Barry Richards - The myth

[Gilly]

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.

Richards never faced any of these bowlers in test matches.

He only faced Holding and Roberts in one supertest getting out for 37.

 

[Tusker]

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.

Again - what is so spectacular about his batting ? Try explaining that instead of these proclamations.

 

[Chrish]

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.

Here is a rare footage of Richards from Word Series Cricket facing guys like Lillie.. Seems like a devastating puller/ hooker of the short ball by all means. Always in a position to play these strokes. I have no reason whatsoever to believe he would have struggled against Akhatar or Lee..

 

[babajee]

Umar Akmal > Barry Richards.

 

[Chrish]

Judging players by "technique" can be tricky logic. Some people can argue Lara was at disadvantage against express-pace short-pitched bowling due to his high-back lift. But then how come Ponting succeeded against genuine pace who also had similar high back-lift?

No one would have predicted Lara or Chandarlpaul could score these amount of runs at the highest level with their entirely unorthodox styles. So, based on how someone looks in video or picture and try to judge them on how they will fare against particular style of bowling is pretty flawed logic.

People still don't have clue on how Steve Smith can score all these runs after playing 63 games in the era where his footage is analyzed with microscope!

 

[Bilal7]

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.

With all due respect, I do not rate him among the best test batsmen of all time. If you want to talk about FC Cricket then go ahead but I've never been a fan of domestic leagues.

 

[Cric1234]

He was well capable of being the best ever South African batsman he had plenty of time to play the bowling similar to Pollock but just didn't get the chances.
This makes it impossible to put him in the top 5-10 all time but of all players that could have been but didn't get sufficient chances he was the most likely in history.

 

[USofA]

Richards never faced any of these bowlers in test matches.

He only faced Holding and Roberts in one supertest getting out for 37.

In addition to this, he never faced the spin quartet in Indian conditions. In fact I don't think he has faced a single delivery in the subcontinent.

 

[USofA]

With all due respect, I do not rate him among the best test batsmen of all time. If you want to talk about FC Cricket then go ahead but I've never been a fan of domestic leagues.

I agree. His "legendary" status is built on nothing but domestic cricket. A place where there are people with better stats than him. Test cricket is a whole different ball game. So not an all time great for me.

 

[Last Monetarist]

[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:

View attachment 81429

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:

View attachment 81430

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.

View attachment 81431

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.

Great, thoughtful, original and eye-opening post as usual. I would however beg to differ that Richards won't have adapted to this era. 13 years later at the ripe old age of 37, Richards was facing someone who was widely considered the fastest bowler of the era, Colin Croft, in the rebel tests against the West Indies. It would be churlish to argue that Croft was nowhere as quick as Steyn, Boult, Bumrah or Hasan Ali. And Richards seemed pretty comfortable facing that pace. I'm afraid I only have images from behind the wicket:

A low back-lift as Croft runs in, head poetically still:


The bat continues to be in line with the base of the stumps as Croft begins his delivery stride:


But notice how quickly it rises to above the shoulder as Croft releases the ball, the work of a moment:


Brings his head in line with the ball once he judges the length, text book stuff again:


Swivels across to pull and the ball, as is customary, hits the middle of the bat:


And races across to the midwicket boundary:


No, mon ami, sadly for once I don't buy your argument.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Just on the back-lift issue: there are different ways to skin a cat, high back-lifts might be in vogue during this era but that doesn't mean at all that it's the only way to play high quality pace bowling. Martin Crowe is among the best players of fast bowling that I have ever had the privilege of watching and he was an advocate of the low back-lift. In fact, he attributed this particular technical trait to helping him counter reverse swing. Wasim and Waqar both testified to that.

Here's Crowe facing up to Devon Malcolm:


Queueing to drive Bob Willis:


Keeping out Malcolm Marshall:


And driving Waqar:

 

[Mamoon]

Great, thoughtful, original and eye-opening post as usual. I would however beg to differ that Richards won't have adapted to this era. 13 years later at the ripe old age of 37, Richards was facing someone who was widely considered the fastest bowler of the era, Colin Croft, in the rebel tests against the West Indies. It would be churlish to argue that Croft was nowhere as quick as Steyn, Boult, Bumrah or Hasan Ali. And Richards seemed pretty comfortable facing that pace. I'm afraid I only have images from behind the wicket:

A low back-lift as Croft runs in, head poetically still:
View attachment 81459

The bat continues to be in line with the base of the stumps as Croft begins his delivery stride:
View attachment 81460

But notice how quickly it rises to above the shoulder as Croft releases the ball, the work of a moment:
View attachment 81461

Brings his head in line with the ball once he judges the length, text book stuff again:
View attachment 81462

Swivels across to pull and the ball, as is customary, hits the middle of the bat:
View attachment 81463

And races across to the midwicket boundary:
View attachment 81464

No, mon ami, sadly for once I don't buy your argument.

That is a really ordinary looking pull-shot though, almost tail-ender like.

Here are few screenshots that I took from the WSC video that [MENTION=58109]CHRIS[/MENTION] posted. Barry Richards playing Dennis Lillee's short pitched deliveries:





The technique is comical. I don't see any modern batsmen getting himself into such positions while playing the short ball, but I often see tail-enders playing the short ball like that.

If you watch someone like Wahab Riaz or Rahat Ali pulling the ball, you would often see them getting into similar positions. In fact, the first screenshot reminds me of how Muralitharan used to play the short ball.

It is also pertinent to note that this is not Dennis Lillee at his quickest. By this time, he had cut down on his pace and was more focused on swing and seam.

And this is from the WSC SuperTests, the so-called highest level of cricket ever played. The quality of cricket is atrocious, and it clearly shows how much progress cricket has made over the last 20-25 years. The game and the players have gone up several notches.

That video looks more like a parody of cricket. The batsmen look like tail-enders who are having a good day, and the bowlers, Dennis Lillee aside, look like mediocre part-timers. Just look at them dawdling in with their uncoordinated, disjointed actions.

In that video, Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan look out of place, since they are the only ones who look like professional cricketers.

Up until the 1950s, cricket was a joke. A bunch of white men interested in this relatively newly invented game that the rest of the world were not particularly bothered about.

They monopolized the game in their era, made records that mean nothing today, and created legacies that have no significance in a professional context.

For example, Jack Hobbs, supposedly the greatest English opener of all time, is simply not comparable to someone like Alaistair Cook, but due to the establishment propaganda, calling Cook better than Hobbs would be a blasphemy.

This is the forward defense of the greatest English opener of all time, widely regarded as the pioneer of batting, and someone who achieved critical acclaim for his ability to master uncovered ("sticky dog") pitches, the pitches that apparently modern batsmen will not be able to handle:




The techniques of Bradman and Hobbs show the level of bowling at that time. Does this mean that they were bad players? Absolutely not.

They were products of their time, and they must have possessed special qualities that made them the best players in their period, for which their achievements have to be respected. However, they are not comparable to players from the professional era.

