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.
-
Contact the PP Team
Barry Richards - The myth
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
It's debatable indeed. But BA Richards played long years for Hampshire and he was respected by everyone - almost every top bowlers of world cricket used to play in Counties those days and whoever I have read actually put him among top few of their choices. More or less, Viv, Barry & Greg were in top 5 for everyone, then it comes selectively Gavaskar, Javed, AB, Gooch, Boycott, Grineedge, VR Vishy, Zaheer .....
Another interesting factor is, despite being white (no disrespect, my point is on spin play) & South African batsman, he was admired for his spin play by almost every great spinners of that era, whoever played in Counties - Bedi, Intekhab, Underwood, Doshi, Illingworth, Gibbs, Edmonds, Gifford ...... Also, I have read/heard great words from DK Lillee, Imran, Brearley, Roberts, Ian Chappell, Benaud, Holding, Hadlee ... regarding BA Richrads in their books/comments. Marshall once said that at young age he learned lot from bowling to BA Richards at Hampshire nets. Some of the best openers of his era actually rates him really high - his Hampshire partner Grineedge, Boycott, Turner, Redpath, Gavaskar, Gooch, Mazid, Amiss .....
It's impossible to judge a player based on one series, be with average of 70+ in 4 Tests, but indeed he was among the best - at which order, I can't say, probably no one can as the sample is too small.
Barry Richards averaged 72.57 in his official Test career - just one series, against an opposition whose pace spearhead Garth McKenzie was the All Time Test Number 3 pace bowler at the time behind Trueman and Statham.
Nine years of exile followed, in county cricket where everyone from Holding to Hadlee to Bedi agreed that he was by far the best batsman they ever bowled to.
Nine years in which he was considered several classes above Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Sunil Gavaskar or Zaheer Abbas, or anyone else.
We saw him flatten international spinners on dusty wickets and on drying wet turners.
We saw him dismantle pace, seam and swing bowlers in all conditions.
Then, nine years later, he got a second chance in the SuperTests, the highest quality Tests ever played.
Viv Richards had the third highest average - 55.
Greg Chappell - whose Test record is so similar to Tendulkar’s - had the second highest average - 56.
Barry Richards averaged 79.14.
That is how good he was. Nine years later, and even higher level of cricket. And his average only went up - from 73 to 79.
Nine years of exile followed, in county cricket where everyone from Holding to Hadlee to Bedi agreed that he was by far the best batsman they ever bowled to.
Nine years in which he was considered several classes above Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Sunil Gavaskar or Zaheer Abbas, or anyone else.
We saw him flatten international spinners on dusty wickets and on drying wet turners.
We saw him dismantle pace, seam and swing bowlers in all conditions.
Then, nine years later, he got a second chance in the SuperTests, the highest quality Tests ever played.
Viv Richards had the third highest average - 55.
Greg Chappell - whose Test record is so similar to Tendulkar’s - had the second highest average - 56.
Barry Richards averaged 79.14.
That is how good he was. Nine years later, and even higher level of cricket. And his average only went up - from 73 to 79.
Too small a sample size in the international arena. Domestic performances should not carry too much weight. There are several players in several countries that are beasts in domestic tournaments.
My view is there was potential for him to be an all time great. But did not have the opportunity to prove it in the international arena, which is what should count. Potential unfulfilled.
I would not put him in an all time best team.
My view is there was potential for him to be an all time great. But did not have the opportunity to prove it in the international arena, which is what should count. Potential unfulfilled.
I would not put him in an all time best team.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
WSC was stronger than normal rest cricket due to the concentration of excellent players.
Barry Richards had a spectacular record in WSC, better even than Viv Richards, up against Lillee, Thomson, Holding and Roberts. Viv Richards had to face Imran, Snow, Underwood and Hadlee too, of course.
Thats where it all comes undone, B Richards never faced Imran, Snow, Underwood, Hadlee, Thompson.
In WSC he only played against Australia except for one match against the West Indies where he scored 37.
In International cricket Richards never faced any great bowlers unless the Australian bowlers are greats.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,962
- Post of the Week
- 1
Barry Richards played 1 match in WSC vs WI and didnot score many.
Dont think he played againist Imran Hadlee Snow Underwood etc.
Played a couple of matches againist Lillee i guess.
Never faced a ball on the turning SC wickets againist the Indian spinners in 70s.
He played county cricket against the world’s greatest spinners on uncovered wickets.
Bedi and Mushtaq or Intikhab or Underwood on a sticky wicket was quite the challenge.
Derek Underwood retired 11 wickets short of the world record for Test wickets for a spinner.
Maybe you should read up how it was to face him on a drying wicket?
Thats fantastic Juniads but we are talking test cricket here not county cricket.
