What's new

How many of you saw Graeme Pollock play? And how great was he?

Hitman

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Runs
17,314
I've read dozens of articles on how great of a batsman he was, which I don't dispute. Don Bradman rated him the finest left handed batsman he ever saw alongside the incomparable Garry Sobers. Garry Sobers is arguably the greatest ever batsman after Bradman, and for Bradman himself to rate Pollock as good as Sobers, it speaks volumes of how great Pollock was.

Not only that, I've read articles upon articles how much of a batting genius Pollock was, and how he would have shattered all batting records if not for the apartheid ban of South Africa. I've heard guys like Ian Chappell, Geoffrey Boycott, Barry Richards speak of how he was a once in a century kinda batsman, and how unfortunate world cricket is for his career to cut short.

This is for all of you saw this genius play or followed cricket at that time. How great he was? How big of a genius he was? Would love to hear from you guys.


Here's an article by criclet 'Bible' WISDEN on this genius -


Graeme Pollock - a retrospective​


"If it is permissible to attach the word genius to the artistry of a batsman, then Graeme Pollock is such among cricketers. Like others so acknowledged he was ever the master craftsman. Perhaps the all-important factor was that from the start, the bowling he faced was more skilled and demanding than will have come the way of many others"


Graeme Pollock, the great South African batsman who too soon was denied occupation of cricket's more illustrious creases, retired from the first-class game at the end of the 1986-87 season. In January 1961, aged 16 years and 335 days, he scored his first Currie Cup century in Johannesburg, for Eastern Province against Transvaal B. Twenty-six summers later, with a score of 63 not out and now playing for Transvaal, he was there at the finish of the match which saw his team retain the Castle Currie Cup.
Heredity and environment each supposed that the Pollock brothers should go to the top in cricket. Their father, morning paper editor in the seaport where his family grew up, played for the Orange Free State. Their mother, an all-round games player of renown, came of a father who rose in cricket administration to a term of office as president of the South African Cricket Association. Frequently the family moved house, but always there was space for a practice wicket to be set down; for the brothers to bat and bowl through sun-drenched days. And should their contests become heated, always there to arbitrate was Mrs Pollock.

There is a similarity in the Pollock brothers' cricket background and that of W. G. Grace and his brothers. In both, the genes had given a touch of cricket to the blood. Environment lent itself to endless opportunity for practice, and there was a mother who saw only virtue in making her sons proficient. The analogy may be taken further. Right from their early schooldays, matches were played both with and against adult cricketers of some class.

Graeme, as did Peter, went as a day-boy to the Port Elizabeth high school, Grey College. The Grey has ever had a special care for its cricketers, and Graeme soon found himself at the nets where George Cox, a kindly, able and inspiring man from Sussex, was in charge. Just nine, Graeme was picked for the school's Under-eleven team. The venue was Graaff Reinet, a farming centre 150 miles distant. Bowling, he took all ten wickets; and then he scored the first century to come from his bat. Thus, while himself not yet into double figures, as a batsman he reached his first hundred. Peter, seventeen, beat his brother to a Nuffield to South African Schools' cap, but junior came alongside a year later, aged but fifteen.

During the school summer vacation of 1960-61, and free from studies he did not relish, Graeme Pollock set out on his first-class cricket career with Eastern Province. His maiden century was entirely in keeping with the massive scores to follow; never once did this lanky, loose-limbed schoolboy deviate from the business of scoring runs. On Wanderers, the ground that was eventually to become his cricket home, the Transvaal B bowlers were irked that this kid should calmly and methodically press ever onwards. As he neared his hundred, the bowling became more physical and the batsman more mature. Pollock, in that maiden hundred, moved through the nineties with never a hesitation; as though, as indeed was so, to the manner born. He was not yet seventeen.
He was nineteen when chosen for the 1963-64 South African tour of Australia. On arrival in Western Australia, he was soon to learn that life with the Aussies is ever real. McKenzie bowled him first for 1 and then caught and bowled him for 0. Before the Springboks left Perth, however, Pollock showed his class, reaching a hundred in 88 minutes, with eighteen fours, against a Combined XI. His Test début came at Brisbane on December 6, 1963, but this was no happy match. Much interrupted by rain, it was the worse troubled by the abrupt end to a long-established Australian bowler's career. The South African innings had reached but the second ball of the second over on the second day when umpire Egar at square leg no-balled Ian Meckiff four times, and he did not bowl again. That rain poured down unceasingly on the third day somehow seemed appropriate to a wretched episode in what might have been a noble occasion.