The 1950s to 1960s saw improvements in the standard of cricket as it became more professional. South Asian cricket, South African cricket and Caribbean cricket started to make an impact, and players like Sobers, Weekes, Hanif, Miller, Evans, Kanhai, Dexter, Hall, Benaud, Worrell, Gibbs, Simpson etc. emerged.

They were significantly better than the pre-war cricketers, but still not comparable to the "modern" cricketers that appeared onto the scene from the 1970s onwards.

All of these players deserve recognition for the achievements in their time. Irrespective of the low standard of the game and the low competition, they must have had some characteristics that allowed them to become the best in their time.

A lot of these players would have been great in any era since the qualities that made them among the very best of their time would have allowed them to adjust and evolve in different eras.

However, there is no need of immortalizing these players or putting them on a higher pedestal compared to modern cricketers, who will blow these players away with their modern skills and techniques.

There is ample evidence that the standard of cricket, similar to any other sports, has significantly improved over the generations. The myth that batting and bowling standards have dropped compared to what we had in the past has been debunked objectively numerous times, but unfortunately people are not willing to overcome their predispositions and get over the nostalgia of the era in which they grew up.

Nonetheless, it is perfectly fine if you disagree, and thank you for the appreciation. I thoroughly enjoyed this insightful discourse.

 

[Last Monetarist]

That is a really ordinary looking pull-shot though, almost tail-ender like.

Here are few screenshots that I took from the WSC video that [MENTION=58109]CHRIS[/MENTION] posted. Barry Richards playing Dennis Lillee's short pitched deliveries:

View attachment 81472

View attachment 81473

The technique is comical. I don't see any modern batsmen getting himself into such positions while playing the short ball, but I often see tail-enders playing the short ball like that.

If you watch someone like Wahab Riaz or Rahat Ali pulling the ball, you would often see them getting into similar positions. In fact, the first screenshot reminds me of how Muralitharan used to play the short ball.

It is also pertinent to note that this is not Dennis Lillee at his quickest. By this time, he had cut down on his pace and was more focused on swing and seam.

And this is from the WSC SuperTests, the so-called highest level of cricket ever played. The quality of cricket is atrocious, and it clearly shows how much progress cricket has made over the last 20-25 years. The game and the players have gone up several notches.

That video looks more like a parody of cricket. The batsmen look like tail-enders who are having a good day, and the bowlers, Dennis Lillee aside, look like mediocre part-timers. Just look at them dawdling in with their uncoordinated, disjointed actions.

In that video, Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan look out of place, since they are the only ones who look like professional cricketers.

Up until the 1950s, cricket was a joke. A bunch of white men interested in this relatively newly invented game that the rest of the world were not particularly bothered about.

They monopolized the game in their era, made records that mean nothing today, and created legacies that have no significance in a professional context.

For example, Jack Hobbs, supposedly the greatest English opener of all time, is simply not comparable to someone like Alaistair Cook, but due to the establishment propaganda, calling Cook better than Hobbs would be a blasphemy.

This is the forward defense of the greatest English opener of all time, widely regarded as the pioneer of batting, and someone who achieved critical acclaim for his ability to master uncovered ("sticky dog") pitches, the pitches that apparently modern batsmen will not be able to handle:

View attachment 81474


The techniques of Bradman and Hobbs show the level of bowling at that time. Does this mean that they were bad players? Absolutely not.

They were products of their time, and they must have possessed special qualities that made them the best players in their period, for which their achievements have to be respected. However, they are not comparable to players from the professional era.

The 1950s to 1960s saw improvements in the standard of cricket as it became more professional. South Asian cricket, South African cricket and Caribbean cricket started to make an impact, and players like Sobers, Weekes, Hanif, Miller, Evans, Kanhai, Dexter, Hall, Benaud, Worrell, Gibbs, Simpson etc. emerged.

They were significantly better than the pre-war cricketers, but still not comparable to the "modern" cricketers that appeared onto the scene from the 1970s onwards.

All of these players deserve recognition for the achievements in their time. Irrespective of the low standard of the game and the low competition, they must have had some characteristics that allowed them to become the best in their time.

A lot of these players would have been great in any era since the qualities that made them among the very best of their time would have allowed them to adjust and evolve in different eras.

However, there is no need of immortalizing these players or putting them on a higher pedestal compared to modern cricketers, who will blow these players away with their modern skills and techniques.

There is ample evidence that the standard of cricket, similar to any other sports, has significantly improved over the generations. The myth that batting and bowling standards have dropped compared to what we had in the past has been debunked objectively numerous times, but unfortunately people are not willing to overcome their predispositions and get over the nostalgia of the era in which they grew up.

Nonetheless, it is perfectly fine if you disagree, and thank you for the appreciation. I thoroughly enjoyed this insightful discourse.

I don't particularly subscribe to your notion of what constitutes a "tailender-like pull shot", it's specious hyperbole in my opinion. Yes, Richards got into a tangle facing Lillee above, particularly with the cross batted hoick to reach his hundred. But there's a whole body of work that suggests that he was among the most technically correct players of that era. This is all fairly subjective at the end of the day, and we're never going to reach consensus due to our entrenched positions. Be that as it may, I don't think the standard of batting has ever been as high as it has been over the past 10 years. The modern player plays shots that were unthinkable 20 years ago. But I can still judge greatness when I watch old clips or read about the game. I do appreciate and respect history, however, and will never choose to denigrate it the way you did by comparing Barry Richards to Muralitharan. It's frankly beneath your usual high standards.

 

[Mamoon]

I don't particularly subscribe to your notion of what constitutes a "tailender-like pull shot", it's specious hyperbole in my opinion. Yes, Richards got into a tangle facing Lillee above, particularly with the cross batted hoick to reach his hundred. But there's a whole body of work that suggests that he was among the most technically correct players of that era. This is all fairly subjective at the end of the day, and we're never going to reach consensus due to our entrenched positions. Be that as it may, I don't think the standard of batting has ever been as high as it has been over the past 10 years. The modern player plays shots that were unthinkable 20 years ago. But I can still judge greatness when I watch old clips or read about the game. I do appreciate and respect history, however, and will never choose to denigrate it the way you did by comparing Barry Richards to Muralitharan. It's frankly beneath your usual high standards.

I wasn't implying that Barry Richards would be the equivalent of Muralitharan in modern cricket, but the point that I was trying to make is that his technique is not suitable at all for modern cricket. Similar to the other batsmen of his era, a lot of his shots are very amateurish, and if that worked against high quality bowlers, modern batsmen would have adopted similar techniques as well, but they haven't.

I also enjoy history and I have an appreciation for the great players of the past; they have all given the game something, and cricket would not be cricket today without their contribution. They have clearly played a role in its evolution. However, I simply don't subscribe to theory that modern players are significantly inferior to the players of the past. In fact, I believe that the reverse is true.

 

[Bhaijaan]

This thread has broken my heart and made me question my generation's intelligence.

Let it be known that your Bhaijaan is deeply saddened by many posts in this thread questioning the greatness of the legendary Barry Richards.

Its not always about how you look. Its about how effectice yoy are at the end of the day.