If Gavaskar played only one series and never played again, his average would have been more than twice of Barry Richards at a mind-boggling 154.80, that too against the always formidable WI.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...s=1;template=results;type=batting;view=series
Last edited:
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
He did for Hampshire, on arguably a greater variety of wickets than at test level. Made them all look useless, I am told. Gave up County cricket because it presented no challenge to him.
As Barry Richards unfortunately did not get to play much Test cricket, the next best measure of his quality is his FC average. He has a very high average of 54.74, but that is only #12 in the list of FC averages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-class_cricket_records#Highest_career_average
Also, as he didn't play Tests, he could focus the FC games he played, so his FC average may be a bit more for that reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-class_cricket_records#Highest_career_average
Also, as he didn't play Tests, he could focus the FC games he played, so his FC average may be a bit more for that reason.
Yeah apparently players that coudent get picked for county cricket had to play test cricket while they waited for a position in county cricket.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Which players?
So the whole Barry Richards legend is built upon playing county cricket?
There are lots of domestic legends who couldn't hack it in International Cricket.
Who is to say Barry Richards would have succeeded in playing in the SC?
I don't know why people love to think of county cricket as some sort of cricket utopia, along with the Ashes. All they are is an English domestic competition, and an over-hyped bi-lateral series that is played too often.
There are lots of domestic legends who couldn't hack it in International Cricket.
Who is to say Barry Richards would have succeeded in playing in the SC?
I don't know why people love to think of county cricket as some sort of cricket utopia, along with the Ashes. All they are is an English domestic competition, and an over-hyped bi-lateral series that is played too often.
Joseph Gomes
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Runs
- 4,074
Don't rate him at all. County legemds are just that, county legends. Barry is nohimg more than What Ifs. How many matches has he played on Asian ranl turners? His average has no meaning
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,962
- Post of the Week
- 1
Correct me if i am wrong but Geoffrey Boycott's county avg is higher than Barry Richards. And boycott played 100 plus tests.
Bilal7
T20I Star
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Runs
- 31,707
- Post of the Week
- 1
He's played 20-odd tests. Not even in contention for the best batsmen of all time for me.
20 tests? How about a grand total of 4, yes 4 tests for 500 runs. And throw in a couple of Kerry Packer series. The rest is a just domestic cricket.
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 45,031
Sample is too small. It could have gone either way. That is why I have issue with him being automatic selection for all time great XI.
Joseph Gomes
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Runs
- 4,074
All time XI lol. He's not even a cricket great. His domestic stats don't mean jack. Jadeja has two triple tons in first class matches
The_Odd_One
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Runs
- 8,950
Is jadeja regarded a top batsman by his peers? Hick is a county legend. How many ATG bowlers mention him?
Joseph Gomes
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Runs
- 4,074
All of which mean nothing. Folklores don't determine greatness, it's actual performance where it matters (international matches). I don't even see why I should rate him as a great. Batsmen hyped by ancient folklores shouldn't be compared to modern legends who have actually performed in top level across various conditions for a long time.
The_Odd_One
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Runs
- 8,950
Nobody is forcing you to believe anything, they have their opinion just like you. Pollock hardly played 20 tests but you just had to see him bat to know that he's easily among the top 3 left handed batsmen of all time. Remember that SA was not a minnow team. They were packed with world class cricketers. Just because they didn't play enough cricket, you can't make silly comparisons like Jadeja's three triple tons in FC cricket.
Joseph Gomes
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Runs
- 4,074
I am just responding to the silly comparisons of county legends to actual legends.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Sounds about right, but in all those 100+ tests Boykz never took the batting apart. He ticked over slowly in the anchor role.
LastManstanding
Local Club Captain
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2015
- Runs
- 2,555
You keep telling yourself how good he was, and live in your little bubble.
Graeme Hick has a first class average of 52. Legendary player across the shires.
Hitman
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 16,563
) Can anyone beat this?
I can't. And Mats Wilander is a greater tennis player than Roger Federer
Whatever case can be made for Barry Richards, an even greater case can be made for the 11 batsmen with higher FC (the only form of game that BR played for a long stretch) averages than him, a list that includes Bradman, Tendulkar, Lehman, Boycott, Ranjitsinhji, Ponting, Dravid, Sobers etc.
I think, Imran explained why Hick was an International failure. Like Zaheer, he was a predominantly front foot player, which worked perfectly in Counties - both him & Zed had outstanding ODI stats, compared to Test stats because of this. Imran actually gave exactly Zaheer's example for Hick.
BA Richards was a fantastic back-foot player, actually perfect balanced player - probably the most balanced player, who hardly looked awkward against raw pace or spin. The amount of time he had to play a ball was unparalleled, which made him a top player against short pitched staff, but that didn't hamper his front foot shots or spin play.
