Barry Richards - The myth

[Rahul1]

Plus 5 SuperTests!

No one cares!

 

[Hitman]

Kohli wasn't a great until the recent Test series in England. Why? Because he didn't perform there. Also, according to Junaids, Kohli's performance in the last Test series in England didn't matter because the conditions were easy since the sun had already burned off the grass, or whatever theory he made up at that time .

But Barry Richards is better than all other batsman from his time and those than came after him. Why? Because he performed in 5 Super Tests )

 

[jeetu]

I checked WSC stats , again its same story with Barry Richards. He only played 5 of those tests. Its a small sample size.
Of which Row XI only played one test against WestIndies , where Barry Richard scored 37.

I don't think ROW XI was taken that seriously. Most of the matches were played between WI and Aus.

There were 16 tests played over 3 years of time.

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Series [/td][td]Test [/td][td]Date [/td][td]Ground [/td][td]Countries [/td][td]Result [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC West Indies [/td][td]1st [/td][td]2/12/1977 [/td][td]VFL Park [/td][td]AUS v WIN [/td][td]WSC West Indies [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC West Indies [/td][td]2nd [/td][td]16/12/1977 [/td][td]RAS Showground [/td][td]AUS v WIN [/td][td]WSC West Indies [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC West Indies [/td][td]3rd [/td][td]31/12/1977 [/td][td]Football Park [/td][td]AUS v WIN [/td][td]WSC Australia [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC World XI [/td][td]1st [/td][td]14/01/1978 [/td][td]RAS Showground [/td][td]AUS v WXI [/td][td]WSC World XI [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC World XI [/td][td]2nd [/td][td]27/01/1978 [/td][td]Gloucester Park [/td][td]AUS v WXI [/td][td]WSC World XI [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1977-1978 WSC Australia v. WSC World XI [/td][td]3rd [/td][td]9/2/1978 [/td][td]VFL Park [/td][td]AUS v WXI [/td][td]WSC Australia [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC Supertests [/td][td]1st [/td][td]8/12/1978 [/td][td]VFL Park [/td][td]AUS v WXI [/td][td]WSC World XI [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC Supertests [/td][td]2nd [/td][td]21/12/1978 [/td][td]Sydney Cricket Ground [/td][td]WIN v WXI [/td][td]WSC World XI [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC Supertests [/td][td]3rd [/td][td]12/1/1979 [/td][td]VFL Park [/td][td]AUS v WIN [/td][td]Match Drawn [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC Supertests [/td][td]4th [/td][td]22/01/1979 [/td][td]Sydney Cricket Ground [/td][td]AUS v WIN [/td][td]WSC Australia [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC Supertests [/td][td]5th [/td][td]2/2/1979 [/td][td]Sydney Cricket Ground [/td][td]AUS v WXI [/td][td]WSC World XI [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC West Indies v. WSC Australia [/td][td]1st [/td][td]23/02/1979 [/td][td]Sabina Park [/td][td]WIN v AUS [/td][td]WSC West Indies [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC West Indies v. WSC Australia [/td][td]2nd [/td][td]9/3/1979 [/td][td]Kensington Oval [/td][td]WIN v AUS [/td][td]Match Drawn [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC West Indies v. WSC Australia [/td][td]3rd [/td][td]16/03/1979 [/td][td]Queen's Park Oval [/td][td]WIN v AUS [/td][td]WSC Australia [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC West Indies v. WSC Australia [/td][td]4th [/td][td]27/03/1979 [/td][td]Bourda [/td][td]WIN v AUS [/td][td]Match Drawn [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1978-1979 WSC West Indies v. WSC Australia [/td][td]5th [/td][td]6/4/1979 [/td][td]Antigua Recreation Ground [/td][td]WIN v AUS [/td][td]Match Drawn [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Hitman]

If any batsman deserves to be applauded due to his performance in those Super Tests, it's Viv Richards. He was the only batsman who dominated the attacks, rather than merely trying to survive and score some runs in the process. Imran Khan said that most batsmen during that series merely tried to survive against the great fast bowlers assembled. Viv is the only one who tried and was successful in dominating those bowlers to a large extent.

I'm merely bringing up a point here. Viv established himself as one of the greatest batsmen ever because of his performance in International cricket, not due to those Super Tests.

