Barry Richards - The myth

[the Great Khan]

Great posts from [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to make his point.

inmho, Hobbs looked pretty good for his era. But we just cant measure pre 1940's cricket with todays modern version. They are simply different games. Engalnd pretty much only really played against Australia, the pitches look like park pitches, and the bowling allowed batsmen to have that wonky technique you see from the old uncles in club cricket..(those who have played a bit of club cricket know what i'm on about)..

Moving on to Barry. Ive got to say he looked pretty quick on his feet and adjusted really well considering his technique doesnt look all that clever..hand eye co-ordination looks really good and he seems to be able to hit strokes all around the wicket. How would he have fared in todays cricket? would be an all time great batsman. Why? because his technique would be better due to coaching coupled with hsi good positioning, and natural ability we can clearly see there..also todays bowling isnt the same as it has been in the past and the pitches are flat..also fielding rules and other bits and bobs help too..oh and no bouncers so he wouldn't need to worry about the hook shot so much..

 

[SL_Fan]

I don't know why Sachin fans have to be so hyper all the time. Sachin struggled quite a bit against McGrath and and there is no shame in struggling against the greatest fast bowler of all time.

 

[Cric1234]

Please explain why this forward defense would be more effective on those uncovered ("sticky dog") pitches than what the modern batsmen play:

View attachment 81600

What the are the qualities of this technique that the modern techniques do not have?

Let me answer it for you - this is a pathetic technique by modern standards, which only worked in Hobbs' era because of the quality of bowling was pathetically low. It has nothing to do with the covered or uncovered pitches.

A modern tail-ender would outperform Hobbs on those uncovered pitches, against the bowlers that Hobbs faced. And a world class modern batsmen would probably average 200 against the bowling that Hobbs faced on the same uncovered pitches.

Cricketers of the early 1900s deserve respect and recognition for what they achieved in their era, but their skills and techniques are completely defunct in the modern game.

The game has simply evolved and developed too much. It is like suggesting that Homo Erectus was smarter than the modern humans.

You forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on once again if you think Lara and Tendulkar would steamroller the bowling on such a wicket you've got a another thing coming on green wickets they struggle forget a wicket where the grass is as deep as the outfield.

 

[SL_Fan]

Therefore why that stat you posted is meaningless in the context of comparisons across ERA's. Bradman included. I have painstakenly dealt with all the usual points in older threads.

Well those numbers are not meant to gauge skill and competition levels etc obviously. What they do show however is that post the first fifty or so years since the game's inception (the learning curve) batting wasn’t as difficult as some like to make it out to be by bringing up uncovered wickets and whatnot. Those were invariably offset by other factors such as batsmen taking full advantage of lenient LBW laws/umpiring and so on ie pros and cons seems to have cancelled each other out for the most part.

 

[Mamoon]

You forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on once again if you think Lara and Tendulkar would steamroller the bowling on such a wicket you've got a another thing coming on green wickets they struggle forget a wicket where the grass is as deep as the outfield.

Lara and Tendulkar would steamroll the bowling attacks that Hobbs faced on any pitch. You are assuming that because they struggled on green wickets in their era, they would have also struggled on green wickets against the bowlers that Hobbs faced.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The difference between the quality of bowlers of the 90s and 2000s and the bowlers of 1920s and 1930s is gigantic.

Also, looks you do not want to answer my question. Please explain what makes Hobbs' forward defense better than Tendulkar's forward defense for uncovered and green pitches.

What are the aspects of Tendulkar's forward defense that are inferior to Hobbs? Because I can explain in detail why Hobbs' technique is rubbish and will not hold up against any modern international bowler in any conditions. His technique is worse than that of a modern number xi.

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKaDqm-aMGc

This tells you something else Larwood could bowl as quick as Brett Lee up to 150kph so pace bowling had been fully developed by the 1930s nothing too special about today's era when a bowler did it 80 years ago.

 

[Cric1234]

Lara and Tendulkar would steamroll the bowling attacks that Hobbs faced on any pitch. You are assuming that because they struggled on green wickets in their era, they would have also struggled on green wickets against the bowlers that Hobbs faced.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The difference between the quality of bowlers of the 90s and 2000s and the bowlers of 1920s and 1930s is gigantic.

Also, looks you do not want to answer my question. Please explain what makes Hobbs' forward defense better than Tendulkar's forward defense for uncovered and green pitches.

What are the aspects of Tendulkar's forward defense that are inferior to Hobbs? Because I can explain in detail why Hobbs' technique is rubbish and will not hold up against any modern international bowler in any conditions. His technique is worse than that of a modern number xi.

True on modern covered wickets Hobbs wouldn't be as good playing like that but there's a reason why he's playing slower bowling in the 1910s and 20s on unpredictable wickets his technique is leg side oriented and works best as off side shots are difficult to play the bounce isn't true and swing and spin unpredictable but to compare to modern batsman we should look at Bradman on a flatter wicket as the conditions would be similar in both cases.
Barry played on covered wickets similar to today averaged almost 55 nobody else did as an opener in his era why do you think he would be worse than a tailender today?

 

[Rahul1]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKaDqm-aMGc

This tells you something else Larwood could bowl as quick as Brett Lee up to 150kph so pace bowling had been fully developed by the 1930s nothing too special about today's era when a bowler did it 80 years ago.

What does your video even prove? If you think that trundler Larwood is as fast as Lee then see this video and show me where Larwood is bowling as fast as Lee.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKaDqm-aMGc

This tells you something else Larwood could bowl as quick as Brett Lee up to 150kph so pace bowling had been fully developed by the 1930s nothing too special about today's era when a bowler did it 80 years ago.

All that video shows Larwood bowling his deliveries. I can claim he's bowling at 120 km/h max, can you prove me wrong?

 

[Chrish]

I am sorry but your post is devoid of any logic. Please show me a video of a modern batsman trying to play such silly shots while practicing in the nets.