I saw BA Richards first time in some senior cricket in IND, when he was in his mid 50s, made a 104 in one innings - though against fellow aged cricketers, but there was enough glimpses of what he was 30 years back. Elegance personified with a picture perfect technique - he hit a straight six of back-foot, shifting body weight and that bat had a perfect 360 degree swing, started from right shoulder, ended on left. Another interesting shot I can recall in same innings, he had a checked drive against a fast bowler (may be Marshall or Chetan Sharma, can't recall), on the rise & on back-foot, point fielder didn't react (won't dive at that age for sure) as he thought, he'll chase the ball at the cost of a single - that ball crashed point fence before the bowler ended follow through.
Amazing player, amazing player, who couldn't prove his worth at the highest level. I think, once B$ Bedi told a story (can't recall details) - at the end of summer in 1973 or 1974, when B$B was in his prime and wickets started to crumble; BA Richards almost carried innings from one end in 4th innings, on a rank turner, as Bedi would say - I didn't trouble him even once. But yes, he shouldn't be considered in such XI's based on 4 Tests, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an ATG.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
I don't take old era players on face value, because a lot of the reputation is nothing but establishment propaganda, but there is no doubt that Barry Richards was a brilliant batsman and undoubtedly one of the best to have played the game.
It is a shame that his legacy is questioned because he only played four Tests. A tragedy that was not in his control. It is difficult to rank him because of the lack of Test matches, and it would be a great disservice to successful Test cricketers to be ranked below him, but in terms of pedigree and class, he is right up there with the very best the game has ever seen.
It is a shame that his legacy is questioned because he only played four Tests. A tragedy that was not in his control. It is difficult to rank him because of the lack of Test matches, and it would be a great disservice to successful Test cricketers to be ranked below him, but in terms of pedigree and class, he is right up there with the very best the game has ever seen.
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
That says a lot about his temperament. Another reason he should not be in an all time eleven. May be fine in domestic cricket. But will not fly in international cricket.
I'm better than Sachin and Lara combined. But I don't play tests because the teams are too weak for me. Anyone who has watched me play for my club will tell you that.
Ab Fan
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2015
- Runs
- 27,560
Dunno but it is hard for me to put him ahead of someone like Kallis who played 166 tests and scored 13,000+ runs at an avg of 56 and did a good job with the bowl as well.
There are so many holes we find in a cricketer's CV these days and a lot of them comes to us after they have played over 100 tests. Barry played what- just 5 tests??
I think of someone like KP who got introduced into England test sqaud in 2005 and played an ATG inning against two of the greatest bowlers and all of a sudden in a matter of 3 years, people started comparing him to Tendulkar's and Lara's. You get the same vibe with KP as you got with those two. But over a longer career now, look he is like nowhere in the scenes.
The stage has simply become much bigger in the last 20-30 years.
People are not ready to put Steven Smith as a GOAT after 60 tests with an avg of 60+ in today's date. Dunno really how to rate Barry?
There are so many holes we find in a cricketer's CV these days and a lot of them comes to us after they have played over 100 tests. Barry played what- just 5 tests??
I think of someone like KP who got introduced into England test sqaud in 2005 and played an ATG inning against two of the greatest bowlers and all of a sudden in a matter of 3 years, people started comparing him to Tendulkar's and Lara's. You get the same vibe with KP as you got with those two. But over a longer career now, look he is like nowhere in the scenes.
The stage has simply become much bigger in the last 20-30 years.
People are not ready to put Steven Smith as a GOAT after 60 tests with an avg of 60+ in today's date. Dunno really how to rate Barry?
Last edited:
Hitman
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 16,563
He made it to Bradman's World XI as well.
Ab Fan
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2015
- Runs
- 27,560
In terms of peer-reputation, he is right up there with the very best of the best.
Peer reputation is especially in the 70’s is nothing but an old boys club (white) patting each other on the back and magnifying each other’s successes. For instance just five mins into any chat with boycott and you will hear him regale the skills and wiles of Fred Truman as if there has been nobody else with a deadly outswinger. 4 tests is nothing to call somebody a great batsman and county greats don’t always make international greats. Just look at Mark Ramprakash who is an even better example than Hick.
County giants fantastic technique (England coach) but nothing of note in their international careers.
The_Odd_One
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Runs
- 8,950
Not true. Several WI cricketers were considered to class players. It was not a white boy thing.
big_gamer007
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 8,272
It’s pretty simple growing up the experts and pundits we heard and who Came on every cricketing TV show and helped form people’s opinions were players of 60’s, 70’s.. So they obviously will be biased for their own era and would tell stories and sing tales about legends of their era..