 

[jeetu]

Barry Richards international career (including 5 Super test) can be summed up by thrashing Australia. 8 of 9 test were against Australia.

 

[Robert]

If any batsman deserves to be applauded due to his performance in those Super Tests, it's Viv Richards. He was the only batsman who dominated the attacks, rather than merely trying to survive and score some runs in the process. Imran Khan said that most batsmen during that series merely tried to survive against the great fast bowlers assembled. Viv is the only one who tried and was successful in dominating those bowlers to a large extent.

I'm merely bringing up a point here. Viv established himself as one of the greatest batsmen ever because of his performance in International cricket, not due to those Super Tests.

Greg Chappell scored heavily too, same average as Richards, and had to face the West Indians, which Richards didn’t.

 

[Hitman]

Greg Chappell scored heavily too, same average as Richards, and had to face the West Indians, which Richards didn’t.

I have often wondered who is the 2nd greatest Australian batsman ever. The names of Neil Harvey, Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting are usually brought up.

Who would be your pick?

 

[Robert]

No one cares!

No Indians maybe - how many did Packer invite to play the Supertests? I think none. Though Majid Khan, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Asif Iqbal and Imran were all there.

The simple fact is that Packer cricket was of a higher quality than the authorised test cricket of the time and so is interesting to students of the game.

 

[Robert]

I have often wondered who is the 2nd greatest Australian batsman ever. The names of Neil Harvey, Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting are usually brought up.

Who would be your pick?

Best I saw was Greg Chappell, then probably Border who was the epitome of the Aussie Battler. He inherited a weak side shorn of the SAB rebels and seemed to find himself under constant pressure. There he was, grinding out yet another century, jaw jutting.

I think Ponting is a bit overrated, as he only started scoring massively after Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar and Donald retired. Though some elder Aussies who can remember Bradman will tell you he is #2.

 

[Hitman]

Best I saw was Greg Chappell, then probably Border who was the epitome of the Aussie Battler. He inherited a weak side shorn of the SAB rebels and seemed to find himself under constant pressure. There he was, grinding out yet another century, jaw jutting.

I think Ponting is a bit overrated, as he only started scoring massively after Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar and Donald retired. Though some elder Aussies who can remember Bradman will tell you he is #2.

Out of the names I mentioned, Steve Waugh and Ponting are the ones I saw play. One thing here, from what I've heard and read about Border, he seems to have been a very similar player to Waugh, very gritty and determined, someone who believed in working hard and on temperament to score runs. Ponting was more of a naturally talented player, someone who was blessed with flair.

What do you have to say on that?


P.S. I bought Allan Border's autobiography a few days back. I'm currently reading Sir. Garfield Sobers's book.

 

[Robert]

Out of the names I mentioned, Steve Waugh and Ponting are the ones I saw play. One thing here, from what I've heard and read about Border, he seems to have been a very similar player to Waugh, very gritty and determined, someone who believed in working hard and on temperament to score runs. Ponting was more of a naturally talented player, someone who was blessed with flair.

What do you have to say on that?


P.S. I bought Allan Border's autobiography a few days back. I'm currently reading Sir. Garfield Sobers's book.

There were two Steve Waughs.

One was a D’Artagnan who scored fast with shots all round the wicket. England couldn’t get him out in 1989.

The other - after 1993 - was a grinder who cut out all but a few percentage shots and was very good under pressure.

Glad to see you are reading books, as this fills out our understanding with context.

 

[Tusker]

No Indians maybe - how many did Packer invite to play the Supertests? I think none. Though Majid Khan, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Asif Iqbal and Imran were all there.

The simple fact is that Packer cricket was of a higher quality than the authorised test cricket of the time and so is interesting to students of the game.

Is that why they are struggling for decades to get official Test Status for these matches ?

 

[Last Monetarist]

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.




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.



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 )

Yes, but there is nothing to suggest that Barry Richards did not have superb hand eye coordination. In fact, there is a quite well-known account of how Richards did not have 20/20 vision and he visited the optician to get prescription glasses, however, he found that it affected the way he looked at the ball while batting so he disregarded them.

There is no rule as far as I know that the distance between your feet in the batting stance should be x or y number of inches. It is a very personal thing, batting technique, and what works for one player doesn't work for another. All that is recommended is that the batsman should feel relaxed in his stance, his feet should not be rigid, thereby not planting the full weight of the body on the soles of the feet, this is usually achieved by flexing the knee a little bit.