In addition, if you listen to the commentary, it is not just a net practice for fun - it is a proper video of Hobbs demonstrating how different shots are played, and the technique behind executing those shots.

This video is equivalent to de Villiers showing how to play the pull shot:

Similarly, you can find such videos of any top batsman today. Would you expect someone like de Villiers or Kohli to fool around in a video intended to teach the viewers?

The shots that Hobbs played in the video are the shots that he played in the matches. That is the technique that earned him over 60,000 F/C runs.

That technique worked at that time because the standard of bowling was atrocious. Jack Hobbs of the 1900s would not average 10 in Test cricket today, and he would be worse than a number 11. However, that does not mean that he was a bad player.

The technique that he had was good enough for the low quality cricket of his time, but he has must have had some attributes and traits that enabled him to rise above his competition. It is likely that those qualities could have given him an edge in modern cricket as well, but obviously his technique would have been completely different.

As I mentioned above, Hobbs’ videos indeed look comical but to me, they aren’t from the real game. When ABDV is demonstrating something, he would be serious about that since he knows millions would be watching. Hobbs videos on the other hand, didn’t look serious to me at all.

But if someone has a problem with his footage, I can see why. However I definitely don’t agree that Barry looks like a tail ender. I have seen all his footage I can get my hands on and he looks all class.

 

[Tusker]

You forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on once again if you think Lara and Tendulkar would steamroller the bowling on such a wicket you've got a another thing coming on green wickets they struggle forget a wicket where the grass is as deep as the outfield.

Read these articles :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/395117.html

The absurdity of timeless matches was brought home to the English public at The Oval in 1938. The groundsman, Bosser Martin, had established a reputation for everlasting pitches, produced though a combination of loam and endless heavy rolling. While the match is remembered for Len Hutton's world-record 364 and Australia's ignominious innings-and-579-run defeat, the sheer torpidity of the batting as England made 903 for 7 left the press calling for an end to infinite matches, followed soon after by the same from the MCC.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/901415.html

The groundsman at The Oval, Austin "Bosser" Martin, had a reputation of being able to produce pluperfect surfaces, aided by a large team of assistants who pulled a massive four-ton roller, nicknamed Bosser's Pet, back and forth all day, almost rolling the pitch into submission. John Woodcock, who watched the match as a boy, said Martin also bound the pitch together with liquid manure and "you could almost smell it from Oval station".

 

[Mamoon]

True on modern covered wickets Hobbs wouldn't be as good playing like that but there's a reason why he's playing slower bowling in the 1910s and 20s on unpredictable wickets his technique is leg side oriented and works best as off side shots are difficult to play the bounce isn't true and swing and spin unpredictable but to compare to modern batsman we should look at Bradman on a flatter wicket as the conditions would be similar in both cases.
Barry played on covered wickets similar to today averaged almost 55 nobody else did as an opener in his era why do you think he would be worse than a tailender today?

Hobbs with his 1920 technique would definitely be worse than a tail-ender today. We are talking about a century of progress here - an evolution of a 100 years.

The difference of skill, technique and understanding of the game between a top batsman today and Hobbs is enormous. Obviously, cricket will not improve exponentially every 100 years, because the game will eventually plateau and it might have reached that stage already, we never know.

However, the era of Hobbs was only a few decades after the game became professional, it very early in its evolutionary process. Again, I would make an analogy to human evolution - Jack Hobbs was a Homo Erectus, and Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kohli, de Villiers etc. are Homo Sapiens (modern humans).

Also, there is a fundamental flaw in his technique. His head is almost never on top of the ball, and you cannot excel against any half-decent bowling with this technical flaw. The fact that Hobbs could muster 60,000 runs with the technique of his sums up the quality of bowling that he faced in his day.

Nonetheless, as I have stated multiple times, that does not make Hobbs a bad player. He was a champion of his time, which means that he must have possessed some qualities that other players of his time did not have.

Perhaps the technique of the other batsmen were even worse, perhaps he had very good hand-eye coordination, maybe he was mentally stronger and worked a lot harder on his game. It is possible that those qualities would have helped him in the modern game too, but obviously his technique would have been completely different today.

 

[Mamoon]

As I mentioned above, Hobbs’ videos indeed look comical but to me, they aren’t from the real game. When ABDV is demonstrating something, he would be serious about that since he knows millions would be watching. Hobbs videos on the other hand, didn’t look serious to me at all.

But if someone has a problem with his footage, I can see why. However I definitely don’t agree that Barry looks like a tail ender. I have seen all his footage I can get my hands on and he looks all class.

Hobbs did not look serious to you because he played cricket in a non-serious era. It was a sport played by a bunch of white men at a time when the rest of the world were not particularly interested in the game. They build legends and legacies playing against each other.

The size of the target audience does not matter. That video was specifically made to show the technique of Hobbs and how he played his different shots. Hobbs was the greatest cricketer in England at that time, and there must have been a purpose to why he was filmed.

The young English cricketers of that time must have seen that video, and that is why we had a commentator explaining his technique and the different shots that he played in great depth.

Unless he was an unprofessional idiot, which I do not think he was, I see absolutely no reason why he would fool around in a situation like that. Moreover, there is an actual footage of Hobbs batting in an actual match on YouTube, and his technique is the same.

 

[Chrish]

Hobbs did not look serious to you because he played cricket in a non-serious era. It was a sport played by a bunch of white men at a time when the rest of the world were not particularly interested in the game. They build legends and legacies playing against each other.

The size of the target audience does not matter. That video was specifically made to show the technique of Hobbs and how he played his different shots. Hobbs was the greatest cricketer in England at that time, and there must have been a purpose to why he was filmed.

The young English cricketers of that time must have seen that video, and that is why we had a commentator explaining his technique and the different shots that he played in great depth.

Unless he was an unprofessional idiot, which I do not think he was, I see absolutely no reason why he would fool around in a situation like that. Moreover, there is an actual footage of Hobbs batting in an actual match on YouTube, and his technique is the same.