20 years from now when that generation dies it will be our generation who will be the old pundits and we will sing stories of folklore about players like lara, Sachin, Wasim etc.. Someone with a better record of he achieves like kohli or any next gen player like gill or shaw (hypothetical examples if they get there) will not be given credit over players like Sachin or lara..
That is how it is, Barry was phenomenal for his time.. However he did not play much international cricket because of no fault of his own.. So he can’t be an ATG in international cricket.. ofcourse he can be an ATG of county or even GOAT of county but can’t be compared to international greats..
20 years from now when that generation dies it will be our generation who will be the old pundits and we will sing stories of folklore about players like lara, Sachin, Wasim etc.. Someone with a better record of he achieves like kohli or any next gen player like gill or shaw (hypothetical examples if they get there) will not be given credit over players like Sachin or lara..
That is how it is, Barry was phenomenal for his time.. However he did not play much international cricket because of no fault of his own.. So he can’t be an ATG in international cricket.. ofcourse he can be an ATG of county or even GOAT of county but can’t be compared to international greats..
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Yeah.... Sobers, Rowe, Kallicharan, Lloyd, Roberts, Holding, Richards, Garner, Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Zaheer, Imran never played County cricket in the seventies after all. It was all white people.
How would Boycott know a good outswinger, he never got a century at age 40 against Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft in St John’s after all. He only played against slow old Fred.
Whats his average against the West Indies?.
Hitman
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 16,563
4 official Tests and 5 SuperTests
)And that makes him the second best ever after Bradman, right? I don't care if he averaged 500 in those SuperTests and 600 in those 4 Tests. He can be rated as one of finest pure talents ever but never even close to those who have achieved something significant in International Test cricket.
Hitman
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 16,563
And if he were so phenomenal and head and shoulders above everyone else who has played the game bar Don, he would be averaging a hell lot in first class cricket, rather than 54.
Oh, wait! He was often bored and gave away his wicket as an act of charity.
Oh, wait! He was often bored and gave away his wicket as an act of charity.
Last Monetarist
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 7,910
There is no doubt in my mind that Barry Richards is among the top 20 batsmen to have ever played the game. It becomes tricky afterwards to pinpoint his actual place in the pantheon. I can only go off grainy footage or second hand impressions from people that played against him or saw him bat.
Fortunately, I don't subscribe to the notion that you have got to have seen someone play to label him great, and can use my judgment to ascribe some sort of legitimacy to second hand accounts. If the likes of Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Imran, Roberts, and Holding say that he was one of the best batsmen that they ever bowled to, who am I to argue?
Fortunately, I don't subscribe to the notion that you have got to have seen someone play to label him great, and can use my judgment to ascribe some sort of legitimacy to second hand accounts. If the likes of Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Imran, Roberts, and Holding say that he was one of the best batsmen that they ever bowled to, who am I to argue?
ArsenalFC
Tape Ball Regular
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Runs
- 338
This is just establishment propaganda - you've used a sample of a grand total of 9 matches to justify his spot in an all time world XI - realise how ridiculous this sounds?
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Ah, those old guys don’t know anything.
Only youngsters who look at spreadsheets but never saw old players play can really tell who was good. Only they have the skill and competence to judge.
Last Monetarist
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 7,910
I remember watching an interview with Denis Lindsay, ex-South African wicketkeeper, who recounted a story of a first class match between Natal and Transvaal in which Barry Richards had a bet going with Lindsay that once he crossed 40 he will only try and hit the ball off the edge of his bat. There are loads of such stories which essentially corroborate what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] mentioned above about Barry throwing away his wicket when he got bored. I do think that his career is perhaps cricket's greatest what if question.
Is that why you and most of your ilk run away from the discussion when asked to explain why the footage of these various players that you crow about paints a vastly different picture?
I mean if you are so convinced about their skills it should be very easy to explain with a video footage. Instead you guys reach out to unverifiable words from players of that ERA that are obviously not impartial.
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?
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?
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 45,031
He probably wowed experts of those days in the very few matches he played. But they extrapolate that and make claims he would have continued that way for the rest of his career. May be or may be not. 50/50.
Imagine players judging Hussey based on his first 20 tests. He was averaging like 80 after 20 tests. We probably would have believed if someone had said he would figure in any all time great XI.
Imagine players judging Hussey based on his first 20 tests. He was averaging like 80 after 20 tests. We probably would have believed if someone had said he would figure in any all time great XI.
Or judging Gavaskar after his first series where he averaged 154 against Holder and Sobers.
Hasan123
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 38,432
Didn't play enough tests for him to be in the debate for greatest batsmen.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Aye.
Even John Snow, who busted up WI (including Sobers, Lloyd and Kanhai away), then Australia away, didn’t like bowling to him.