Here is Richards side-on stance, note that his knees are a little flexed because he is leaning down on his bat:


Again I defer to Crowe for better explanation:

By holding the bat down low, with relaxed arms and soft hands, the bat has no influence on the ideal body position that has been set up. In fact, when the bat is held low, it encourages a slight crouch, enabling flex in the knees, weight on the balls of the feet. Often I see youngsters going into their stance with too much emphasis on holding the bat up high, not on getting ready to move. This is self-defeating because without the body moving into the correct position via the feet, the actual hitting will be flawed anyway.

Again, the whole point about Barry Richards is that it is unknowable how really great he was because he didn't play international cricket. Therefore, your claim that he couldn't have hacked it or the romanticized claim that he would have been the best batsman in the world cannot be proven. This is part of the charm about Barry Richards, the unknowable enigma.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Best I saw was Greg Chappell, then probably Border who was the epitome of the Aussie Battler. He inherited a weak side shorn of the SAB rebels and seemed to find himself under constant pressure. There he was, grinding out yet another century, jaw jutting.

I think Ponting is a bit overrated, as he only started scoring massively after Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar and Donald retired. Though some elder Aussies who can remember Bradman will tell you he is #2.

Ponting scored a century in the Boxing Day test of 1997 against Donald and Pollock, he scored one against Ambrose and Walsh in Bridgetown in 1999, and one against Wasim and Shoaib at Perth later that year. It's not really Ponting's fault that he reached his peak in 2002 once all those great bowlers had faded.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Just one final point on Richards' stance and whether it would have affected him against great pace, here is a side-on view of him getting ready to face Sylvester Clarke in 1983, when Richards was 37:



There is a slightly perceptible widening of the distance between his feet. While it's still not as wide as modern day players, it's proof that batsmen can adjust their technique depending on conditions and quality of bowling.

I just find the whole assertion bizarre that cricketers from previous eras won't have been able to adjust to modern cricket, and vice versa as well, e.g. Kohli would have thrived during the 70s as well. A great player in any era will always have the intelligence and self-awareness to recognize his weaknesses and work hard on eradicating them, lest they won't be great players at all in any era.

 

[Robert]

Ponting scored a century in the Boxing Day test of 1997 against Donald and Pollock, he scored one against Ambrose and Walsh in Bridgetown in 1999, and one against Wasim and Shoaib at Perth later that year. It's not really Ponting's fault that he reached his peak in 2002 once all those great bowlers had faded.

Yet in that time he was averaging mid-forties, not fifty-odd. I think he reached his peak *because* they faded.

I rate Chappell and Border higher because they faced that level of bowling throughout their careers, Border while carrying a weak batting line for much of his.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Yet in that time he was averaging mid-forties, not fifty-odd. I think he reached his peak *because* they faded.

I rate Chappell and Border higher because they faced that level of bowling throughout their careers, Border while carrying a weak batting line for much of his.

I think that is utterly unfair. Ponting was being shunted up and down the order during the nineties, and there were also the whole off-field issues with discipline, which meant that he wasn't really performing as well as he should have. He worked hard and got more focused afterwards, and it's natural as well that a batsman reaches his peak at 27-28, rather than 23-24, unless you are Sachin Tendulkar, of course.

 

[Ab Fan]

Barry is rated very highly by his peers.

I mean when the likes of Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee, Holding and Robert believe he was among the most toughest batsmen to bowl to, surely they must not be kidding. He is very well appreciated and is rated very highly by his contemporaries.

IMO, the way I see it, maybe an analogy could be done to Shane Bond, who we all know was a very special bowler and if not for injuries threatening his career, he would have gone on to become one of the greatest fast bowlers of the game.

Now, none of us will rate any decent bowler over Shane Bond even in our wildest dreams but how does Shane Bond compares against say, Shaun Pollock or Waqar Younis?

This is where it becomes hard to rate Barry Richards over other ATGs or even his own countrymen, Jacques Kallis. How do you rate a guy with 5 tests over another who played 166?

 

[Ab Fan]

I will rate Barry Richards very highly simply because of the peer- reputation he received but surely he doesn't make a cut for me with 5 tests sample over current era ATGs like say, Jacques Kallis. A similar analogy could be that Shane Bond simply doesn't make the cut over someone like Waqar or Donald or Pollock.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Barry is rated very highly by his peers.