Tendulkar's career has intertwined with Border and Border was pretty impressive. Border's with Viv and Viv was awesome. Viv's with Lloyd's and Lloyd was splendid. Lloyd's with Sobers and Sobers was great. Sobers' with Hutton and Hutton was the best batsman of that time period. And Hutton's with Bradman and Bradman truly put Hutton into shades.

How do you explain this if Cricket was a different sport before 70s?

 

[Robert]

Hobbs did not look serious to you because he played cricket in a non-serious era. It was a sport played by a bunch of white men at a time when the rest of the world were not particularly interested in the game. They build legends and legacies playing against each other.
.

And in the year 2100 somebody on the internet will say Tendulkar wasn’t any good because he didn’t play against the Mars colonists in low gravity.

Show some respect for the great players of the past.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

And in the year 2100 somebody on the internet will say Tendulkar wasn’t any good because he didn’t play against the Mars colonists in low gravity.

Show some respect for the great players of the past.

If you put the rose tinted glasses aside, you might realize that cricket wasn't even professional when Hobbs played. However by the time Tendulkar arrived cricket had been fully professional for over 3 decades already. Don't you put the amateur county legends name alongside professional veterans who played international cricket. Use some critical thinking.

 

[Robert]

Tendulkar's career has intertwined with Border and Border was pretty impressive. Border's with Viv and Viv was awesome. Viv's with Lloyd's and Lloyd was splendid. Lloyd's with Sobers and Sobers was great. Sobers' with Hutton and Hutton was the best batsman of that time period. And Hutton's with Bradman and Bradman truly put Hutton into shades.

How do you explain this if Cricket was a different sport before 70s?

Excellent point.

The game evolves. The skill sets change. Some are gained and some are lost.

 

[Robert]

If you put the rose tinted glasses aside, you might realize that cricket wasn't even professional when Hobbs played. However by the time Tendulkar arrived cricket had been fully professional for over 3 decades already. Don't you put the amateur county legends name alongside professional veterans who played international cricket. Use some critical thinking.

If you open a history book or even do a quick web search you will see that Hobbs was a professional who faced professional bowlers, and even the so-called amateurs were receiving money for playing cricket.

So I shall not take your condescending advice on this occasion.

 

[Tusker]

If you open a history book or even do a quick web search you will see that Hobbs was a professional who faced professional bowlers, and even the so-called amateurs were receiving money for playing cricket.

So I shall not take your condescending advice on this occasion.

Jack Hobbs was a smoker and had a small business to run on the side. The amount of money he made playing cricket as a "Pro" is very small when compared to current era Professionals. To claim that he was just as Professional as current modern stars of his equal ranking ( Kohli, Root , Williamson etc) is just plain wrong and nothing more than the usual tactic ( half truths exaggerated and embellished and retold till the gullible were brainwashed ).

 

[Tusker]

Excellent point.

The game evolves. The skill sets change. Some are gained and some are lost.

Not even the most blind and parochial cricket fan would put the likes of Border and Lloyd as equal to Tendulkar. The amount of International runs scored by Tendulkar is significantly more than the Two combined.

 

[Tusker]

And in the year 2100 somebody on the internet will say Tendulkar wasn’t any good because he didn’t play against the Mars colonists in low gravity.

Show some respect for the great players of the past.

And they would be right to point that out IF such a thing ever happened. Doesn't mean that they need to bury their heads in sand continue believing in propaganda that things were actually difficult in Tendulkars time ( Like how some people here believe in the case of old ERA players ). It has nothing to do with showing respect and everything to do with being realistic.

 

[Hitman]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

 

[Tusker]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

Because that is the only tenable position for them. I have tried engaging [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] for years to comment on visuals ... invariably the response is - "ohhh a , b, and c rated X as the greatest that will do for me"

 

[jnaveen1980]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

I am an old timer too. But i don't agree with the "extrapolation" either. Many even question Bradman's legacy based on the quality he played against. If there is one Richards whose credentials are unquestionable it is of Viv Richards not Barry Richards. Tendulkar is revered not just for his prolific scoring and also for his longevity. Barry may be one of the best of his era. One of the best ever? Debatable.

 

[ArsenalFC]

And in the year 2100 somebody on the internet will say Tendulkar wasn’t any good because he didn’t play against the Mars colonists in low gravity.

Show some respect for the great players of the past.

The problem here is all the so called ATG English cricketers came before the pre-70s era when the game was played at sub-professional level, which leaves no choice for the middle aged and older English folk to preserve their status.

Yes it isn't Jack Hobbs fault that he was playing in an era of lesser skills but that doesn't mean that the higher skilled opener in Gavaskar should be penalised and rated lower in your ranking lists.

If roles were reversed (Gavaskar in the older era and Hobbs playing in the professional era) there is no doubt you would be routing for Hobbs, so lets not be disingenuous.

 

[Hitman]

Because that is the only tenable position for them. I have tried engaging [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] for years to comment on visuals ... invariably the response is - "ohhh a , b, and c rated X as the greatest that will do for me"

And yet they have a problem with my signature

 

[Rahul1]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

That's what they can do since a video destroyed the myth of older players. I once saw a post by our very own [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] claiming that some random English trundler in the 1940s bowled at the speed of 190 km/h.

 

[Hitman]

That's what they can do since a video destroyed the myth of older players. I once saw a post by our very own [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] claiming that some random English trundler in the 1940s bowled at the speed of 190 km/h.

Must have been a typo by him.

 

[Cric1234]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

The problem is still it's hard to accept for post 90s cricket fans even though Barry Richards averaged 55 in FC the best ever for an opener post 70s they still try to make him look worse than a modern day tailender.
They also think any batsman from today can go back to the 1910s and start averaging over 100 on grassy lawn pitches with an orthodox technique.