Gavaskar is the fafher of modern day batsmanship. Almost 90% of batamen today have been taught to emulate Gavaskar's classic book technique.

Having said that very few of these batsmen have been as successful because looking good and classy doesnt mean you will score great.

To put things into perspectice even Mohammad Hafeez and Wridhiman Saha's stance, backlift, bat swing looks more refined in image stills than Viv, Barry but they are nowhere as prolific or effective as the latter.

When people saw Sehwag first theg said he would never survive international cricket with his minimal feet movement. Sehwag put them all to shame by becoming the most dangerous opening batsman of all time and that too I test cricket.

Just go and have a look at MS Dhoni's batting technique images on google. He looks awkward and ugly as hell. Going by images you would have predicted this guyg was a tail ender just like some of the folks above are ignorantly mocking Barry Richards. Yet MSD is today one of the greatest and most reliable ODI batsmen of all time. Same goes with Steven Smith, Shiv Chanderpaul etc all ugly looking batsman yet absolute champions and most reliable.

Bottomline - You cant judge how good a batsman someone is by looking at photos. KL Rahul is by far the most good looking batsman in world cricket and he has achieved nothing.

Its about being an original. Its all about what works for you and believe your bhaijaan when someone who loves his cricket madly puts in the sincere efforts success will come regardless of how classy or not you look in photographs.

Be it cricket or life, nothing can or will stop you if you have goodness in you and you are madly in love with some one or something. If you dont have it in you no amount of mimicking or pretending will work for you.

The Barry Richards The Brian Charles Lara The MS Dhoni The Steven Smith are the original geniuses of cricket and they will always hold a special place in our heats because of the beauty in their unique and original playing style.

It is a leason for us all in appreciating originality withkut discriminating.

No wonder world cricket is at its poorest today due to lack of originals. Everyone today comes from Gavaskar school of playing in the V. Every bowler wants to just put the ball in the so called right areas. No one wants to try something else thats why no one is a Wasim Akram or a Barry Richards today.

Such a shame.

 

[Bhaijaan]

This thread has broken my heart and made me question my generation's intelligence.

Let it be known that your Bhaijaan is deeply saddened by many posts in this thread questioning the greatness of the legendary Barry Richards.

Its not always about how you look. Its about how effectice yoy are at the end of the day.

Gavaskar is the fafher of modern day batsmanship. Almost 90% of batamen today have been taught to emulate Gavaskar's classic book technique.

Having said that very few of these batsmen have been as successful because looking good and classy doesnt mean you will score great.

To put things into perspectice even Mohammad Hafeez and Wridhiman Saha's stance, backlift, bat swing looks more refined in image stills than Viv, Barry but they are nowhere as prolific or effective as the latter.

When people saw Sehwag first theg said he would never survive international cricket with his minimal feet movement. Sehwag put them all to shame by becoming the most dangerous opening batsman of all time and that too I test cricket.

Just go and have a look at MS Dhoni's batting technique images on google. He looks awkward and ugly as hell. Going by images you would have predicted this guyg was a tail ender just like some of the folks above are ignorantly mocking Barry Richards. Yet MSD is today one of the greatest and most reliable ODI batsmen of all time. Same goes with Steven Smith, Shiv Chanderpaul etc all ugly looking batsman yet absolute champions and most reliable.

Bottomline - You cant judge how good a batsman someone is by looking at photos. KL Rahul is by far the most good looking batsman in world cricket and he has achieved nothing.

Its about being an original. Its all about what works for you and believe your bhaijaan when someone who loves his cricket madly puts in the sincere efforts success will come regardless of how classy or not you look in photographs.

Be it cricket or life, nothing can or will stop you if you have goodness in you and you are madly in love with some one or something. If you dont have it in you no amount of mimicking or pretending will work for you.

The Barry Richards The Brian Charles Lara The MS Dhoni The Steven Smith are the original geniuses of cricket and they will always hold a special place in our heats because of the beauty in their unique and original playing style.

It is a leason for us all in appreciating originality withkut discriminating.

No wonder world cricket is at its poorest today due to lack of originals. Everyone today comes from Gavaskar school of playing in the V. Every bowler wants to just put the ball in the so called right areas. No one wants to try something else thats why no one is a Wasim Akram or a Barry Richards today.

Such a shame.

[MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

I think all 3 of us must take ownership for this sad state of affairs. It was our duty to educate posters, spread awareness about the realities of life from our vast experience and knowledge. But we seem to be failing. Im very disappointed. Today is one of my saddest days in PP.

 

[Tusker]

I don't particularly subscribe to your notion of what constitutes a "tailender-like pull shot", it's specious hyperbole in my opinion. Yes, Richards got into a tangle facing Lillee above, particularly with the cross batted hoick to reach his hundred. But there's a whole body of work that suggests that he was among the most technically correct players of that era. This is all fairly subjective at the end of the day, and we're never going to reach consensus due to our entrenched positions. Be that as it may, I don't think the standard of batting has ever been as high as it has been over the past 10 years. The modern player plays shots that were unthinkable 20 years ago. But I can still judge greatness when I watch old clips or read about the game. I do appreciate and respect history, however, and will never choose to denigrate it the way you did by comparing Barry Richards to Muralitharan. It's frankly beneath your usual high standards.

Please post the body of work you refer to. And I come here for a serious discussion with a very open mind. I don't have a problem acknowledging that I was wrong... however it has to be based on facts.

 

[Savage]

Standard of cricket has improved IMO.

Many cricketers of 70s and fans who have seen like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] rate Barry Richards in the same league(or perhaps even better) as VIV and Gavaskar.

I think Sunny,Viv and Barry Richards played in same or almost same era.(I'm not sure and can someone plz clarify)

Now argument used here against Barry Richards was that he played against Trundlers or low quality bowlers.I think this argument should also be applied to Gavaskar and Viv.

But I found it curious that Wasim Akram who unquestionably is an ATG bowler have always rated gavaskar highly.Wasim Akram rated Gavaskar as the most prized wicket

If Gavaskar can handle Akram without that much of a problem then there is decent chance that Barry Richards could've also manage to do well against the bowlers of Wasim/Waqar/Mcgrath calibre.

Although I've heard Gavaskar had the best technique but I've also heard Barry Richards handled Dennis lillee better than Sunny Gavaskar.And Dennis Lillee was considered as best fast bowler of his era.

 

[Chrish]

That is a really ordinary looking pull-shot though, almost tail-ender like.

Here are few screenshots that I took from the WSC video that [MENTION=58109]CHRIS[/MENTION] posted. Barry Richards playing Dennis Lillee's short pitched deliveries:

View attachment 81472

View attachment 81473

The technique is comical. I don't see any modern batsmen getting himself into such positions while playing the short ball, but I often see tail-enders playing the short ball like that.

If you watch someone like Wahab Riaz or Rahat Ali pulling the ball, you would often see them getting into similar positions. In fact, the first screenshot reminds me of how Muralitharan used to play the short ball.

It is also pertinent to note that this is not Dennis Lillee at his quickest. By this time, he had cut down on his pace and was more focused on swing and seam.