Bradman averaged 94 in first class cricket. Barry Richards averaged 54 in first class cricket. There were 10 cricketers other than Bradman who averaged more than Barry Richards. It is delusional to think he is the best after Bradman.
Last Monetarist
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 7,910
What's wrong with that footage? It's no worse than the quality of cricket seen in most first class competitions around the world today. You see some lovely drives and pulls in there, complete text book stuff. In fact, you can see why Richards is so revered, that head is beautifully still as the bowler runs up to the wicket. Honestly, I'd rather see those 25 minutes over and over than the bilge you see in most T20 competitions today. To each their own.
You see nothing wrong with the footwork , the quality of bowling and non-existant fielding ?
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
What I find amusing when it comes to the techniques of the old era players is their batting stance.
It appears to be very amateurish and ridiculous - their is almost no back-lift, and they tap the bat on the ground without bending their knees, with their hands extremely close to the body. Almost every old era batsman seemingly did the same, if the footages are anything to go by.
It is hard to imagine any batsman playing 90+ mph short-pitched fast bowling with such an amateurish base. This is the "base" that I am referring to:
How can anyone defend this garbage? Not a single modern batsman has a base like this. I really don't see any batsman succeeding against international class bowling today with such a technique.
Below is a picture of him when the bowler is just about to release the ball:
How can any batsmen face anything above 90 mph with such a technique? His weight is on the heels, his bat is very low and his elbow is pointing towards mid-on.
Which modern batsman has a technique like that?
Forget the best batsmen in the world today. Let's compare Barry Richards to someone like Hafeez, who is renowned for his weakness against quality fast bowlers.
Hafeez is considered to be a mediocre player, and in terms of rankings, there are probably a hundred batsman between him and Barry Richards, if not more.
If you were to ask me based on the above three pictures, which batsmen is considered to be one of the all-time greats who dominated legendary bowling, and which batsman is considered to be mediocre, I wouldn't think twice before picking Hafeez as the ATG batsman and Barry Richards as the mediocre batsman.
Hafeez's backlift, his weight on his toes as well as his forward press and elbow position clearly indicates that he is in position to face a bowler that is about to throw down a 90 mph thunderbolt. If we take our blinkers off, we can clearly see that from a technical point of view, Hafeez, a mediocre batsman, is in a significantly better position to face hostile fast bowling than Barry Richards.
Also, with the dynamics of Matt Henry's action and body position, you can clearly discern that he is about to deliver a very fast delivery. Just look at the way he is bending his back.
On the other hand, the gentleman bowling to Barry Richards is barely bending his back as he delivers a 75 mph dibbly-dobble. If cricket literature is to be taken on face value, that gentleman is supposedly 10x the bowler Matt Henry ever will be, and is bowling at nothing less than 90 mph.
Based on the above pictures, I would really like someone to tell me why me deductions are off the mark, and why Barry Richard's technique, body position and posture etc. are more suitable to playing fast bowling than someone like Hafeez's.
This Barry Richards stance is something that is common to all pre 1970 generation batsmen, and it intrigues me. I really don't see any batsmen facing high pace with such a technique, unless he possesses superhuman reflexes and hand-eye coordination.
Now unless all older generation batsmen had the reflexes of a leopard, I find it hard to believe that before Dennis Lillee started the era of fast bowling, any so-called fast bowler was more than a dibbly-dobbler trundler by modern standards.
That Barry Richards approach of facing the delivery will work today against bowlers like Bopara, Amin, Stuart Binny etc., but I would love to see anyone stand like that and face Starc, Rabada, Cummins, Steyn, Boult, Hasan, Bumrah etc. etc.
What I find amusing when it comes to the techniques of the old era players is their batting stance.
It appears to be very amateurish and ridiculous - their is almost no back-lift, and they tap the bat on the ground without bending their knees, with their hands extremely close to the body. Almost every old era batsman seemingly did the same, if the footages are anything to go by.
It is hard to imagine any batsman playing 90+ mph short-pitched fast bowling with such an amateurish base. This is the "base" that I am referring to:
How can anyone defend this garbage? Not a single modern batsman has a base like this. I really don't see any batsman succeeding against international class bowling today with such a technique.
Below is a picture of him when the bowler is just about to release the ball:
How can any batsmen face anything above 90 mph with such a technique? His weight is on the heels, his bat is very low and his elbow is pointing towards mid-on.
Which modern batsman has a technique like that?
Forget the best batsmen in the world today. Let's compare Barry Richards to someone like Hafeez, who is renowned for his weakness against quality fast bowlers.
Hafeez is considered to be a mediocre player, and in terms of rankings, there are probably a hundred batsman between him and Barry Richards, if not more.