 

[Hitman]

The problem is still it's hard to accept for post 90s cricket fans even though Barry Richards averaged 55 in FC the best ever for an opener post 70s they still try to make him look worse than a modern day tailender.
They also think any batsman from today can go back to the 1910s and start averaging over 100 on grassy lawn pitches with an orthodox technique.

Once again you deliberately didn't speak about the visuals presented.

 

[Cric1234]

Once again you deliberately didn't speak about the visuals presented.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DewKbgKOibg

Barry Richards in action cutting pulling bowlers around the 135-140kph mark with relative ease exactly what is it about him here that will make worse than a tailender today I would say he would outperform all opening batsmen currently playing.

 

[Robert]

The problem here is all the so called ATG English cricketers came before the pre-70s era when the game was played at sub-professional level, which leaves no choice for the middle aged and older English folk to preserve their status.

Yes it isn't Jack Hobbs fault that he was playing in an era of lesser skills but that doesn't mean that the higher skilled opener in Gavaskar should be penalised and rated lower in your ranking lists.

If roles were reversed (Gavaskar in the older era and Hobbs playing in the professional era) there is no doubt you would be routing for Hobbs, so lets not be disingenuous.

Once again with feeling: Hobbs was a salaried professional who played mostly against salaried professionals. There was no “sub-professional level”.

And I rate Ranji and Duleepsinhji very highly, so enough of your dog whistle implication, thank you.

 

[Cric1234]

The bowler is Colin Croft a fine fast bowler who averaged 23 in tests Richards was playing him like a part timer bowling medium pace I really don't think Ashwin would be so good under similar conditions.

 

[ArsenalFC]

Once again with feeling: Hobbs was a salaried professional who played mostly against salaried professionals. There was no “sub-professional level”.

And I rate Ranji and Duleepsinhji very highly, so enough of your dog whistle implication, thank you.

Ok lets not deflect from the main argument here, so let me ask you if you had a choice to pick for all eras of the game, any pitch + conditions and against any bowling attack who would you pick between Hobbs and Gavaskar?

 

[Chrish]

What I have noticed in this thread is that old timers never debate when a video of an old 'legend' is posted. They don't care about visuals, but would rather bring up what third party sources have to say about their 'greatness'. They would simply ignore what they see in a video.

That’s because there is very limited footage if any, available from that era and the video quality often isn’t that great. Forget Hobbs, we don’t have a single clip of Bradman playing one entire over. All we have is bits and pieces clips which makes it impossible to accurately gauge the overall cricket standard from watching footage alone. It’s like someone uploaded Tendulkar’s clip of ducking 120kmh delivery from McGrath that was going into his stump and given lbw to determine the standard of batsmanship of that time.

I am not “old timer” and I do care about quality of footage a lot. I base my judgement on stats, opinions of historians and past players who witnessed the evolution of the game along with available footage.

I care more about Richie Benaud’s opinion on Bradman more so than watching YT clips since the former seems more believable to me.

 

[Tusker]

The problem is still it's hard to accept for post 90s cricket fans even though Barry Richards averaged 55 in FC the best ever for an opener post 70s they still try to make him look worse than a modern day tailender.
They also think any batsman from today can go back to the 1910s and start averaging over 100 on grassy lawn pitches with an orthodox technique.

And the reason why you conveniently ignored Post #171 is ............. ?

And no ... Croft isnt bowling 140Ks in that video ... max 130Ks.

 

[Cric1234]

That’s because there is very limited footage if any, available from that era and the video quality often isn’t that great. Forget Hobbs, we don’t have a single clip of Bradman playing one entire over. All we have is bits and pieces clips which makes it impossible to accurately gauge the overall cricket standard from watching footage alone. It’s like someone uploaded Tendulkar’s clip of ducking 120kmh delivery from McGrath that was going into his stump and given lbw to determine the standard of batsmanship of that time.

I am not “old timer” and I do care about quality of footage a lot. I base my judgement on stats, opinions of historians and past players who witnessed the evolution of the game along with available footage.

I care more about Richie Benaud’s opinion on Bradman more so than watching YT clips since the former seems more believable to me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRTS3km8EQs

From 6.11 you can see 4-5 balls Bradman plays of the spinner in a row nimble footwork and looking to find a gap then it switches straight to McCabe who looks like a decent batsman driving pulling cutting sweeping the ball with efficiency and he averaged 48 during his career.

 

[Robert]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRTS3km8EQs

From 6.11 you can see 4-5 balls Bradman plays of the spinner in a row nimble footwork and looking to find a gap then it switches straight to McCabe who looks like a decent batsman driving pulling cutting sweeping the ball with efficiency and he averaged 48 during his career.

McCabe showed that Bodyline could be overcome by physical courage and hooking.

 

[Robert]

Ok lets not deflect from the main argument here, so let me ask you if you had a choice to pick for all eras of the game, any pitch + conditions and against any bowling attack who would you pick between Hobbs and Gavaskar?

Both, probably. I believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

 

[Tusker]

Both, probably. I believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

And if you had a loaded gun pointed at your head and asked to choose between Barry and Sunny who would you pick and what would be the reasoning backed by facts ( *NOT* empty words from 3rd party ) ?

 

[Cric1234]

Barry Richards was voted in legends of cricket which shows how highly other players rated him despite a short test career.
He's rated ahead of Boycott and everyone apart from Gavasker during the era he played in.

 

[Junaids]

And if you had a loaded gun pointed at your head and asked to choose between Barry and Sunny who would you pick and what would be the reasoning backed by facts ( *NOT* empty words from 3rd party ) ?

Barry Richards, by a massive margin.

The guy who averaged 23 more than Greg Chappell in the same series - the same Chappell whose record was virtually identical to Tendulkar.

Gavaskar was good, but no better than Greenidge or Chappell.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Barry Richards, by a massive margin.

The guy who averaged 23 more than Greg Chappell in the same series - the same Chappell whose record was virtually identical to Tendulkar.

