South Africans vs 1966-85 XI

[PhoenixFire]

No I think you misunderstand me. I believe that runs are the most important thing going, and technique second. After that, anything goes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Barry Richards was second only to Viv in the batting department in this era, but if this is supposed to be a World Test XI then he doesn't qualify. If Procter or Rice were going to be included it would be instead of Botham, but again they don't qualify. Nether are remotely in the same class as Dennis Lillee as a bowler so the notion of Procter replacing him must be a wind up.

 

[silentstriker]

Barry Richards was second only to Viv in the batting department in this era, but if this is supposed to be a World Test XI then he doesn't qualify. If Procter or Rice were going to be included it would be instead of Botham, but again they don't qualify. Nether are remotely in the same class as Dennis Lillee as a bowler so the notion of Procter replacing him must be a wind up.

Even if Barry Richards is as good as he is touted to be, I still would take Chappell, Gavaskar, Sir Viv, and Gary Sobers above him as pure batsmen.

 

[Matt79]

Barry Richards for Greenidge is the only change I'd go for.

 

[Perm]

Too much speculation to be honest, it's a real shame we didnt get to see more of these players.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, I don't see how this thread is going to work. Are we going to pick the highest vote getter from the poll? In that case, most people might not agree that they belong and would probably have voted against him anyway.

 

[oz_fan]

I would of liked to have included Richards but there is too much speculation involved.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah, I don't see how this thread is going to work. Are we going to pick the highest vote getter from the poll? In that case, most people might not agree that they belong and would probably have voted against him anyway.

i think the purpose is to have an interesting discussion going since we had to abort the analysis of this issue while selecting the team as we had already decided a minimum criteria. this is an opportunity to hear from everyone whether they would like to see any of these players replacing those in the final team. as you've said, i dont expect this to change the team composition. gavaskar, greenidge, richards, chappell, sobers is a fabulous line-up.

my call is to say sorry to them and leave them behind. gavaskar and greenidge played more than 100 tests with great distinction. it is very difficult for me to extrapolate barry's career that far to judge him in comparison with them. i also find it ridiculous to predict that procter would have been a better choice than lillee. how can you say a man who played only four tests would be a better choice than a 70 test veteran and a world record holder? and I dont care about first class stats. even a casual research would reveal so many first class cricketers who failed badly in tests.

thank god narendra hirwani didn't stop playing circket after his debut test. otherwise some might have selected him ahead of warne and oreilly as the leg spinner in their all-time XIs!!!!!!!!

 

[Goughy]

and I dont care about first class stats. even a casual research would reveal so many first class cricketers who failed badly in tests.

Thats actually very wrong. There are exceptions, but the best precictor of Test success is first class average and it also holds true for ODIs as well.

Just because there are a few guys (Hick, Ramprakash etc) that dont fit the model does not mean the model is not accurate. FC average shows their capabilites and then other factors may help determine failure (eg Treatment within the dressing room and handling by the selectors).

Ive done a fair bit of research on this and the clearest and related predictor of Test success is Domestic average.

Im sorry if it does not seem like it but there is a clear and definate relationship that can be measured.

As for the above discussions, to exclude Barry Richards is bizzare. He is one of the top couple of batsmen in history.

 

[Poker Boy]

The only one I considered was Mike Procter - could bowl pace and off-spin and no-one has scored more consecutive FC centuries - and he carried his county so much they were nicknamed "Procterershire" but how ever good you are in CC for an XI like this you need a proven Test record against all countries. Remember even if SA hadn't been banned from Test cricket they would not have played Imran's Pakistan, the Bedi-Venkat-Chandra India or the pace attack of the Windies. Too much guesswork.

 

[Matt79]

I understand where you're coming from, but those sorts of people could be even better, had they got good techniques. You can have a good technique, a rubbish eye and no timing, so you'll never be good. But you can also have a crap technique, a good eye and timing (like Bradman and Lara), but you can learn technique.

Honestly, if Bradman or Lara's technique doesn't fit the orthodoxy, that suggests there's something wrong with the definition of 'good technique', not their batting. Unless you're suggesting Bradman could have averaged 120 over his career if he'd had a 'proper technique'.

 

[silentstriker]

As for the above discussions, to exclude Barry Richards is bizzare. He is one of the top couple of batsmen in history.

Why? His FC average and scores are great but there have been plenty that were higher. And he played only four tests. Aside from 'I saw him play and he was awesome', how can you make that claim?

I am not dismissing people's subjective decision after watching them play, but for those of us who haven't...how can we come to that conclusion?

 

[silentstriker]

Honestly, if Bradman or Lara's technique doesn't fit the orthodoxy, that suggests there's something wrong with the definition of 'good technique', not their batting. Unless you're suggesting Bradman could have averaged 120 over his career if he'd had a 'proper technique'.