If you were to ask me based on the above three pictures, which batsmen is considered to be one of the all-time greats who dominated legendary bowling, and which batsman is considered to be mediocre, I wouldn't think twice before picking Hafeez as the ATG batsman and Barry Richards as the mediocre batsman.
Hafeez's backlift, his weight on his toes as well as his forward press and elbow position clearly indicates that he is in position to face a bowler that is about to throw down a 90 mph thunderbolt. If we take our blinkers off, we can clearly see that from a technical point of view, Hafeez, a mediocre batsman, is in a significantly better position to face hostile fast bowling than Barry Richards.
Also, with the dynamics of Matt Henry's action and body position, you can clearly discern that he is about to deliver a very fast delivery. Just look at the way he is bending his back.
On the other hand, the gentleman bowling to Barry Richards is barely bending his back as he delivers a 75 mph dibbly-dobble. If cricket literature is to be taken on face value, that gentleman is supposedly 10x the bowler Matt Henry ever will be, and is bowling at nothing less than 90 mph.
Based on the above pictures, I would really like someone to tell me why me deductions are off the mark, and why Barry Richard's technique, body position and posture etc. are more suitable to playing fast bowling than someone like Hafeez's.
This Barry Richards stance is something that is common to all pre 1970 generation batsmen, and it intrigues me. I really don't see any batsmen facing high pace with such a technique, unless he possesses superhuman reflexes and hand-eye coordination.
Now unless all older generation batsmen had the reflexes of a leopard, I find it hard to believe that before Dennis Lillee started the era of fast bowling, any so-called fast bowler was more than a dibbly-dobbler trundler by modern standards.
That Barry Richards approach of facing the delivery will work today against bowlers like Bopara, Amin, Stuart Binny etc., but I would love to see anyone stand like that and face Starc, Rabada, Cummins, Steyn, Boult, Hasan, Bumrah etc. etc.
Joseph Gomes
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Runs
- 4,074
So some trolls say Sangakkara is not an ATG due to not performing well enough outside Asia, but this mythical county legend is? This is cringeworthy
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION],
If I am not mistaken that is Garth McKenzie. I met him at a test match at Lord’s. Nice fella.
He was Australia’s spearhead in the sixties, their leading wicket taker until Lillee went past him. Australia had just been to India where he bowled five tests in two months, exhausting him, but then went straight to SA where he was smashed by Richards, Barlow and Pollock, and took one wicket in three tests, ending his career. The Aussie batting kept getting ablated by Proctor & Pollock and poor old Garth had to bowl on no rest again and again.
So if he was down on pace it’s quite understandable. He had nothing left in the tank after a long career.
How do I know this?
I read books, not just look at spreadsheets and YouTube, so I get the context.
Bhaijaan
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Runs
- 65,473
- Post of the Week
- 1
People over complicate things by putting batsmen over each other and giving them hypothetical ranking numbers that hold no relevance at all.
Barry is immensely respected by some of the finest cricketers to ever play the game. We know that admiration from such elite cricketers simply doesn't come just like that. He must have been a heck of a player to have earned this respect. So let's just acknowledge that.
Great player. Yes.
No need to belittle his legacy by needlessly comparing him to Viv or Sachin. Anyone who does that makes Barry no favour.
Bhaijaan.
Barry is immensely respected by some of the finest cricketers to ever play the game. We know that admiration from such elite cricketers simply doesn't come just like that. He must have been a heck of a player to have earned this respect. So let's just acknowledge that.
Great player. Yes.
No need to belittle his legacy by needlessly comparing him to Viv or Sachin. Anyone who does that makes Barry no favour.
Bhaijaan.
Very well reasoned argument post, I learned something from it.
For those who say Barry Richards didn’t face pace.......
Using high-speed cameras TWENTY TIMES more sensitive than today’s:
Jeff Thomson was recorded to bowl 160.6K
Andy Roberts was recorded to bowl 157.4K
Michael Holding was recorded to bowl 155.9K
Dennis Lillee was recorded to bowl 153.8K
And in the SuperTests, in which the next two batsmen (Greg Chappell and VIv Richards) averaged 56 and 55, Barry Richards averaged 79.
Let me remind you, Chappell and Richards ended with Test averages a fraction below Tendulkar, but in an era with no Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh to feast upon.
Whereas Barry Richards averaged 23 more than they did in SuperTests, and 21 more than them in Tests.
Using high-speed cameras TWENTY TIMES more sensitive than today’s:
Jeff Thomson was recorded to bowl 160.6K
Andy Roberts was recorded to bowl 157.4K
Michael Holding was recorded to bowl 155.9K
Dennis Lillee was recorded to bowl 153.8K
And in the SuperTests, in which the next two batsmen (Greg Chappell and VIv Richards) averaged 56 and 55, Barry Richards averaged 79.