Gavaskar was good, but no better than Greenidge or Chappell.

Since when series averages determine the quality of batsmen?

 

[USofA]

Since when series averages determine the quality of batsmen?

Exactly. If greatness is determined by just one series, then there will be a lot more players contending for all time greatness.

There needs to be a large body of work over a good length of time, in the international arena to be even considered for all time great list. Domestic cricket is just that, domestic. If we start taking domestic cricket into account, then a lot more players need to be looked into.

 

[Tusker]

Here is Barry batting in his prime:

https://youtu.be/VVjA9vI-i18

I have a simple question to those singing praises of him: what exactly is soo great about the quality of cricket on display here that Iam supposedly not understanding due to my age? Can anyone explain that to me in pure cricketing terms ( which means no falling back on 3rd party references and stories ).

More importantly do you guys really believe that quality of cricket today is inferior than what it is in that video footage?

Ten days and a lot of hot air later I still dont have a proper technical explanation from any of the Old ERA fanatics to my simple question I asked in the post#54 - What is soo great about Barry's batting that you crow about nonstop ?

All the usual suspects have stayed well clear of touching that footage like as though its a ticking explosive device - especially after the posts by [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION].

So the reason why I asked that question was because Ian Chappell and Ashley Mallett (Amongst others) keep singing praises of that inngs which we see in that footage. So either the footage is lying or these two do not want to accept the fact that the standard of cricket has improved significantly from what we see in that footage.

And then there is the small matter of admitting they were wrong, better chance of hell freezing over than these ex-cricketers admit that they were wrong. I see the same problem with most of the old ERA supporters here on PP.

 

[Cric1234]

Ten days and a lot of hot air later I still dont have a proper technical explanation from any of the Old ERA fanatics to my simple question I asked in the post#54 - What is soo great about Barry's batting that you crow about nonstop ?

All the usual suspects have stayed well clear of touching that footage like as though its a ticking explosive device - especially after the posts by [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION].

So the reason why I asked that question was because Ian Chappell and Ashley Mallett (Amongst others) keep singing praises of that inngs which we see in that footage. So either the footage is lying or these two do not want to accept the fact that the standard of cricket has improved significantly from what we see in that footage.

And then there is the small matter of admitting they were wrong, better chance of hell freezing over than these ex-cricketers admit that they were wrong. I see the same problem with most of the old ERA supporters here on PP.

Apart from Lillee it isn't a great bowling attack but even Lillee Barry is playing him with ease he showed he belonged to the very top level in the limited opportunities he got.
Look at videos of modern day batsmen playing average bowling on flat wickets padding their stats generally they don't play great bowlers.

 

[Rahul1]

Since when series averages determine the quality of batsmen?

By his logic, Sunil Gavaskar would have been the greatest batsman of all time had he retired after his debut series.

 

[Rahul1]

Richards had a county average of 54 because he used to get bored and get out - all of us who watched him will tell you that.

Do you even know that you shot yourself in the foot with that post?

Anyone with such careless attitude should never be considered for any kind of international cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

Why some posters are thinking Hobbs technique would have been similar if he was born in this era, grew up and developed as a cricketer in this era?

There must be something legendary about him which is why he was rated as the greatest cricketer of his generation and it took someone like Bradman to come and take the mantle away from him.

 

[Cric1234]

Why some posters are thinking Hobbs technique would have been similar if he was born in this era, grew up and developed as a cricketer in this era?

There must be something legendary about him which is why he was rated as the greatest cricketer of his generation and it took someone like Bradman to come and take the mantle away from him.

Because they take everything at face value what they see is what they believe is true they conveniently forget about pitch conditions bowlers etc and they also try their best to ridicule previous eras to show their heroes to be better in any way possible.

 

[Ab Fan]

A bit off topic but I find Peter Handscomb technique pretty much worse than what you would see from a number XI of the same era.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Why some posters are thinking Hobbs technique would have been similar if he was born in this era, grew up and developed as a cricketer in this era?

There must be something legendary about him which is why he was rated as the greatest cricketer of his generation and it took someone like Bradman to come and take the mantle away from him.

Great post

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Why some posters are thinking Hobbs technique would have been similar if he was born in this era, grew up and developed as a cricketer in this era?

There must be something legendary about him which is why he was rated as the greatest cricketer of his generation and it took someone like Bradman to come and take the mantle away from him.

The fact that it was only Bradman who could take over the mantle speaks for itself.Proves what a towering giant Hobbs would be in any era.

 

[Tusker]

Apart from Lillee it isn't a great bowling attack but even Lillee Barry is playing him with ease he showed he belonged to the very top level in the limited opportunities he got.

Lillee was an absolute nobody with Zero Test match experience and less than 10 FC matches. And he has no pace or any menace.

Look at videos of modern day batsmen playing average bowling on flat wickets padding their stats generally they don't play great bowlers.

Which modern great is rated based on a FC match ? And who told you that this pitch where Barry is batting was anything but a flat track ? Any pitch where anyone makes 300 runs in a day has got to be a flat pitch. If you think otherwise then you need to make corrections to your cricketing know-how.

 

[Junaids]

Can anybody offer the names of two great bowlers he has faced and produced a good score in a test match or even a supertest. The only bowler of note that he ever faced was Lillee, he did face the West Indies once for 37 runs but how does a batsman become a all time great by only facing Australian bowlers in a few matches.

Er, yes.

Every single innings was against superb bowlers, massively better than any current Test attack.

1977-78
57 & 48 v AUSTRALIA
Gary Gilmour the GOAT World Cup bowler.
Max Walker

207 v AUSTRALIA
Lillee the GOAT white fast bowler.
Gilmour
Walker

76 v AUSTRALIA
Lillee
Lennie Pascoe who was FAST
Walker

1978-79
37 v WEST INDIES
Roberts ATG
Holding ATG
Garner ATG

28 & 101 not out
Lillee
Pascoe
Gilmour

So his seven SuperTest innings in 5 matches were:

57
48
207
76
37
28
101*

Against the greatest bowling attacks of all time.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Er, yes.

