Pujara is an ATG batter (or) how long should a career last before it is judged?

[Coronis]

Pollock also does have one of the highest List A averages ever.

 

[NUFAN]

I'll cut down the argument further;

Barry Richards sceptic: "Barry Richards would probably fail during an ATG Test match because.............."

Barry Richards optimist: "Barry Richards would probably succeed during An ATG Test match because......."


So, what we are arguing about is the level of probability of success - with the operatative word being probability. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nope that's not what the Barry Richards sceptics are saying. We are saying *insert any metaphor* to say that someone is undeserving because they didn't last long enough. FFS, his entire Test Career didn't even last 50 days!

 

[bagapath]

Barry Richards played 4 tests more than John McEnroe

 

[watson]

Nope that's not what the Barry Richards sceptics are saying. We are saying *insert any metaphor* to say that someone is undeserving because they didn't last long enough. FFS, his entire Test Career didn't even last 50 days!

I can understand the 'underserving' bit because I won't have Barry in my First ATG XI for that reason.

However, the counter argument is: "The primary objective of my opening batsman is to score a century at a good tempo for the sake of the team. So what does it matter whether my opener 'deserves' his place or not? IMO a moral paradigm has little to do with winning an actual Test match."

 

[watson]

Barry Richards played 4 tests more than John McEnroe

Your argument doesn't have a logical basis because cricket and tennis are completely different sports.

 

[NUFAN]

I can understand the 'underserving' bit because I won't have Barry in my First ATG XI for that reason.

However, the counter argument is: "The primary objective of my opening batsman is to score a century at a good tempo for the sake of the team. So what does it matter whether my opener 'deserves' his place or not? IMO a moral paradigm has little to do with winning an actual Test match."

Metaphors inserted:
- You don't win an Olympic Gold medal for winning a track meet in Manchester 3 years before the Olympics.
- You don't win a grammy for best feature film for producing a kick ass short film.
- You don't win friends with salad.

You don't need to pick your ATG team to win an actual Test match, its never going to happen so the ATG team can be a selection of the best XI performers (to form a balanced team) in the history of Test Cricket.

 

[bagapath]

Your argument doesn't have a logical basis because cricket and tennis are completely different sports.

i agree it is silly. but i want to underline how close no.4 is to zero. it is ridiculous to compare a one series wonder like barry with sunil gavaskar who scored 34 test centuries as an opening batsman in all test playing nations in various conditions. if a 4 test match career can even be mentioned in the presence of such stalwarts then might as well bring in a test career that never happened.

extrapolating FC records to test cricket is also silly. not as silly as my statement. it is still, very silly.

 

[watson]

Metaphors inserted:
- You don't win an Olympic Gold medal for winning a track meet in Manchester 3 years before the Olympics.
- You don't win a grammy for best feature film for producing a kick ass short film.
- You don't win friends with salad.

You don't need to pick your ATG team to win an actual Test match, its never going to happen so the ATG team can be a selection of the best XI performers (to form a balanced team) in the history of Test Cricket.

That's a good criteria for selecting an ATG XI, so I agree with you - with that premise on board I would NOT select Barry Richards.

But it should also be said that your criteria is also a personalised assumption. My personalised assumption is that my ATG XI will be playing a 'real' Test match series against another ATG XI. So, my main concern is for the team to score lots of runs and take 20 wickets - nothing else. That being the case, Barry Richards becomes a viable option.

The next question is - which assumption is more correct, mine or yours? Or is there such a thing as a correct assumption (or correct assumptions) when formulating the criteria by which an ATG team can be selected?

 

[bagapath]

The next question is - which assumption is more correct, mine or yours? Or is there such a thing as a correct assumption (or correct assumptions) when formulating the criteria by which an ATG team can be selected?

i think we should select ATG Test XIs based on Test records. And ATG ODI XIs based on ODI records. Bradman and Sobers wont make it to the second team. Barry wont make it to either of them.

 

[NUFAN]

That's a good criteria for selecting an ATG XI, so I agree with you - with that premise on board I would NOT select Barry Richards.

But it should also be said that your criteria is also a personalised assumption. My personalised assumption is that my ATG XI will be playing a 'real' Test match series against another ATG XI. So, my main concern is for the team to score lots of runs and take 20 wickets - nothing else. That being the case, Barry Richards becomes a viable option.

The next question is - which assumption is more correct, mine or yours? Or is there such a thing as a correct assumption (or correct assumptions) when formulating the criteria by which an ATG team can be selected?

Mine

 

[watson]

Who wants to start a new thread entitled - 'The Official Cricketweb Criteria for Selecting ATG XIs'.

I dare you.

 

[Flem274*]

Bitch please, dare me harder.

 

[honestbharani]

Man... are we still arguing perceptions?

 

[Daemon]

The Board Of Control For Cricket In India

this put a big smile on my face

 

[harsh.ag]

This was awesome.

He is awesome.

 

[trundler]

Barry Richards could've just been a moderate upgrade over Mark Waugh. Great to watch and all but perhaps not intense enough to be a test ATG. Or he could've been a right handed Lara. Idk really. I don't know what's the point of this post.

 

[Kirkut]

Barry Richards could've just been a moderate upgrade over Mark Waugh. Great to watch and all but perhaps not intense enough to be a test ATG. Or he could've been a right handed Lara. Idk really. I don't know what's the point of this post.

Nah, there was no one like Lara and will never be one, his batting style is too unique. An ideal comparison would be with Damien Martyn.

 

[trundler]

I was going for elegantly destructive bonafide ATG. A young Walter Hammond perhaps.

 

[YCCCfan]

Mr Pujara, great Test player but certainly can't hack it in the English County Championship. He managed just 100 runs in eight innings last season for Yorkshire at an average of just 10. At Scarborough last season versus Surrey he faced 42 balls without scoring. Met him at Taunton, lovely guy but a total disaster for the White Rose as he was in 2017 for Notts.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Mike Procter is a definite ATG , because even if he averages 5 points less in both departments than his FC stats , it's still Kapil / Botham league numbers.

Barry Richards case is different. But it's better to give him benefit of doubt , as he proved his greatness whenever he got the opportunity, be it tests , super tests or FC.
And There is zero evidence to deny his greatness other than proper international career which is not his fault anyway. Even if he was Bradman and Barnes combined, total number of tests played will be 4 only.

You can take it as a minus point when comparing to other super legends .. Gavaskar , Lara , Viv..etc.

Generally , I rate Gavaskar, Hutton , Hobbs or Trumper above Barry Richards due to this lack of proper career , but still in the same league. As whatever evidence available suggests that.