And this is from the WSC SuperTests, the so-called highest level of cricket ever played. The quality of cricket is atrocious, and it clearly shows how much progress cricket has made over the last 20-25 years. The game and the players have gone up several notches.

That video looks more like a parody of cricket. The batsmen look like tail-enders who are having a good day, and the bowlers, Dennis Lillee aside, look like mediocre part-timers. Just look at them dawdling in with their uncoordinated, disjointed actions.

In that video, Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan look out of place, since they are the only ones who look like professional cricketers.

Up until the 1950s, cricket was a joke. A bunch of white men interested in this relatively newly invented game that the rest of the world were not particularly bothered about.

They monopolized the game in their era, made records that mean nothing today, and created legacies that have no significance in a professional context.

For example, Jack Hobbs, supposedly the greatest English opener of all time, is simply not comparable to someone like Alaistair Cook, but due to the establishment propaganda, calling Cook better than Hobbs would be a blasphemy.

This is the forward defense of the greatest English opener of all time, widely regarded as the pioneer of batting, and someone who achieved critical acclaim for his ability to master uncovered ("sticky dog") pitches, the pitches that apparently modern batsmen will not be able to handle:

View attachment 81474


The techniques of Bradman and Hobbs show the level of bowling at that time. Does this mean that they were bad players? Absolutely not.

They were products of their time, and they must have possessed special qualities that made them the best players in their period, for which their achievements have to be respected. However, they are not comparable to players from the professional era.

The 1950s to 1960s saw improvements in the standard of cricket as it became more professional. South Asian cricket, South African cricket and Caribbean cricket started to make an impact, and players like Sobers, Weekes, Hanif, Miller, Evans, Kanhai, Dexter, Hall, Benaud, Worrell, Gibbs, Simpson etc. emerged.

They were significantly better than the pre-war cricketers, but still not comparable to the "modern" cricketers that appeared onto the scene from the 1970s onwards.

All of these players deserve recognition for the achievements in their time. Irrespective of the low standard of the game and the low competition, they must have had some characteristics that allowed them to become the best in their time.

A lot of these players would have been great in any era since the qualities that made them among the very best of their time would have allowed them to adjust and evolve in different eras.

However, there is no need of immortalizing these players or putting them on a higher pedestal compared to modern cricketers, who will blow these players away with their modern skills and techniques.

There is ample evidence that the standard of cricket, similar to any other sports, has significantly improved over the generations. The myth that batting and bowling standards have dropped compared to what we had in the past has been debunked objectively numerous times, but unfortunately people are not willing to overcome their predispositions and get over the nostalgia of the era in which they grew up.

Nonetheless, it is perfectly fine if you disagree, and thank you for the appreciation. I thoroughly enjoyed this insightful discourse.

Not really sure from what angle, Richards' pull stroke look comical? To me he looks like always in a perfect position to play the strokes. He hits six and few boundaries by pull/ hook in this short clip alone then imagine what he could do in his prime (he was close to 40 years old IIRC when WSC was played) ?? And if you still think it's amateurish, then that's your subjective opinion since to me, his style looks perfectly fine and well-suited to cope short-pitched bowling.

Regarding Hobbs, yes those clips look indeed comical. However, those clips aren't any more than a series of posed photographs - like those old flicker books; they aren't from actual game. It did look ugly but so do a lot of shots when batsmen are reaching out to score against very wide deliveries. For all we know, Hobbs may have just been having fun and playing unusual shots.

 

[Chrish]

Not really sure from what angle, Richards' pull stroke look comical? To me he looks like always in a perfect position to play the strokes. He hits six and few boundaries by pull/ hook in this short clip alone then imagine what he could do in his prime (he was close to 40 years old IIRC when WSC was played) ?? And if you still think it's amateurish, then that's your subjective opinion since to me, his style looks perfectly fine and well-suited to cope short-pitched bowling.

Regarding Hobbs, yes those clips look indeed comical. However, those clips aren't any more than a series of posed photographs - like those old flicker books; they aren't from actual game. It did look ugly but so do a lot of shots when batsmen are reaching out to score against very wide deliveries. For all we know, Hobbs may have just been having fun and playing unusual shots.

Correction: he was in his 30s. It was Pollock who was 40 years old during rebel tours. Point still stands strongly though

 

[Chrish]

This is clearly nothing more than a net-practice as one can see in the video.. If you wanna try out unusual strokes or just have fun, is there any better place to do it??

 

[Cric1234]

There is zero evidence to support the claim cricket suddenly became professional in a decade or any time frame for that matter.
Pre 1930s there is a lack of evidence available to know how good batsmen were from the 40s onwards there hasn't been a significant upward or downward curve in performance of batsmen to say at this point things started to change.
You can look at different careers that carry on to the next decade overlap and these players performance remains constant to this day.
Examples include Len Hutton started in 1937 became more profilic in the 1950s didn't regress at all Sobers similar started in the 1950s didn't do aswell as in the 60s and 70s.
Geoff Boycott started in 1964 was still averaging over 40 in the early 80s
From the 1940s to the 1990s players showed if there were changes they were small nothing like an amateur era and a professional one where batsmen and techniques would become outdated in test cricket.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Leave these kids alone so that they can start believing that Barry freaking Richards isn't a giant of the game because in some photos he doesn't look as balanced as Mohammad Hafeez?

Leaving these kids alone so that they can start believing that Barry freaking Richards smacking one bouncers after the other for 4s and 6s with mad ease with a feather light bat having 1/3rd the striking ability of the modern meaty willows is less noteworthy than him looking bit awkward while effectively doing his job?

If you, me and [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] bhai are failing in sharing our wealth of knowledge with these guys we are not failing just ourselves, this forum but humanity in general because it is these habits of being ignorant, delusional, arrogant, disrespectful that will eventually lead many of our little brothers in here towards their ultimate destruction as good humans and cricket fans.

We are here to bring sanity. To bring respect to the Barry Richards, MS Dhoni, Steven Shiv Chanderpauls, Steven Smiths of world cricket. To tell the world that true genius comes in all colours, nationalities and batting styles. That the Gavaskar book of batsmanship may indeed be the most picturesque but stuff gets done when you put your heart and soul into it too despite not being a follower of Gavaskar book of cricket.

We must own our responsibilities.

 

[Tusker]

There is zero evidence to support the claim cricket suddenly became professional in a decade or any time frame for that matter.

First things first - Who here has claimed this ? As far as I know nobody here has made this stupid claim that everything changed dramatically in a decade.

Once you have understood and acknowledged this come back here and I will give you a proper explanation for why things are no dramatically different from the 1940s and 50s. Generally mere observation of footage will tell you the difference but then this is you.

But the problem is you dont want to accept the possibility that your understanding is wrong so the moment you see you are up against irrefutable facts you will slip away from this thread just like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION].

 

[Cric1234]

First things first - Who here has claimed this ? As far as I know nobody here has made this stupid claim that everything changed dramatically in a decade.

Once you have understood and acknowledged this come back here and I will give you a proper explanation for why things are no dramatically different from the 1940s and 50s. Generally mere observation of footage will tell you the difference but then this is you.