Every single innings was against superb bowlers, massively better than any current Test attack.

1977-78
57 & 48 v AUSTRALIA
Gary Gilmour the GOAT World Cup bowler.

I lost you there. How long do you plan to keep on trolling?

 

[Junaids]

I lost you there. How long do you plan to keep on trolling?

I think when you take 6-14 in the World Cup Semi-Final and follow it up with 5-40 in the World Cup Final, you’re the GOAT World Cup bowler.

Does anybody else even come close to Gary Gilmour?

I’d argue that he is the biggest legend in World Cup history.

 

[Gilly]

Er, yes.

Every single innings was against superb bowlers, massively better than any current Test attack.

1977-78
57 & 48 v AUSTRALIA
Gary Gilmour the GOAT World Cup bowler.
Max Walker

207 v AUSTRALIA
Lillee the GOAT white fast bowler.
Gilmour
Walker

76 v AUSTRALIA
Lillee
Lennie Pascoe who was FAST
Walker

1978-79
37 v WEST INDIES
Roberts ATG
Holding ATG
Garner ATG

28 & 101 not out
Lillee
Pascoe
Gilmour

So his seven SuperTest innings in 5 matches were:

57
48
207
76
37
28
101*

Against the greatest bowling attacks of all time.

Gilmore, Lillee, Walker and Pascoe are the greatest attack of all time.

 

[Robert]

I think when you take 6-14 in the World Cup Semi-Final and follow it up with 5-40 in the World Cup Final, you’re the GOAT World Cup bowler.

Does anybody else even come close to Gary Gilmour?

I’d argue that he is the biggest legend in World Cup history.

I have only seen footage. He swung it all over the place.

Though I have not followed the World Cup after 1996.

 

[Hitman]

I think when you take 6-14 in the World Cup Semi-Final and follow it up with 5-40 in the World Cup Final, you’re the GOAT World Cup bowler.

Does anybody else even come close to Gary Gilmour?

I’d argue that he is the biggest legend in World Cup history.

) A man who played 1 World Cup and a grand total of 5 ODI matches in his career.

Does anyone need any further proof on whether to take this guy seriously or not?

 

[USofA]

Gary who? I had to look this guy up. Seems like he had grand ODI career of 5 matches. One world cup makes him the biggest legend in WC history? More than the Tendulkars, Imran, Viv et all?

Well, if playing 4 test matches gets people into all time test greats, why not 5 ODI's making someone an ODI legend.

Moral of the story, the lesser internationals you play, the better the chance of all time greatness.

 

[Junaids]

Gary who? I had to look this guy up. Seems like he had grand ODI career of 5 matches. One world cup makes him the biggest legend in WC history? More than the Tendulkars, Imran, Viv et all?

Well, if playing 4 test matches gets people into all time test greats, why not 5 ODI's making someone an ODI legend.

Moral of the story, the lesser internationals you play, the better the chance of all time greatness.

Gary Gilmour was unquestionably the greatest World Cup bowler of all-time.

His performance at the 1975 World Cup has only ever been equalled in sporting history by Diego Maradona's performance at the 1986 football World Cup. No player has been so dominant in World Cup history.

So Barry Richards' record against Gilmour is hugely significant.

 

[Junaids]

To fully understand how Barry Richards became so great, you need to understand who he netted with.

For South Africa, he netted with Mike Procter who was seriously quick. Procter was probably the only competitor to Sobers for the title Greatest All-Rounder of All-Time, and bowled in-swing in the 145-150K speed bracket as well as being a Top Six batsman.

Procter had a Test and SuperTest career which imitated Barry Richards' one very closely.

Just as Richards averaged 73 and 79 in Tests and SuperTests nine years apart,

Procter averaged 15.02 as a Test bowler and 17.14 in SuperTests. His county, Gloucestershire, boasted the great Zaheer Abbas, but was universally known as "Proctershire".

Meanwhile at Hampshire, the star bowler team-mate of Barry Richards was Sir Andy Roberts, who we all known was measured in the 1975-76 WACA Test bowling at a speed of 157.4K.

No wonder Barry Richards was such a superb batsman against pace. He was facing express bowlers in the nets all the time.

 

[jaf348]

His performance at the 1975 World Cup has only ever been equalled in sporting history by Diego Maradona's performance at the 1986 football World Cup. No player has been so dominant in World Cup history.

A cricketer that played a grand total of 5 ODIs in a world cup consisting of 8 teams during a period in time when ODI cricket was still is its infancy is the second greatest world cup sporting achievement of all time? This being the same tournament where Gavaskar scored 36 off 174 balls in 60 overs )

Since you made a reference to football then surely Pele winning the world cup and being the star player of the 1958 world cup at the age of 17 is a far greater achievement.

 

[Asim_khan]

A cricketer that played a grand total of 5 ODIs in a world cup consisting of 8 teams during a period in time when ODI cricket was still is its infancy is the second greatest world cup sporting achievement of all time? This being the same tournament where Gavaskar scored 36 off 174 balls in 60 overs )

Since you made a reference to football then surely Pele winning the world cup and being the star player of the 1958 world cup at the age of 17 is a far greater achievement.

1) Gavaskar's score will tell you how much batsmen valued their wicket, therefore making his success in that tournament that much more of an achievement.

2) Maradona was the best player in World cup 1986. Raymond Kopa was the best player in World cup 1958, Pele wasn't even the best player for Brazil, Garrincha was.

 

[Junaids]

A cricketer that played a grand total of 5 ODIs in a world cup consisting of 8 teams during a period in time when ODI cricket was still is its infancy is the second greatest world cup sporting achievement of all time? This being the same tournament where Gavaskar scored 36 off 174 balls in 60 overs )

Since you made a reference to football then surely Pele winning the world cup and being the star player of the 1958 world cup at the age of 17 is a far greater achievement.