Let me remind you, Chappell and Richards ended with Test averages a fraction below Tendulkar, but in an era with no Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh to feast upon.
Whereas Barry Richards averaged 23 more than they did in SuperTests, and 21 more than them in Tests.
Why don't you answer the questions raised from a technical point?
The only technical issue raised was his smaller backlift.
But Lara was the first modern player to have a big backlift: in the era of uncovered and semi-covered wickets, a big backlift was a form of suicide.
ManFan
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2017
- Runs
- 6,372
Can you please explain how cameras 40 years ago were “TWENTY TIMES” more sensitive than the current ones?
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
Thank you for the lovely anecdote Robert, but the pedigree of the bowler in question was not my main concern. I am intrigued by what makes Barry Richard's technique legendary, and what qualities did he possess (from a technical POV) that makes him one of the all-time greats of the game, and why the modern batsmen are inferior to him.
I am happy to consider him among the elites of the game because I believe that any player who rose above his peers deserves to be considered a great. Barry Richards was one of the very best - if not the best - batsmen of his era, so clearly he had some exceptional qualities.
However, looking at his technique and that of the batsmen of the pre-70 era, I have to say that I don't seem them breaking into professional cricket - let alone international cricket - with those techniques. As I have stated before, I do not do cross-era comparisons (for the same reasons), and hence I have no qualms with rating Barry Richards a legend, but I am not comfortable with the notion that the quality of batsmanship has regressed in the modern era.
If someone considers Barry Richards an ATG for what he did in his time, I am okay with it. In fact, I would consider myself in the same boat. However, to claim that he is better than modern players with the technique that he had in his time is utter nonsense I am afraid.
Barry Richards played most of his cricket on covered wickets. And no Mamoon pointed out more than backlift in his post. See my next post for more Technical issues.
Mamoon, Brilliant Post going into the technical nitty gritty. This is the sort of technical explanation that Iam expecting from the Barry Richards fan club. Alas they have nothing but more stories to tell and more excuses to offer.
Yes Iam with you 100% that such a batting technique will work only against slower bowling ( more evidence below )
Lets analyze another aspect of the stance. The side on view of this batting stance.
here is a link that takes you straight to the side on view of his batting stance: https://youtu.be/xEctpJ2UXcY?t=2m46s
You can see from that angle how his feet are so close together. This does not offer much balance at the crease. It is very obvious that there is a general reluctance to bend and exert and a clear lack of positive intent. This guy either has a bad back or does not believe in expending energy. How does he get away with that ? look at the bowling ! One trundler after another in both videos.
Now compare that to Kohli's batting stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gI55GVUxdE
Look how far apart his feet are. That gives him a good base and enables him to move forward or backward much more quickly and get into good positions with his head much closer to the ball than what Barry will be able to ( who BTW is much taller than Kohli ). This is how the very best players play today.
It is what makes shots like these possible against bowlers like Wahab, Johnson etc : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdMhMAuPcQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leCARP4Pi0U
No comparison whatsoever.
Yes Iam with you 100% that such a batting technique will work only against slower bowling ( more evidence below )
Lets analyze another aspect of the stance. The side on view of this batting stance.
here is a link that takes you straight to the side on view of his batting stance: https://youtu.be/xEctpJ2UXcY?t=2m46s
You can see from that angle how his feet are so close together. This does not offer much balance at the crease. It is very obvious that there is a general reluctance to bend and exert and a clear lack of positive intent. This guy either has a bad back or does not believe in expending energy. How does he get away with that ? look at the bowling ! One trundler after another in both videos.
Now compare that to Kohli's batting stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gI55GVUxdE
Look how far apart his feet are. That gives him a good base and enables him to move forward or backward much more quickly and get into good positions with his head much closer to the ball than what Barry will be able to ( who BTW is much taller than Kohli ). This is how the very best players play today.
It is what makes shots like these possible against bowlers like Wahab, Johnson etc : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdMhMAuPcQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leCARP4Pi0U
No comparison whatsoever.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
Short backlift, hands extremely close to the body and weight on heels. The generic technique of every batsmen pre 1970. It is completely unsuited to modern cricket, and Barry Richards with his 1970's technique would not average more than 25 today.
Does that make him a bad player? No it doesn't, since he is not a modern player and that awful way of batting (from a modern perspective) worked in those times. However, that also does not make him the second best batsman of all time and several notches above the best batsmen of the last 20-25 years.