But the problem is you dont want to accept the possibility that your understanding is wrong so the moment you see you are up against irrefutable facts you will slip away from this thread just like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION].

Absolutely show us how Barry Richards the thread is about him and others are different to modern day batsmen I am ready to accept it if it's proven to be true I based my assumptions on statistics and averages available.

 

[Tusker]

Absolutely show us how Barry Richards the thread is about him and others are different to modern day batsmen I am ready to accept it if it's proven to be true I based my assumptions on statistics and averages available.

Sure will do that. But are you accepting that nobody here claimed that things changed suddenly overnight in the 70s (or for that matter any other decade) ?

 

[Robert]

Leave these kids alone so that they can start believing that Barry freaking Richards isn't a giant of the game because in some photos he doesn't look as balanced as Mohammad Hafeez?

Leaving these kids alone so that they can start believing that Barry freaking Richards smacking one bouncers after the other for 4s and 6s with mad ease with a feather light bat having 1/3rd the striking ability of the modern meaty willows is less noteworthy than him looking bit awkward while effectively doing his job?

If you, me and [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] bhai are failing in sharing our wealth of knowledge with these guys we are not failing just ourselves, this forum but humanity in general because it is these habits of being ignorant, delusional, arrogant, disrespectful that will eventually lead many of our little brothers in here towards their ultimate destruction as good humans and cricket fans.

We are here to bring sanity. To bring respect to the Barry Richards, MS Dhoni, Steven Shiv Chanderpauls, Steven Smiths of world cricket. To tell the world that true genius comes in all colours, nationalities and batting styles. That the Gavaskar book of batsmanship may indeed be the most picturesque but stuff gets done when you put your heart and soul into it too despite not being a follower of Gavaskar book of cricket.

We must own our responsibilities.

Life’s too short, mate.

You can’t put old heads on young shoulders. Kids these days don’t believe the moon landings, but believe the earth is flat. The internet is to blame.

I’m pretty old now - one advantage of this is that one’s ego-structure starts to dissipate, so I no longer have A Need to be Right.

 

[The_Odd_One]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Your whole opinion of Barry Richards is based on some black and white pictures. Here is a video of him batting with Gavaskar in a Bradman XI vs World XI game. He is old but you can still use this video to see the glimpses of his ability. His hook shot is definitely nothing like Rahat playing it. Watch from 2:10.

Not everyone from the 70s was an inferior to modern day batsman. Watch Pollock's batting in the same game. He is head and shoulders above everyone else in both teams. Could use his wrists and drive beautifully.

 

[Junaids]

The main thing hat has changed is the conditions.

We saw in England three years ago that Steve Smith was superb on grassless wickets but hopeless when the ball seamed or even swung.

Too many people on this thread are ignorant to the facts that:

1. More pace bowlers were measured at 150+ in the 1970’s than this decade, and

2. The toughest spin challenge has never been the subcontinent: it was always drying uncovered English wickets. Hence the careers of Underwood, Laker, Verity, Rhodes, Hirst and others.

The best players adapt their techniques to the conditions - I’m sure Steve Smith would bat differently if he had to deal with uncovered wickets.

We go terribly wrong when we assume that conditions were identical in decades gone past. They weren’t!

 

[Sachin136]

Life’s too short, mate.

You can’t put old heads on young shoulders. Kids these days don’t believe the moon landings, but believe the earth is flat. The internet is to blame.

I’m pretty old now - one advantage of this is that one’s ego-structure starts to dissipate, so I no longer have A Need to be Right.

Are you having a laugh here or is this just the usual "millenials are bad" rubbish? Almost no one these days doesn't believe in the moon landing or thinks the earth is flat. If that's the generalization you're making, then everyone fromy our generation believes that vaccines cause autism.

 

[Tusker]

The main thing hat has changed is the conditions.

We saw in England three years ago that Steve Smith was superb on grassless wickets but hopeless when the ball seamed or even swung.

Too many people on this thread are ignorant to the facts that:

1. More pace bowlers were measured at 150+ in the 1970’s than this decade, and

2. The toughest spin challenge has never been the subcontinent: it was always drying uncovered English wickets. Hence the careers of Underwood, Laker, Verity, Rhodes, Hirst and others.

The best players adapt their techniques to the conditions - I’m sure Steve Smith would bat differently if he had to deal with uncovered wickets.

We go terribly wrong when we assume that conditions were identical in decades gone past. They weren’t!

How many times does one have to prove you wrong before you will consider not re-hashing these things ?

And which ball in this video is even remotely close to 150Ks ? https://youtu.be/VVjA9vI-i18

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Your whole opinion of Barry Richards is based on some black and white pictures. Here is a video of him batting with Gavaskar in a Bradman XI vs World XI game. He is old but you can still use this video to see the glimpses of his ability. His hook shot is definitely nothing like Rahat playing it. Watch from 2:10.

Not everyone from the 70s was an inferior to modern day batsman. Watch Pollock's batting in the same game. He is head and shoulders above everyone else in both teams. Could use his wrists and drive beautifully.

This post tells us the power of nostalgia and brainwashing that is prevalent in Cricket. you must be joking if you think 50+ year olds ambling in and going thru the motions proves that they were great players .... Seriously ??!!

 

[SL_Fan]

Barry Richards

Tests 500+ runs @ 73 with 2 tons
WSC supertests 550 runs @ 80 with 2 tons (that was 8 years after his international career had ended btw)
FC 28k runs @ 55 with 80 tons (also played some rebel tours but can't find his numbers in those)

All that while opening the batting in SA, Eng and Oz etc during the time when fast bowlers ruled the game. When it comes to openers certainly has more merit than Hobbs and co who are unproven and were hardly tested back in the amateur era when batsmen mostly had it their way.

 

[Sachin136]

Barry Richards

Tests 500+ runs @ 73 with 2 tons
WSC supertests 550 runs @ 80 with 2 tons (that was 8 years after his international career had ended btw)
FC 28k runs @ 55 with 80 tons (also played some rebel tours but can't find his numbers in those)

All that while opening the batting in SA, Eng and Oz etc during the time when fast bowlers ruled the game. When it comes to openers certainly has more merit than Hobbs and co who are unproven and were hardly tested back in the amateur era when batsmen mostly had it their way.

Most people don't think that he was worse than Hobbs, Hutton, etc. But the problem arises when you start calling him an ATG or comparing him with the best from later eras.

 

[The_Odd_One]

This post tells us the power of nostalgia and brainwashing that is prevalent in Cricket. you must be joking if you think 50+ year olds ambling in and going thru the motions proves that they were great players .... Seriously ??!!

They were all 50+ in that game. It is a relative comparison.

Ofcourse, they were not the same batsmen as they used to be but even in that age you can see that both Richards and Pollock played proper cricket shots. They were not batting like Rahat or Muralitharan as some of the posters have been claiming.