Pollock came into his own in the Third Test on the Sydney Cricket Ground. His brother, Peter, having taken five first-innings Australian wickets for 83, Graeme made 122: his maiden Test century. Thus did the Sydney Cricket Ground set the pattern for the brotherly duets that become the hallmark of South Africa's Test matches. That match was drawn, and with the Australians one up from victory at Melbourne, the series moved on to Adelaide, where South Africa won by ten wickets.

All else in that Test gave place to the Barlow- Graeme Pollock third-wicket partnership. Coming together on the Saturday with three hours till close of play, they added 225. Adelaide, most genial of great cricket grounds, was on this Saturday packed to overflowing. No cloud in the sky, his partner well set, the younger Pollock moved through early assurance into total command. McKenzie, Hawke, Benaud could find nothing to halt or hinder his surging strokeplay. My broadcasting companion for the series was the renowned Australian captain, and grandsire of famous Australian cricketers, Victor Richardson. Came the moment when I glanced his way, indicating it was now his turn to talk, his response was a shaking of the head and a murmured - No, no, you carry on. So captivated was this veteran stalwart that tiny tears of ecstasy shone in the corners of his eyes. He wanted only to sit back, the more fully to relish that day's batting. Never will one seasoned and long experienced in cricket confrontation pay a more sincere tribute to a young man than Victor Richardson spontaneously paid to Graeme Pollock that day.
Before 1964 had run its course, M. J. K. Smith and his MCC team had arrived in South Africa. Two good teams on slow wickets meandered through a dreary five-match series. England won at Durban, the first of the Tests, and Pollock was out twice to Titmus for 5 and 0. Of his eight dismissals in the five Tests, three went to Titmus and three to Allen: off-spinners both. There were times, bowling round the wicket and pushing the ball across him, when they seemed to be questioning the orthodoxy of his strict adherence to a sideways-on position. Against this, however, they, like all who bowled at him, were met by his marvellous judgement of length. Rarely was he brought forward unless the ball was there to play.

The power and the beauty of his batting came again in the last of the Tests on his home ground in Port Elizabeth. With one defeat and three drawn Tests, Port Elizabeth offered a last chance for South Africa, as in 1956-57, to square the series. Pollock made scores of 137 and 77 not out. Barlow and Bland, both in fine form throughout the rubber, could be kept in check by England's bowlers, but not Pollock. His driving into the covers had fieldsmen occasionally wringing their hands or, more often, groping in vain for the ball travelling hell-bent to the boundary. Several off-drives were self-retrieving. There is a low retaining wall, with a smooth cement surface, just beyond the boundary at long-off for the left-hander. Pollock's drives from it rebounded back towards the stumps at the bowler's end.

Rain put an early end to a scene set for a fighting finish to the series, but in July that year the contest was being resumed in England. Victory at Trent Bridge in the second of the three Tests gave South Africa the rubber; and that victory was a Pollock family affair. Graeme scored 125 and 59 while Peter took five wickets in each Englandinnings: ten for 87 in all.