No.

Pele never was the Outstanding player at a World Cup: it was Garrincha in 58 and 62 and Beckenbauer and Jairzinho and Gerson in 1970.

In 1986 Maradona was colossal - and I say that as an Englishman.

Gary Gilmour was the same in 1975 at the World Cup. The semi-final performance was ludicrous - after taking 6-14 he then won it with the bat!

And then he took 5-40 in the Final.

West Indies won with Gordon Greenidge as their star opener of the 1970’s and 1980’s.

But at Hampshire everyone could see that Barry Richards was virtually half as good again!

 

[Napa]

And if you had a loaded gun pointed at your head and asked to choose between Barry and Sunny who would you pick and what would be the reasoning backed by facts ( *NOT* empty words from 3rd party ) ?

Barry Richards, by a massive margin.

By his logic, Sunil Gavaskar would have been the greatest batsman of all time had he retired after his debut series.

Leave aside Gavaskar, I would not even pick Barry Richards over Rahul Dravid. After all the only reliable stat we have for Richards is his FC average, and Dravid has a higher FC average than him.

Richards did not even have half of Gavaskar's average of 154 from his first series.

 

[Tusker]

Leave aside Gavaskar, I would not even pick Barry Richards over Rahul Dravid. After all the only reliable stat we have for Richards is his FC average, and Dravid has a higher FC average than him.

Richards did not even have half of Gavaskar's average of 154 from his first series.

Going by this method of using a Single series avg to compare two players ... Sunny Gavaskar owns Sobers then in more ways than one - opener vs Middle order and 2 lesser inngs played yet significantly more runs scored than Sobers ..

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=175;type=series

now suddenly there be additional parameters incoming to overcome the tricky challenge of sticking by the idiotic series comparison and yet making sure Sobers emerges as the better batsman

 

[Thejedi]

Sad read but I’m glad the cricket historian aren’t stupid as casual fans.

 

[Robert]

A cricketer that played a grand total of 5 ODIs in a world cup consisting of 8 teams during a period in time when ODI cricket was still is its infancy is the second greatest world cup sporting achievement of all time? This being the same tournament where Gavaskar scored 36 off 174 balls in 60 overs )

Since you made a reference to football then surely Pele winning the world cup and being the star player of the 1958 world cup at the age of 17 is a far greater achievement.

Gavaskar was making some sort of point in that match, I don’t know what but he seemed to be having a big strop.

 

[Tusker]

Sad read but I’m glad the cricket historian aren’t stupid as casual fans.

Welcome to the forum. Maybe you can actually answer my question I posed in post#54

 

[jaf348]

No.

Pele never was the Outstanding player at a World Cup: it was Garrincha in 58 and 62 and Beckenbauer and Jairzinho and Gerson in 1970.

In 1986 Maradona was colossal - and I say that as an Englishman.

Star player does not necessarily = best player.

Mark my words, 100 years from now no one will know of Garrincha, Didi or Kopa from 1958 but people will know of Pele for being the youngest WC winner and Fontaine for most goals in a tournament.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I think you missed the context of that discussion ... and as with any discussion involving OLD vs NEW it was to do with how everything was better in the good old days and that those of us who were not around just do not get it.

Therefore I asked an open question to all those who swear by the old ERA cricketers and were drooling over Barry's batting prowess to stand up and tell us noobs what is so great about that batting display and the general quality of cricket in technical terms.

So if you agree that Kohli's technique is superior we have nothing to discuss and if you recall my technical analysis was concentrated on his batting stance with feet so close to each other unlike modern day greats. dont have to be a batting coach to spot that obvious big difference.

here is that thread --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?272365-Barry-Richards-The-myth

I don't know if Kohli's technique is superior, neither do you. It's breathtakingly presumptuous to assume that there's one particular technical style that defines the modern-day great. For example, I would never have imagined Steve Smith's homespun technique would have been successful at the highest level, but he might end up with a better record than Kohli.

I took issue with the fact that Richards' closed stance won't have made a huge difference if he played today. I can't believe I am getting dragged into this again, but I am going to give you a small example comparing Richards with a modern player who, though by no means a great, had a great deal of success at limited overs cricket, Andrew Symonds.

Here's Richards' stance:


Here's Symonds:


I'd argue Richards' head is in a better position to allow him to hit the ball. If the modern era proves anything, it's that your head position is most important in defining how well you hit a ball. Your head needs to be still so that the ball never strays from your line of sight. It's why great players like Virender Sehwag had huge success at the highest level, despite not having great footwork.

I'd allow Martin Crowe, one of the best batting technicians that I ever saw, to explain it better:

For me, as a pupil of the finer points of batting, the single most significant fundamental in the success of Ponting, Clarke and those before them is the balance of the head at the moment the ball is released. The position of the eyes is the absolute key to true balance. Both eyes need to be level, still, and looking directly at the bowler's hand. Any deviation from that position and the batsman's balance is affected.

When a batsman sets himself into his stance, it doesn't mean that that position is retained right through to when the ball is released. Often batsmen will lose a still, level, aligned position a split second before the ball is released, resulting in losing the proper balance needed at the crease. Often they never get into the right position to start with, being too "closed off" and not looking at the bowler with square and level eyes.

Sachin Tendulkar has the perfect head position, as does Virender Sehwag, as did Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman. Sourav Ganguly was a bit hit and miss with his. Jacques Kallis, Hashim Amla, Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers all have it, but only at the last minute, as their stances are adjusted just prior to delivery. The South Africans get into the right position at the right time; the Indians are naturally always there.

For Australia, Ponting, Clarke and the Waughs all had very natural positions too. The naturalness I refer to is the fact that they all start with the bat down, tapping away with a natural lift as the ball is delivered. The South Africans prefer to hold their bats off the ground.

 

[James]

It’s not that I think Richards sucks, or conversely that he’s good - I simply consider him to be unrateable.