I mean when the likes of Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee, Holding and Robert believe he was among the most toughest batsmen to bowl to, surely they must not be kidding. He is very well appreciated and is rated very highly by his contemporaries.

IMO, the way I see it, maybe an analogy could be done to Shane Bond, who we all know was a very special bowler and if not for injuries threatening his career, he would have gone on to become one of the greatest fast bowlers of the game.

Now, none of us will rate any decent bowler over Shane Bond even in our wildest dreams but how does Shane Bond compares against say, Shaun Pollock or Waqar Younis?

This is where it becomes hard to rate Barry Richards over other ATGs or even his own countrymen, Jacques Kallis. How do you rate a guy with 5 tests over another who played 166?

Nobody calls Bond an ATG. Only delusional Barry fans call him a great. Even then, Bond has played far more international matches than Barry.

Talent doesn't matter in cricket, if there is no stat to back up it's useless.

 

[EliteCynical]

No Indians maybe - how many did Packer invite to play the Supertests? I think none. Though Majid Khan, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Asif Iqbal and Imran were all there.

The simple fact is that Packer cricket was of a higher quality than the authorised test cricket of the time and so is interesting to students of the game.

Robert, Asif Iqbal was one of Packer's agents and they did offer contracts to Chandra, Prassana, Kirmani, Gavaskar and Chandra almost signed up. Later on, persuasion from board and all swayed things back. Infact, a pic of Kirmani with Asif Iqbal and Packer's agent was published which invited the wrath of the board, which made sure Kirmani was dropped from 1979 WC altogether and also not picked for subsequent England tour. He was in top form back then!

Even i like to read a bit

 

[EliteCynical]

This is probably the best thread I have come across in PP. This is why I joined PP in the first place. With all the comparison and jingoistic threads nowadays, this one is breath of fresh air.

Some superlative posts by [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] and [MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION]

Highly impressive.

 

[Robert]

Robert, Asif Iqbal was one of Packer's agents and they did offer contracts to Chandra, Prassana, Kirmani, Gavaskar and Chandra almost signed up. Later on, persuasion from board and all swayed things back. Infact, a pic of Kirmani with Asif Iqbal and Packer's agent was published which invited the wrath of the board, which made sure Kirmani was dropped from 1979 WC altogether and also not picked for subsequent England tour. He was in top form back then!

Even i like to read a bit

Great post!

I would have thought Vishy at least was tailor made for WSC.

 

[Ab Fan]

Nobody calls Bond an ATG. Only delusional Barry fans call him a great. Even then, Bond has played far more international matches than Barry.

Talent doesn't matter in cricket, if there is no stat to back up it's useless.

I am sure if you compare Shane Bond with say, Stuart Broad , surely I will pick Bond.

In a NZ XI, he will be a sureshot one name in that bowling lineup. He gotta be there, just a phenomenal fast bowler.

 

[Cric1234]

Had he played 50 70 80 tests he could have averaged 55-60 which would have made him the best opening batsman of all time but he didn't which means a big player is missing from the record books and he can't be an all time great due to this.

 

[jeetu]

Another case similar to Barry Richards.
Former Indian opener Vijay Merchant lost his best years in Second WorldWar. He has probably the second Highest FC (71.64) scoring over 37,000 runs after Don.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/30996.html

 

[Junaids]

Just a quick comment about the bowling that Richards faced.

The SuperTests were against world class attacks on difficult wickets, which is why scores and averages were so low.

Test cricket involved a handful of teams with decent attacks.

But at the time of Packer, the SuperTests were the real Tests.

Australia’s SuperTest attack was:

Lillee
Thomson (eventually)
Walker
Pascoe
Bright / O’Keefe

The Test attack was:

Hurst
Dymock
Hogg
Toohey

West Indies’ SuperTest attack was:

Roberts
Garner
Holding
Croft

West Indies Test attack was:

Holder
Phillip
Parry
Junadeen

 

[Hitman]

Yea, 5 Super Tests played by Barry Richards vs 100 + Tests played by a lot of other batsmen. Anyone with a brain would know what is the bigger test.

 

[James]

When older fans hype up the success of historic players who featured in but a few matches, I think they forget that if we only counted the first handful of knocks then the best batsmen of all time would be Michael Hussey, Jonathan Trott and Adam Voges.