Exactly. Tendulkar probably has the best technique, footwork and balance of any batsman, and certainly the best of any batsman that I've ever seen, but Dravid averages higher and Bradman averaged 2x higher.

When I compare Lara vs. Tendulkar, their techniques don't even come into play. Because both of them have proven to be able to score for a long time against all attacks...so the decision must be based on something else (i.e someone goes for Lara because his ability to score more massive hundreds, and someone else goes for Sachin because he is more consistent). I don't think I've ever heard that 'Sachin is better because he has better footwork.'

 

[PhoenixFire]

Exactly. Tendulkar probably has the best technique, footwork and balance of any batsman, and certainly the best of any batsman that I've ever seen, but Dravid averages higher and Bradman averaged 2x higher.

When I compare Lara vs. Tendulkar, their techniques don't even come into play. Because both of them have proven to be able to score for a long time against all attacks...so the decision must be based on something else (i.e someone goes for Lara because his ability to score more massive hundreds, and someone else goes for Sachin because he is more consistent). I don't think I've ever heard that 'Sachin is better because he has better footwork.'

But 95% of the time when he does get out, is because of chinks in his technique. If he had a nearer to perfect technique, then he would be less likely to get out.

 

[Goughy]

I am not dismissing people's subjective decision after watching them play, but for those of us who haven't...how can we come to that conclusion?

You probably cant without investing a fair amount of time reading, watching film and listening to anecdotal evidence. Basically investing time in the history of a game.

If we want to judge by referencing one cricinfo page for all the evidence needed then these types of discussions, and the many list and XI threads are pretty much pointless.

 

[silentstriker]

You probably cant without investing a fair amount of time reading, watching film and listening to anecdotal evidence. Basically investing time in the history of a game.

I'm going to ignore the harp about the cricinfo page, but you're basically asking someone to judge a player by their FC record, in how they would perform at the test level. There is an inherent flaw in that, considering the difference in quality between the two.

 

[silentstriker]

But 95% of the time when he does get out, is because of chinks in his technique. If he had a nearer to perfect technique, then he would be less likely to get out.

Who? Bradman? You realize that you are arguing that Bradman could have been better if he had more perfect technique? How do you know that he would have even been successful with a 'textbook technique'? Maybe it doesn't work work him?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Right, this is a basic example of what I'm trying to get at. No batsman has ever been perfect. A perfect batsman would never get out, and would strike at 600/100. Nobody will ever be like this, and nobody has ever been like this. Bradman was the closest thing to perfect we have ever seen, this is to say that he has had the best eye, timing and shot selection combined, from anyone who has ever played the game. Bradman in this sense was very far from perfect, because he still managed somehow to get out. I can't say for exact who has had the best technique ever, but I guess it would be somebody like SRT (best attacking) or Boycott (best defensive), who have both got as close to perfect technique as I have ever seen. The perfect technique consists of a perfectly straight backlift, a perfectly straight bat, and a perfect footwork and so on. If we were to combine SRT's attacking technique and Boycotts defensive technique, and then give them to Bradman, then he would no doubt average more than the 99.94 rpi than he in his test career. Understand?

 

[silentstriker]

Right, this is a basic example of what I'm trying to get at. No batsman has ever been perfect. A perfect batsman would never get out, and would strike at 600/100. Nobody will ever be like this, and nobody has ever been like this. Bradman was the closest thing to perfect we have ever seen, this is to say that he has had the best eye, timing and shot selection combined, from anyone who has ever played the game. Bradman in this sense was very far from perfect, because he still managed somehow to get out. I can't say for exact who has had the best technique ever, but I guess it would be somebody like SRT (best attacking) or Boycott (best defensive), who have both got as close to perfect technique as I have ever seen. The perfect technique consists of a perfectly straight backlift, a perfectly straight bat, and a perfect footwork and so on. If we were to combine SRT's attacking technique and Boycotts defensive technique, and then give them to Bradman, then he would no doubt average more than the 99.94 rpi than he in his test career. Understand?

I don't know if he would. He might be uncomfortable with the new technique, and average a pedestrian 65. The same technique doesn't work for everyone, thats what I am trying to get across. Sure, there are some basics that remain true for most, but even those can be called into question.

Technique isn't set in stone, its a set of guidelines that you can choose to follow or not.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As for the above discussions, to exclude Barry Richards is bizzare. He is one of the top couple of batsmen in history.

If we were hand picking the best players from the period then Barry Richards should be the second batsman chosen after Viv, but all the candidates that were voted on were put up for selection based purely upon their record in Test Cricket. Barry Richards doesn't meet the criteria chosen so shouldn't be included.