 

[Junaids]

Two fascinating quotes from Bill Lawry's farewell interview today:

"I think the success of World Series Cricket was purely due to the quality of the cricketers, the World XI, a great West Indian team and Ian Chappell mustering an Australian team and the good coverage."

"I remember one day at Football Park one evening, the great Barry Richards came in and he was as white as a sheet, I said 'what's wrong Barry' and he said 'it's murder out there', the pitch was a little bit underdone and Lillee and these guys were giving him a working over so the cricket was fantastic."

 

[Tusker]

Two fascinating quotes from Bill Lawry's farewell interview today:

"I think the success of World Series Cricket was purely due to the quality of the cricketers, the World XI, a great West Indian team and Ian Chappell mustering an Australian team and the good coverage."

"I remember one day at Football Park one evening, the great Barry Richards came in and he was as white as a sheet, I said 'what's wrong Barry' and he said 'it's murder out there', the pitch was a little bit underdone and Lillee and these guys were giving him a working over so the cricket was fantastic."

So it must be easy to see all of that with my own two eyes. Let's see some action and some explanation. There is a very good reason why you don't want to go there isn't it?

 

[Tusker]

They were all 50+ in that game. It is a relative comparison.

Ofcourse, they were not the same batsmen as they used to be but even in that age you can see that both Richards and Pollock played proper cricket shots. They were not batting like Rahat or Muralitharan as some of the posters have been claiming.

Quality , technique is determined by bowling speed. You can show me hours of footage where he is caning trundlers but it won't mean anything.

I have posted color videos ( HOW this matters I have no idea lol ) of his batting from his prime earlier and yes lower order batsmen like Bhuvi , jadeja, ashwin have better techniques than him . You cannot dispute that based on actual evidence. But if we want to entertain nostalgia influenced stories as evidence then this guy is no less than ATG with best technique ever.

 

[Robert]

Two fascinating quotes from Bill Lawry's farewell interview today:

"I think the success of World Series Cricket was purely due to the quality of the cricketers, the World XI, a great West Indian team and Ian Chappell mustering an Australian team and the good coverage."

"I remember one day at Football Park one evening, the great Barry Richards came in and he was as white as a sheet, I said 'what's wrong Barry' and he said 'it's murder out there', the pitch was a little bit underdone and Lillee and these guys were giving him a working over so the cricket was fantastic."

I love reading stories like this, it all adds to the richness of understanding and appreciation of the great game.

 

[Robert]

Barry Richards

Tests 500+ runs @ 73 with 2 tons
WSC supertests 550 runs @ 80 with 2 tons (that was 8 years after his international career had ended btw)
FC 28k runs @ 55 with 80 tons (also played some rebel tours but can't find his numbers in those)

All that while opening the batting in SA, Eng and Oz etc during the time when fast bowlers ruled the game. When it comes to openers certainly has more merit than Hobbs and co who are unproven and were hardly tested back in the amateur era when batsmen mostly had it their way.

There was never an amateur era.

The so called amateurs were mostly shamateurs because they made money playing cricket, without being salaried, and there were plenty of professional bowlers in Sir Jack’s era. His was the era where swing bowling and wrist-spin was developing and Sir Jack had to overcome these challenges to hit 197 centuries on uncovered wickets.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Quality , technique is determined by bowling speed. You can show me hours of footage where he is caning trundlers but it won't mean anything.

I have posted color videos ( HOW this matters I have no idea lol ) of his batting from his prime earlier and yes lower order batsmen like Bhuvi , jadeja, ashwin have better techniques than him . You cannot dispute that based on actual evidence. But if we want to entertain nostalgia influenced stories as evidence then this guy is no less than ATG with best technique ever.

Your whole argument is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to respond to it. I even showed a footage of 50+ Barry batting better than the tailenders of these days. You are just not interested in an objective discussion.

Barry has a FC average of 54.74. Are you telling me that he faced worse bowlers than what the likes of Bhuvi and Jadeja have faced in Indian domestic cricket? If one says that he was inferior to Tendulkar, I can agree to it because game evolves with time but comparing him with tailenders simply shows your ignorance and arrogance.

 

[Chrish]

In England professionalism is as old as the game itself. Grace faced plenty of professional bowlers during his time. It’s just that county cricket in his era was far bigger than test cricket.

 

[Chrish]

Hobbs never probably faced genuine pace bowling but then again modern day players never have to play on uncovered wickets left to element after the rain.

Tendulkar struggled against medium pacer like McGrath on flat wickets then how to we know if he could have overcome the challenge of facing Barnes on underprepared wickets?

 

[Sachin136]

Hobbs never probably faced genuine pace bowling but then again modern day players never have to play on uncovered wickets left to element after the rain.

Tendulkar struggled against medium pacer like McGrath on flat wickets then how to we know if he could have overcome the challenge of facing Barnes on underprepared wickets?

McGrath bowled in the 130s and is probably the second greatest bowler in history.

 

[Chrish]

McGrath bowled in the 130s and is probably the second greatest bowler in history.

He was bowling in mid 120s for a majority of his later career.

 

[Cric1234]

It's pretty obvious that some people think cricket only really became professional from the 1990s onwards modern day greats Lara Tendulkar average in the 30s against the best bowlers they aren't as good as they are shown to be I wouldn't back them smashing decent swing and spin bowling on uncovered sticky wickets with small bats.

 

[zizour]

Hobbs never probably faced genuine pace bowling but then again modern day players never have to play on uncovered wickets left to element after the rain.

Tendulkar struggled against medium pacer like McGrath on flat wickets then how to we know if he could have overcome the challenge of facing Barnes on underprepared wickets?

Just as the myth of Barry being an ATG, I love this myth of Sachin struggling against McGrath, which is as a big lie as Barry being an ATG. Sachin struggled only in 1 series against McGrath the 2004 series where he played with the tennis elbow, inspite of which he still had a match winning innings in the final test.

And the fact that you are peddling McGrath as another random medium pacer shows me your knowledge of cricket or rather the lack of it.

 

[Chrish]

Just as the myth of Barry being an ATG, I love this myth of Sachin struggling against McGrath, which is as a big lie as Barry being an ATG. Sachin struggled only in 1 series against McGrath the 2004 series where he played with the tennis elbow, inspite of which he still had a match winning innings in the final test.

And the fact that you are peddling McGrath as another random medium pacer shows me your knowledge of cricket or rather the lack of it.

Tendulkar averages less than 15 against Mcgrath head-to-head in test Cricket..

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Just as the myth of Barry being an ATG, I love this myth of Sachin struggling against McGrath, which is as a big lie as Barry being an ATG. Sachin struggled only in 1 series against McGrath the 2004 series where he played with the tennis elbow, inspite of which he still had a match winning innings in the final test.

And the fact that you are peddling McGrath as another random medium pacer shows me your knowledge of cricket or rather the lack of it.

Tendulka being McGrath's bunny is a fact.

 

[Chrish]

Any ways B Richards, G Pollock, Headley etc. can't be considered greats of the game unless we want to combine FC Cricket with tests.

They showed tremendous potential but that's where it ends. Due to unfortunate circumstances, they will always be stuck in the limbo.