 

[Tusker]

Just one final point on Richards' stance and whether it would have affected him against great pace, here is a side-on view of him getting ready to face Sylvester Clarke in 1983, when Richards was 37:


There is a slightly perceptible widening of the distance between his feet. While it's still not as wide as modern day players, it's proof that batsmen can adjust their technique depending on conditions and quality of bowling.

I just find the whole assertion bizarre that cricketers from previous eras won't have been able to adjust to modern cricket, and vice versa as well, e.g. Kohli would have thrived during the 70s as well. A great player in any era will always have the intelligence and self-awareness to recognize his weaknesses and work hard on eradicating them, lest they won't be great players at all in any era.

again ... my initial post that started the Technical Analysis was made in the backdrop of persistent claims from the OLD ERA Brigade (not you) that things have now deteriorated in the world of cricket. Therefore there is nothing to discuss between us if you agree that the modern batting technique is better.

Whether or not Barry could adapt is speculative and I have no qualms in accepting that he probably might. But the bigger point is that everything from OLD is definitely not better than the new. Otherwise you would see kids trying to copy Barry's batting technique from 1970. That just wont work today. No professional batting coach will recommend that technique.

I know it is hard for the old fogy's to accept this harsh reality but we all knew that right from the get go. Its just fun to toy with the "Know it all" types at their own game and beat the crap out of them.

Cheers !

 

[Tusker]

This is probably the best thread I have come across in PP. This is why I joined PP in the first place. With all the comparison and jingoistic threads nowadays, this one is breath of fresh air.

Some superlative posts by [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] and [MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION]

Highly impressive.

Thanks for the kind words ... I learned something new from your earlier post on WSC Thanks for sharing !

 

[Last Monetarist]

again ... my initial post that started the Technical Analysis was made in the backdrop of persistent claims from the OLD ERA Brigade (not you) that things have now deteriorated in the world of cricket. Therefore there is nothing to discuss between us if you agree that the modern batting technique is better.

Whether or not Barry could adapt is speculative and I have no qualms in accepting that he probably might. But the bigger point is that everything from OLD is definitely not better than the new. Otherwise you would see kids trying to copy Barry's batting technique from 1970. That just wont work today. No professional batting coach will recommend that technique.

I know it is hard for the old fogy's to accept this harsh reality but we all knew that right from the get go. Its just fun to toy with the "Know it all" types at their own game and beat the crap out of them.

Cheers !

In that case, fully agreed. Cheers for the discussion, it was very stimulating.

 

[Robert]

When older fans hype up the success of historic players who featured in but a few matches, I think they forget that if we only counted the first handful of knocks then the best batsmen of all time would be Michael Hussey, Jonathan Trott and Adam Voges.

Hmmm, but those guys would not have the reputation that Richards gained from WSC, and from SAB rebel cricket, and from Hampshire CCC where he made his world-class opening partner Greenidge look rather ordinary while facing all the top fast bowlers in the world.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Hmmm, but those guys would not have the reputation that Richards gained from WSC, and from SAB rebel cricket, and from Hampshire CCC where he made his world-class opening partner Greenidge look rather ordinary while facing all the top fast bowlers in the world.

Anybody can bat like king for 5 matches. Do you know what Vinod Kambli's stat was after first 5 tests? He made Tendulkar look ordinary. We all know how that went.

 

[Rahul1]

Anybody can bat like king for 5 matches. Do you know what Vinod Kambli's stat was after first 5 tests? He made Tendulkar look ordinary. We all know how that went.

Don't talk logic here mate.

 

[Junaids]

Anybody can bat like king for 5 matches. Do you know what Vinod Kambli's stat was after first 5 tests? He made Tendulkar look ordinary. We all know how that went.

Except Barry Richards’ SuperTests were NINE YEARS AFTER his Tests.

And he still averaged in the 70’s, just as he had nine years earlier.

When the next best two batsmen - Viv Richards and Greg Chappell - averaged 23 less than Barry Richards.

 

[Robert]

Anybody can bat like king for 5 matches.

Not against peak Lillee they coudn’t.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Except Barry Richards’ SuperTests were NINE YEARS AFTER his Tests.

And he still averaged in the 70’s, just as he had nine years earlier.

When the next best two batsmen - Viv Richards and Greg Chappell - averaged 23 less than Barry Richards.

