been suggested here.

As for Manthorp, I've always found him articulate and readable, but he is sometimes excessively defensive about his own boys. I thought his recent piece on Gibbs was particularly poor, and generally missed the point. FWIW.

 

[open365]

What, like these?

 

[Richard]

RIchard, Barry Richards and most of the SAf commentators were very poor and very biased during both the SAf vs Ind series and the SAf vs Pak series. They could hardly find a good word to say about the opposing teams.

I'm not denying that, but to suggest that Richards was, in essence, scoffing at Tendulkar's right to be called a batsman is utterly ludicrous because no-one who knows anything about cricket would do anything of the sort.

 

[Richard]

You must think i have a short memory about your allegations about my supposed racist tendencies and in that case, i'd like you to further clarify what exactly you meant by this :

No, I didn't hear the comment but I do think it could just be that mind of yours hearing what it likes to hear again.

Don't try to play dumb please. We all know what you insinuated there in light to our previous convo along these lines.

No, you think you know. You're just jumping to conclusions. I called you racist once, so I must be doing so again. You're wrong.

What I meant there was you do have a tendency to hyperbole when it comes to X criticising X.

Please do not argue with me about patterns - if there are enough exceptions to a rule, a rule ceases to exist. Same with correlations and all that. You'd think i'd know atleast this much about just how much sample cases can lie outside the median to make the median irrelevant.



I'll give you a few well known examples where someone with an inferior FC record has outperformed the other in tests :

Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan,
Graeme Hick and Graham Thorpe
Mark Ramprakash and Alec Stewart
Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh
Mike Gatting and David Gower
Sanath Jayasurya and Marvan Attapattu
Geoff Boycott and Ken Barrington
Courtney Walsh and Glenn McGrath
Mikey Holding and Andy Roberts
Brian Statham and Freddy Trueman
Anil Kumble and Shane Warne

As you can see, there are sufficient high profile examples to very much question this rule of 'better FC player = better Test player' notion and further enforces the notion that FC cricket cannot be used to compare in test arena.

And for all those I could name probably 50 or 60 examples to the contrary.

And that's before you even get into why some of those cases are not so simple as they seem. Kumble\Warne and McGrath\Walsh, for example, relative to pitch-conditions.

For something to be teachable means it can be learnt and followed by someone not previously given to it. I myself am a testament to that - i had no work ethic, i was forced to grow one. It doesn't ahve to succeed in 100% cases since nothing does.
And unfulfilled human has a lot to do with unrealistic expectations than work ethic.

So? It still has something to do with poor work-ethic. Just because you yourself made the conversion from lazy to hard-working doesn't mean that many do. Don't project your prejudices onto others.

I am assuming nothing. You are the one assuming that they both would've succeeded equally well in test cricket. Fact is one is unproven, the other is an alltime great.

No, both could quite conceivably be considered all-time greats. There are many of that opinion.

 

[Jono]

I actually thought the SA commentators kissed Tendulkar's ass more than anyone (perhaps other than Pollock), and didn't give respect to Laxman (especially him) Ganguly, and Sehwag (not that he deserved with the way he batted on that tour mind you).

They acted as if Laxman had done nothing in his career and all you had to do was bowl at the stumps and you'd get him out. And don't even get me started about Ganguly, yeah he couldn't play the short ball, but he fought through it and played vital knocks during that series, yet he was mocked. It was as if any movement in the pitch meant India couldn't bat, yet SA looked equally as hopeless at times, and it was their lower order which bailed them out on most occasions.

 

[Richard]

The Sky team were exactly the same when we were in India in 2005\06.

The way Laxman and Ganguly are patronised in some countries beggars belief. These are two of the finest batsmen of the last decade. And some people seem to talk of them as if they were half-decent club players.

 

[Jono]

Then of course when India are here, or Australia go to India, Laxman is praised like a God by Australian commentators... for obvious reasons lol.