 

[Cric1234]

Barry was potentially a great batsman in tests but Pollock was some player he could've been ATG in tests and ODIs better than Viv possibly meaning the best ever both formats combined and 2nd best in tests.

 

[zizour]

Tendulka being McGrath's bunny is a fact.

A fact!!!!. Lets see you prove it.

 

[Tusker]

Your whole argument is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to respond to it. I even showed a footage of 50+ Barry batting better than the tailenders of these days. You are just not interested in an objective discussion.

Barry has a FC average of 54.74. Are you telling me that he faced worse bowlers than what the likes of Bhuvi and Jadeja have faced in Indian domestic cricket? If one says that he was inferior to Tendulkar, I can agree to it because game evolves with time but comparing him with tailenders simply shows your ignorance and arrogance.

Majority of the bowlers that he faced would be considered trundlers by modern standards and it is crystal clear from the video footage. On a public forum its very easy for the old era fanatics to pretend that they appear superfast express bowlers by simply being a deadbeat. This is the single biggest reason why the old era fanatics stay very clear from discussing footage of their fav players because it paints a completely different picture of these said players. Their best bet is to keep reverting back to stories. I can assure you that [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and Co are never ever going to discuss the actual footage and tell us what is sooo great about his batting. Two pages into this discussion there is not a single post by [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] that answers my question I posted in Post #54. And I have asked this numerous times in the past. Not once have I gotten a clear detailed answer. Reasons are very obvious. There is noting earth shattering going on in these footage of past players. It is very obvious

And no - color or Black&White coverage has nothing to do with technique. What you see is a faithful reproduction of Barry's batting from his prime and someone will have to pay me a lot of money to go spend time on such quality of cricket. Nobody plays top level cricket like that - NO ONE. To pretend otherwise and ridicule the modern players is the real arrogance that I try to counter.

 

[Tusker]

Absolutely show us how Barry Richards the thread is about him and others are different to modern day batsmen I am ready to accept it if it's proven to be true I based my assumptions on statistics and averages available.

Sure will do that. But are you accepting that nobody here claimed that things changed suddenly overnight in the 70s (or for that matter any other decade) ?

And preditably there is no response yet you have the cheek to continue your drivel ....

It's pretty obvious that some people think cricket only really became professional from the 1990s onwards modern day greats Lara Tendulkar average in the 30s against the best bowlers they aren't as good as they are shown to be I wouldn't back them smashing decent swing and spin bowling on uncovered sticky wickets with small bats.

just wonder what you might have said and done if you could properly debate like a grown up with facts and actually point out what is soo great about Barry's batting using purely footage ...

 

[Cric1234]

Well I will tell you why Barry was a master opening batsman first I'll talk about the Hobbs video above and people ridiculing his technique and how awkward it looks which is true of course in some ways.
Now they have conveniently forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on these were similar to what he faced in real match situations some of the time pitches that were basically the outfield almost identical.
Thus making driving and playing through the offside with any efficiency rather difficult due to unpredictable pace and bounce hence his awkward looking technique making only cross batted shots easier to play but no it's easy for modern day bats they would drive and cut the ball with ease on such wickets.

 

[Tusker]

Well I will tell you why Barry was a master opening batsman first I'll talk about the Hobbs video above and people ridiculing his technique and how awkward it looks which is true of course in some ways.
Now they have conveniently forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on these were similar to what he faced in real match situations some of the time pitches that were basically the outfield almost identical.
Thus making driving and playing through the offside with any efficiency rather difficult due to unpredictable pace and bounce hence his awkward looking technique making only cross batted shots easier to play but no it's easy for modern day bats they would drive and cut the ball with ease on such wickets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ47bVWWBVc

Tell me how that pitch in that clip above is different from any random pitch you see today in England.

 

[Cric1234]

And preditably there is no response yet you have the cheek to continue your drivel ....



just wonder what you might have said and done if you could properly debate like a grown up with facts and actually point out what is soo great about Barry's batting using purely footage ...

Maybe if you watch Barry batting you will see he has plenty of time to play the bowling and drives cuts the ball as good as any opening batsmen in history he never plants his front foot and makes himself a lbw candidate he plays the ball as late as possible and his hand eye coordination is very good coupled with effortless stroke making ability.
But you don't see none of that the bowlers are bowling 135kph instead of 145kph today or his cut shot isn't off the middle of that bat or something which says he would be a tailender today similar to Ashwin.

 

[Cric1234]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ47bVWWBVc

Tell me how that pitch in that clip above is different from any random pitch you see today in England.

That's a pitch from the 70s they were similar to today Hobbs played in the early 1900s to late 1920s when they were uncovered and no rollers were used which made them similar to the outfield.

 

[Cric1234]

Barry Richards averaged almost 55 in First Class cricket as an opening batsman G Greenidge who played with him at Hampshire averaged 45 in First Class and 44 in tests if you take it literally Richards would be the best ever opener or best of the modern era had he played enough tests and all the evidence suggests he was more than capable.

 

[Robert]

That's a pitch from the 70s they were similar to today Hobbs played in the early 1900s to late 1920s when they were uncovered and no rollers were used which made them similar to the outfield.

Pitches have been covered since the 1960s in the U.K.

However there was a much wider range of pitches around the Counties in the seventies and eighties until the last few years, because producing an old fashioned seamer or Bunsen now results in a County being fined for making “a sub-standard pitch”.

And that’s why England batters cannot cope in Asia now.

 

[SL_Fan]

Most people don't think that he was worse than Hobbs, Hutton, etc. But the problem arises when you start calling him an ATG or comparing him with the best from later eras.

ATG is subjective so as long as the reasoning behind it holds up no real wrong answer there. With someone like Barry Richards I think you can make a fair case either way.

 

[SL_Fan]

There was never an amateur era.

The so called amateurs were mostly shamateurs because they made money playing cricket, without being salaried, and there were plenty of professional bowlers in Sir JackÂ’s era. His was the era where swing bowling and wrist-spin was developing and Sir Jack had to overcome these challenges to hit 197 centuries on uncovered wickets.

Probably used the wrong term there. By amateur what I was referring to was the point where the game was at in terms of the player skill-set and how it was played. Obviously each era has it's own advantages and disadvantages but all this stuff about batting being so difficult back in the day I just don't buy.

Uncovered wickets only really became an issue once the wickets became sticky which was hardly a common occurrence (rain followed by blistering sun). Even then with LBW laws the way they were padding up wouldnÂ’t have been much of an issue I would have thought.

However the game remained batting oriented. Too much of liberty given to the batsmen encouraged excessive pad play depriving the bowlers of countless wickets. The statistics reveal that in 1870 the LBW ratio was as remote as 1 in 40. It further dropped to 1 in 67 by 1882-84. It would be interesting to know that by 1980 the ratio rose to 1 in 6.

In 1932 the game was hit by the famous bodyline controversy. Harold Larwood the exponent of this alarming bodyline technique claimed justification of his method due to the frustration caused by the then LBW law. He suggested that the only practical move to neutralize his leg theory was to alter the LBW law to allow "Out" decision if the ball would have hit the wicket even if pitched off the wicket on the off side.