The issue of uncovered wickets is overblown. Modern batsmen are used to facing much higher standards of bowling than what batsmen in the pre 70 era faced, so the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Kohli, de Villiers etc. are much more equipped to adjust to uncovered pitches, rather than someone like Barry Richards and Jack Hobbs would be to face genuine fast bowling rising above his waist.
There is absolutely no way he can deal with a Starc, Rabada, Cummins, Johnson or even a Wahab with that batting stance of his. No chance.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
Thanks for the video, it is eye-opening. The quality of bowling and batting in that video is disgustingly low. A half-decent cricket club anywhere in the world would produce better quality of cricket than that.
The side-view of Barry Richard's stance clearly shows that the level of bowling that he faced is not comparable to what the modern batsmen have to cope with. There is absolutely no way you can survive against any professional bowling - let alone international - with that stance.
That is why I did not even go to someone like Kohli, one of the best batsmen of all time, and highlighted someone like Hafeez, an average batsman. It is pretty obvious that if you put Hafeez and Barry Richards in the same team, Hafeez would outperform Barry Richards (with his current technique) 10/10 times.
I should add that it does not mean that Hafeez is a better batsman or that he is more talented. It is plausible that Barry Richards would have evolved into a much greater player than Hafeez if he was from this era, but the gulf in quality between modern cricket and the pre 1970 era cricket is extremely obvious.
Some of the so-called mediocre modern players would be considered absolute legends if the played in the 50s and 60s with their modern skills and techniques.
Thanks for the video, it is eye-opening. The quality of bowling and batting in that video is disgustingly low. A half-decent cricket club anywhere in the world would produce better quality of cricket than that.
The side-view of Barry Richard's stance clearly shows that the level of bowling that he faced is not comparable to what the modern batsmen have to cope with. There is absolutely no way you can survive against any professional bowling - let alone international - with that stance.
That is why I did not even go to someone like Kohli, one of the best batsmen of all time, and highlighted someone like Hafeez, an average batsman. It is pretty obvious that if you put Hafeez and Barry Richards in the same team, Hafeez would outperform Barry Richards (with his current technique) 10/10 times.
I should add that it does not mean that Hafeez is a better batsman or that he is more talented. It is plausible that Barry Richards would have evolved into a much greater player than Hafeez if he was from this era, but the gulf in quality between modern cricket and the pre 1970 era cricket is extremely obvious.
Some of the so-called mediocre modern players would be considered absolute legends if the played in the 50s and 60s with their modern skills and techniques.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Fair enough. As I have said many times the skill set is different now - more about hitting for power, less about a tight defence and waiting patiently for the four-ball.
I think of Richards as part of a generation which produced a number of spectacularly good Saffers whom we missed due to isolation.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,388
- Post of the Week
- 12
Well, that does not look like a technique that would prove to have a tight defense against high quality bowling. If someone can get with that for so many years, I have to question the level of bowling. I do agree with the isolation though, South Africa produced some spectacular cricketers for that era who very unfortunate to miss out on international glory.
Ab Fan
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2015
- Runs
- 27,560
POTW!
This blows away all such arguments made by many posters that the quality of cricket in those days were better than what it is today or the best players of modern era dont stand a chance against the best players of the older era.
At the end of the day, what matters is who were the ones who were the real standout players from their respective eras because it takes something special to be the standout player from your generation in that very era of cricket.
If Barry was the standout player of his era, then he deserves the credit for that because that is how cricket used to be played in that era and he was the best among the lot but that doesn't mean we claim that he was better than any modern era player of the last 20-25 years.
However, I will still rate Bradman at no.1 because he was simply miles ahead of everyone from his generation and if he was born in 90s-00s, he would have evolved himself as a modern era player and would still be the greatest batsmen the game has ever seen.
Last edited:
once again thanks for the wonderful posts and generally for enhancing the quality of debate by posting original well written content on a regular basis.
I agree with you on this and my take on the Hafeez vs Barry point is that it would be much easier for Hafeez to succeed in the 70s than it is for Barry to succeed in today's ERA due to the learning curve. While it is not nice to make such harsh -ve comments on a legend from the past but really the ad-nauseum drooling and crowing about how great the past ERA's were needed some basic fact checking.
Not sure if Graham McKenzie is the same person that you are referring as Garth McKenzie but there was a small matter of 8+ Months between the last test in SA and the match that you are talking about.
List of matches played by McKenzie in the last year or so of his career:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;template=results;type=bowling;view=match
Scorecard for the match in the Youtube link I posted:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...s-south-australia--sheff-shield-pura-1970-71/
Secondly he was only 29 yrs old at the time when he was bowling to Barry in that YT clip. If he was a spent force at 29 it further suggests the amateur level of fitness standards.
So this is why computers cant be beat and main reason why I dont trust anything you guys say.
Last edited:
Similar threads