It starts and stops with 4 Test matches. How on earth can a serious peer-to-peer analysis be completed on the evidence of 4 matches? Particularly when looking at the ATG bracket.

In my opinion a valid opinion needs 20 Test matches bare minimum, for example Graeme Pollock, who unlike Richards deserves his exulted status.

 

[Robert]

It’s not that I think Richards sucks, or conversely that he’s good - I simply consider him to be unrateable.

It starts and stops with 4 Test matches. How on earth can a serious peer-to-peer analysis be completed on the evidence of 4 matches? Particularly when looking at the ATG bracket.

The WSC Supertests are a useful indicator however. Barry Richards averaged 79, while Viv Richards and Greg Chappell averaged low fifties, though the latter two played a lot more matches.

 

[Junaids]

It’s not that I think Richards sucks, or conversely that he’s good - I simply consider him to be unrateable.

It starts and stops with 4 Test matches. How on earth can a serious peer-to-peer analysis be completed on the evidence of 4 matches? Particularly when looking at the ATG bracket.

In my opinion a valid opinion needs 20 Test matches bare minimum, for example Graeme Pollock, who unlike Richards deserves his exulted status.

Plus 5 SuperTests!

 

[Suleiman]

I hate how generous people are in granting random old men ATG status off the base of 1-2 games in international career not really caring about conditions or anything like that.

Yet in this day age a batsman has to score in England, Australia, Asia, Pluto with average not falling below 50, SR above 70, no drop catches etc etc to be considered "worthy" to even be comparable to these gone and forgotten dinosaurs who played decades ago.

 

[Tusker]

I don't know if Kohli's technique is superior, neither do you. It's breathtakingly presumptuous to assume that there's one particular technical style that defines the modern-day great. For example, I would never have imagined Steve Smith's homespun technique would have been successful at the highest level, but he might end up with a better record than Kohli.

The likes of Smith and Sehwag are exceptions who are heavily reliant on Hand-Eye co-ordination. The norm is to have your feet wide. Even Andrew Symonds who you used as an example has that wide stance (See link below). The point is I cannot think of any WorldClass player whos batting stance is like Barry Richards whereas there is plenty of players who have the standard batting technique that starts of with a wide stance and relies on getting a big front foot stride. Thats why its safe to say that Kohli is closer to the ideal batting technique than Barry.


Easier said than done against top class bowlers mind you but thats the difference between Top Class players and the mere-mortals. The Barry Richards stance wont allow for shots like the extravagant cover drives that Kohli plays off great fast bowlers.

I took issue with the fact that Richards' closed stance won't have made a huge difference if he played today. I can't believe I am getting dragged into this again, but I am going to give you a small example comparing Richards with a modern player who, though by no means a great, had a great deal of success at limited overs cricket, Andrew Symonds.

Still front on pictures wont do justice to explain the problem

here have a look at his stance from side on: https://youtu.be/iabVvmnYriA?t=5

And Similarly for Barry Richards : https://youtu.be/xEctpJ2UXcY?t=230

There is very little gap at all between his legs. That cannot be right. the ideal distance between your boots should be about the width of your shoulder so as to get a good balance. without that baseline position the points you quoted from Martin Crowe's explanation of good technique become harder to implement.

These are easier to exploit if a bowler has pace and accuracy. Otherwise a merely good batsman will compensate for it through Hand-eye co-ordination.

I'd argue Richards' head is in a better position to allow him to hit the ball. If the modern era proves anything, it's that your head position is most important in defining how well you hit a ball. Your head needs to be still so that the ball never strays from your line of sight. It's why great players like Virender Sehwag had huge success at the highest level, despite not having great footwork.

I'd allow Martin Crowe, one of the best batting technicians that I ever saw, to explain it better:

Footwork is important too every single batting coach will emphasize that ... footwork is what makes more shots possible and minimizes risk of nicking the ball or letting it slip through the bat pad gap or getting hit in line with the stumps. Again without World Class bowler with pace and accuracy to exploit these weakness any good player will appear to have immaculate technique and looks unstoppable. This in my opinion the main reason why Old ERA batsmen got away with less than ideal technique. Barry Richards is certainly one of them whos career consisted of playing against mainly County level bowlers. Even at the international level there was hardly anyone with the 85+ MPH pace against whom he played consistently (Unless you want believe in fanciful stories spun by Junaids, Robert and Company )

 

[Tusker]

I hate how generous people are in granting random old men ATG status off the base of 1-2 games in international career not really caring about conditions or anything like that.

Yet in this day age a batsman has to score in England, Australia, Asia, Pluto with average not falling below 50, SR above 70, no drop catches etc etc to be considered "worthy" to even be comparable to these gone and forgotten dinosaurs who played decades ago.

Exactly !! The formula is very simple : No Test match data ? No Problemo just simply proclaim that he would do just as well in Test Cricket based on FC stats. Anyone raises objection - Just shout them down claiming superior knowledge due to age. Whatta fool proof way to make a point.

 

[jeetu]

Barry Richards has short international career. That will always raise a question mark over his legacy. Other openers like Gavakar , Boycott played all over the world and excelled in most of them.
Barry Richards case has a big what if. I believe talent wise he was right up there. But he was untested never the less.

There re players like Sehwag and Zaheer Abbas who were great on certain places but were found wanting in others.

Had Zaheer Abbas played only in England and Pakistan (55+ test avg), he would be rated as one of the best ever. Coupled with his exception though short ODI record.

Another whatif case is Michael Hussey.
How would he be rated if he has retired after 18 tests only.
[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td] M.Hussey [/td][td]Span [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Bat Av [/td][td]100 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]unfiltered [/td][td]2005-2013 [/td][td]79 [/td][td]6235 [/td][td]51.52 [/td][td]19 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]filtered [/td][td]2005-2007 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]1896 [/td][td]86.18 [/td][td]7 [/td][/tr]
[/table]