9 or 90, how are years relevant here? I am talking about matches.

Have you seen matches where Ashwin has scored more than Pujara, Kohli and Rahane? There are quite a few. So that makes Ashwin comparable to them?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Not against peak Lillee they coudn’t.

What's Lille's bowling average in Pakistan again? He was rivalling Bradman if I remember correctly.

 

[Robert]

We will never know how well Barry Richards would have done over an eighty test career. I suspect very, very well. Though he might have taken a horror bouncer to the face or had a career-ending injury or succumbed to mental unwellness. It’s such a shame that we missed out on the chance to find out, and also about Pollock, and Barlow, and Rice, and Proctor and Van der Bijl.

 

[JaDed]

This seems to be like a joke of hyping someone, INTL.cricket is extremely grinding , constant tours travel facing bowlers at their best in their home.

Injuries, coming back from them.

 

[Robert]

What's Lille's bowling average in Pakistan again? He was rivalling Bradman if I remember correctly.

Oh, like night follows day......

I’ve tried educating people about that, but everyone here ignores the wisdom of elders who actually followed that series at the time, for a few context-free lines on a spreadsheet.

You’re not interested in learning, so I shall not respond to you again.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Oh, like night follows day......

I’ve tried educating people about that, but everyone here ignores the wisdom of elders who actually followed that series at the time, for a few context-free lines on a spreadsheet.

You’re not interested in learning, so I shall not respond to you again.

So you quit discussion when you don't have a proper response? Really? I am disappointed.

 

[Ab Fan]

When older fans hype up the success of historic players who featured in but a few matches, I think they forget that if we only counted the first handful of knocks then the best batsmen of all time would be Michael Hussey, Jonathan Trott and Adam Voges.

But the question is do they have similar peer reputation like Barry Richards has?

Are they rated as one of the toughest batsmen to bowl to by the greatest fast bowlers of his era?

Yes, a more fairer comparison to Barry Richards can be with say, Shane Bond or Mohammad Asif, these guys are rated by their contemporaries as toughest to face against and same is a case with Richards as well.

Surely the likes of Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Holding, Robert etc won't hype a 5 test match cricketer as much as some other top players of their era.

 

[Junaids]

9 or 90, how are years relevant here? I am talking about matches.

Have you seen matches where Ashwin has scored more than Pujara, Kohli and Rahane? There are quite a few. So that makes Ashwin comparable to them?

Believe it or not, I don't just worship the past.

There was plenty of weak Test cricket during Barry Richards' career.

From the mid-sixties until 1975-76, the West Indies were puny minnows, with no significant pace attack.

India were okay in favourable conditions, but absolute cowards in challenging conditions - such as when Bedi declared to lose a Test match in the West Indies with 5 wickets still intact.

What you either don't want to understand or can't understand is that county cricket was a higher level than most Test cricket because of the IPL-style preponderance of international superstars.

If you bowled against Hampshire, you bowled against the GOAT opening batting pair - Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge.

If you played against Somerset, the opening attack was Joel Garner and Ian Botham, with Vic Marks bowling off-spin. Meanwhile Viv Richards and Ian Botham were backed up by Marks and Peter Roebuck with the bat.

Even if you played against a weak team like Northants, who had a dusty, spin-friendly home surface, their bowling attack was the pace and swing of Sarfraz Nawaz with the slow left-arm of Bishan Bedi and the leg-spin of Mushtaq Mohammad.

In every setting throughout his career - Tests, the county championship and SuperTests, the world's elite batsmen and bowlers ranked Barry Richards the greatest batsman of all.

 

[anoop]

Not against peak Lillee they coudn’t.

Why not? Manjerekar did it like a king in front of Peak Wasim akram in 1989 series.

 

[Chrish]

What's Lille's bowling average in Pakistan again? He was rivalling Bradman if I remember correctly.

How many LBWs were given to Pakistani vs Australian bowlers in that series?

Ignorance is a bliss sometimes..

 

[Chrish]

I don't care too much about WSC performances since even someone like robelinda has expressed his doubts about the standard of that series.

That being said I am convinced Barry was a top-notch player. Greenidge and him opened for the same team in about 100 games in county Cricket. And Greendinge averaged 45 iirc which is same as his international average and Barry averaged 50+. So it clealry tells me that Barry was better batsman than Greenidge who was a top class player himself.