There was no doubt that in those days the bat was predominant and the bowlers had to toil hard to get the wickets. In English County Cricket in 1933 no less than 34 innings of 200 and above were played and there was wide spread dissatisfaction with the way batsmen abused the LBW law by covering up the wickets.

Kind of explains why someone like Hobbs did okay on those tracks whereas Bradman struggled. Don wasnÂ’t known to be a padder-upper. Looking at his strike rate around the 60 mark fair to say that he was someone who liked to keep things moving along. Top modern-day players are way too under-rated and oldies who no one has even seen play are always over-rated for the heck of it. Bradman is the only one I think who can be justifiably rated ahead of top modern-day bats. Notching up 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane despite the inferior competition and all that. Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline.

 

[SL_Fan]

If you look at the Test batting and bowling averages as the game has matured there hasn’t been much of a change there since the 1920s. Things have more or less evened out over the decades.

 

[SL_Fan]

I can only imagine what the top modern day batting averages would look like if LBWs were disallowed anytime the ball pitched on the off side.

LBW dismissals

Pre 1980s - 3.69 LBWs/match
Post 1980s - 5.24 LBWs/match (42% increase)

 

[Tusker]

If you look at the Test batting and bowling averages as the game has matured there hasn’t been much of a change there since the 1920s. Things have more or less evened out over the decades

If only I had a penny for every time i had to answer this stupid stat ....

So if I produce some Clubs that have similar stats then will you accept that they are as good as current Test cricketers in skill levels ?

 

[SL_Fan]

Barry was potentially a great batsman in tests but Pollock was some player he could've been ATG in tests and ODIs better than Viv possibly meaning the best ever both formats combined and 2nd best in tests.

Talking of Graeme Pollock

Tests 2250+ runs @ 61 with 7 tons
Rebel tours 1.4k runs @ 66 with 5 tons
FC 21k runs @ 55 with 64 tons

Not too shabby that.

 

[SL_Fan]

If only I had a penny for every time i had to answer this stupid stat ....

So if I produce some Clubs that have similar stats then will you accept that they are as good as current Test cricketers in skill levels ?

Not sure what the heck you are talking about.

 

[SL_Fan]

A fact!!!!. Lets see you prove it.

McGrath has dismissed Sachin 6 times giving away just 88 runs in Tests ie just a bit over 14 runs per dismissal. That's bunny territory.

 

[Tusker]

Not sure what the heck you are talking about.

You know exactly what Iam talking about... skill levels. A batting average of 50 in Bradmans time is not of the same value as current day batting average of 50.

 

[Tusker]

Maybe if you watch Barry batting you will see he has plenty of time to play the bowling and drives cuts the ball as good as any opening batsmen in history he never plants his front foot and makes himself a lbw candidate he plays the ball as late as possible and his hand eye coordination is very good coupled with effortless stroke making ability.


But you don't see none of that the bowlers are bowling 135kph instead of 145kph today or his cut shot isn't off the middle of that bat or something which says he would be a tailender today similar to Ashwin.

I can assure you that Ashwin will plunder the bowlers of that caliber and Avg just as much as Barry if not more. There is nothing remotely threatening about trundlers running up and down bowling 120K.

 

[SL_Fan]

You know exactly what Iam talking about... skill levels. A batting average of 50 in Bradmans time is not of the same value as current day batting average of 50.

It's impossible to compare across eras each had/has it's own advantages and disadvantages and as the numbers clearly show overall things have remained steady for the most part post 1910s/20s. In terms of player skill-set and level of competition tho obviously there's no contest. Modern-day players have been there and done that and have proven themselves whereas with the oldies apart from maybe Bradman it's all about conjecture. Which is why I don't buy say Hobbs for example being rated ahead of Gavaskar or Headley ahead of Ponting and so on.

 

[Rahul1]

McGrath has dismissed Sachin 6 times giving away just 88 runs in Tests ie just a bit over 14 runs per dismissal. That's bunny territory.

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.

 

[Tusker]

It's impossible to compare across eras each had/has it's own advantages and disadvantages and as the numbers clearly show overall things have remained steady for the most part post 1910s/20s. In terms of player skill-set and level of competition tho obviously there's no contest. Modern-day players have been there and done that and have proven themselves whereas with the oldies apart from maybe Bradman it's all about conjecture. Which is why I don't buy say Hobbs for example being rated ahead of Gavaskar or Headley ahead of Ponting and so on.

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.

 

[Tusker]

Pitches have been covered since the 1960s in the U.K.

However there was a much wider range of pitches around the Counties in the seventies and eighties until the last few years, because producing an old fashioned seamer or Bunsen now results in a County being fined for making “a sub-standard pitch”.

And that’s why England batters cannot cope in Asia now.

Please post some scorecards of Test matches that were played on these bunsen burners in England. If you cant find Test matches then atleast lets see some FC matches.

 

[Tusker]

That's a pitch from the 70s they were similar to today Hobbs played in the early 1900s to late 1920s when they were uncovered and no rollers were used which made them similar to the outfield.

Then why were you saying this earlier in Post #137 :

Well I will tell you why Barry was a master opening batsman first I'll talk about the Hobbs video above and people ridiculing his technique and how awkward it looks which is true of course in some ways.
Now they have conveniently forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on these were similar to what he faced in real match situations some of the time pitches that were basically the outfield almost identical.

 

[Mamoon]

This is clearly nothing more than a net-practice as one can see in the video.. If you wanna try out unusual strokes or just have fun, is there any better place to do it??

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.

 

[Tusker]

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.

Pressed for time right now .... but there is a video out there on YT that has a signed letter from Jack Hobbs stating that the video of him batting that follows is the authentic illustration of his batting technique ( or words to that effect). The producer that made that clip paid a decent some of Money to Jack Hobbs.

 

[Mamoon]

Well I will tell you why Barry was a master opening batsman first I'll talk about the Hobbs video above and people ridiculing his technique and how awkward it looks which is true of course in some ways.
Now they have conveniently forgot to look at the pitch he's batting on these were similar to what he faced in real match situations some of the time pitches that were basically the outfield almost identical.
Thus making driving and playing through the offside with any efficiency rather difficult due to unpredictable pace and bounce hence his awkward looking technique making only cross batted shots easier to play but no it's easy for modern day bats they would drive and cut the ball with ease on such wickets.

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



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.

 

[Mamoon]

Pressed for time right now .... but there is a video out there on YT that has a signed letter from Jack Hobbs stating that the video of him batting that follows is the authentic illustration of his batting technique ( or words to that effect). The producer that made that clip paid a decent some of Money to Jack Hobbs.

This video, uploaded by the official channel of Lord's Cricket Ground, has actual footage of Hobbs playing in a match, and his technique and style are identical to the video posted by Chris.

Let's not even discuss the standard of bowling and the fact that the keeper is standing up to the stumps even against the so-called fast bowlers.

 

[Dark Magician]

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.

So how is he a legend when he couldn't be bothered to person to his best all the time?