 

[Junaids]

Why not? Manjerekar did it like a king in front of Peak Wasim akram in 1989 series.

Three Tests on dead pace graveyards followed by a Sialkot greentop which was really slow and so late in Autumn that they were only managing around 50 overs per day!

 

[Joseph Gomes]

How many LBWs were given to Pakistani vs Australian bowlers in that series?

Ignorance is a bliss sometimes..

Too bad you can't prove conspiracy claims. Do try to appeal to change historical stats if you think you can. Until then, what happened is factual.

 

[Junaids]

Too bad you can't prove conspiracy claims. Do try to appeal to change historical stats if you think you can. Until then, what happened is factual.

My friend, may I reply to that?

Everyone here knows that I have been one of those Englishmen (like Mike Atherton and David Lloyd) who has loved Pakistan cricket since childhood. And I love to hate Australia.

But let's be honest about what happened to Dennis Lillee in Asia.

He played in Sri Lanka as an old man about to retire and did okay.

He never played in India.

He played one series in Pakistan, when the Pakistanis were scared stiff of him. So they ordered absolutely dead pitches to nullify his bowling - even Taslim Arif scored 210, and he was a non-batting wicketkeeper.

And the umpires were exactly what led Imran Khan to insist upon neutral umpires when India toured a decade later. They were comically biased towards Pakistan, which is why Javed Miandad's Test record is so obviously artificial, because they were never going to give a Pakistani out LBW.

Dennis Lillee was like a quicker version of Richard Hadlee. And Hadlee was also going to retire with the same "doesn't perform in India or Pakistan" accusation over his head. Until he toured India at the age of 37 and took 18 wickets at an average of 14.00!

 

[Robert]

My friend, may I reply to that?

Everyone here knows that I have been one of those Englishmen (like Mike Atherton and David Lloyd) who has loved Pakistan cricket since childhood. And I love to hate Australia.

But let's be honest about what happened to Dennis Lillee in Asia.

He played in Sri Lanka as an old man about to retire and did okay.

He never played in India.

He played one series in Pakistan, when the Pakistanis were scared stiff of him. So they ordered absolutely dead pitches to nullify his bowling - even Taslim Arif scored 210, and he was a non-batting wicketkeeper.

And the umpires were exactly what led Imran Khan to insist upon neutral umpires when India toured a decade later. They were comically biased towards Pakistan, which is why Javed Miandad's Test record is so obviously artificial, because they were never going to give a Pakistani out LBW.

Dennis Lillee was like a quicker version of Richard Hadlee. And Hadlee was also going to retire with the same "doesn't perform in India or Pakistan" accusation over his head. Until he toured India at the age of 37 and took 18 wickets at an average of 14.00!

To complete the picture you could include the important details that 1. Imran didn’t bowl much in that series because the wickets were rigged against him too, and 2. DK was carrying a flare-up of his 1973 back injury, probably should not have been there and really should be applauded for bravely bowling very long military medium spells in a stock bowler role to help the spinners.

 

[Tusker]

In every setting throughout his career - Tests, the county championship and SuperTests, the world's elite batsmen and bowlers ranked Barry Richards the greatest batsman of all.

Then why does he look so ordinary in the footage from his prime ? See post#54

 

[Tusker]

But the question is do they have similar peer reputation like Barry Richards has?

Are they rated as one of the toughest batsmen to bowl to by the greatest fast bowlers of his era?

Yes, a more fairer comparison to Barry Richards can be with say, Shane Bond or Mohammad Asif, these guys are rated by their contemporaries as toughest to face against and same is a case with Richards as well.

Surely the likes of Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Holding, Robert etc won't hype a 5 test match cricketer as much as some other top players of their era.

I just dont get it why people are soo enamored with "Peer Reputation" in Cricket. Unlike scientific achievements where the peer review process is grueling with no scope for personal preference, bias, conjecture and such like there is no such thing in Cricket or any sport for that matter.

I will give you some glaring examples of useless peer reputations - Any expert on Jack Hobbs batting technique and more recently Imran on Inzi being the best player of fast bowling.

 

[Tusker]

So you quit discussion when you don't have a proper response? Really? I am disappointed.

You don't get it ... he expects you to shut up and take his word at face value because he is the "Elder". Thats how it worked back in the day and now its his turn