It is for his batting at Trent Bridge in 1965 that, in England, Graeme Pollock is best remembered; and this was the batting of a player only 21 years old. Of his hundred there, Wisden said that following the lunch break ... he reigned supreme for seventy more minutes while he lashed the bowling for 91 out of 102 ... he offered no chance. The power and the artistry of his strokeplay that day was awesome. Using his height (6ft 2½in) to full advantage, he drove the English bowling, off back foot and front, through the covers, regardless of length. The ball to which other batsmen would have offered a defensive bat was simply struck to the boundary. Ted Dexter later wrote of him: ... he could hit the good-length ball, given only a modicum of room outside the off stump, actually harder than he could hit the half-volley. Now that takes some doing.

Across the world cricket scene, that was pretty much the end for South Africa. Pollock was to play twice more against Australia in South Africa - Bobby Simpson's side in 1966-67 and Bill Lawry's in 1969-70 - and he was in England in 1970 for the series between England and the Rest of the World, which took the place of the cancelled tour by South Africa. A century in the fifth Test, which incorporated with Garry Sobers a fifth-wicket partnership of 165, was his one big innings. His scores for eight innings averaged 31.25 and were below those of the other Springbok batsmen, Barlow, Procter and Richards.

At home, however, Pollock was consistently a heavy scorer, and in the two series with Australia he was often brilliant. Against Simpson's team came a double-century at Newlands. Four years later, when Lawry brought his team on from India, Pollock at Durban made 274 in the only South African innings and established a new record score by a South African in Test cricket. Thereafter, his and South Africa's international cricket were to be restricted to home series against breakaway visitors from England, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Australia. The innings of 144 against an Australian XI with which he bowed out of international cricket in Port Elizabeth in 1986-87 was both convincing and memorable; it seemed hard to think of him as being 43 in three to four weeks' time.

If it is permissible to attach the word genius to the artistry of a batsman, then Graeme Pollock is such among cricketers. Like others so acknowledged he was ever the master craftsman. Perhaps the all-important factor was that from the start, the bowling he faced was more skilled and demanding than will have come the way of many others. Only Colin Cowdrey among the cricketers I have known has moved so easily up the rungs that take cricket toddlers to a Test match début. Pollock never underestimated the opposition, nor hesitated to meet a challenge. When thirteen, he became excited, even entranced, by the skill and application of the Australian, Neil Harvey, like himself a left-handed batsman. It was Harvey's dedication to the task of making runs, and still more runs, that determined Pollock never to yield his wicket while runs were there to be taken.

His move from Eastern Province to Transvaal in 1978-79 undoubtedly enriched and extended his playing days. So, too, did the SACU move that brought the breakaway touring teams to South Africa. Graeme Pollock, a supporter of full tours to South Africa by unofficial teams of international standard, is established in cricket administration: president of the South African Cricket Players' Association, board member and team selector with the Transvaal Cricket Council. We shall not see his like again at the crease, but he may yet become a prominent figure in cricket's council chambers.



Graeme Pollock - ESPN Legends of Cricket

 
I had no idea who this guy was till i decided to check cricinfo profile of his son Shaun Pollock and that led to discovery of Graeme Pollock. [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] Maybe you can tell us about him ?
 
I have seen him play, in retrospect he looks like a legend but at the time he was okay. He was in the time of many greats not ikka dukka greats. Not a bad guy but not a legend. Only memorable performance i remember is his 4 wickets in a row.

I mean imagine lance klusner, cronje, kallis, donald etc in same team with pollak.
 
Okay... bring back editing feature. I misread this thread title as if it was for Shaun pallak. My entire post above is based on it.
 
I have seen him play, in retrospect he looks like a legend but at the time he was okay. He was in the time of many greats not ikka dukka greats. Not a bad guy but not a legend. Only memorable performance i remember is his 4 wickets in a row.

I mean imagine lance klusner, cronje, kallis, donald etc in same team with pollak.

I think you confused with Shaun Pollock.We all have seen him
 
I had no idea who this guy was till i decided to check cricinfo profile of his son Shaun Pollock

Shaun Pollock is Graeme 's nephew, not son.

Graeme Pollock's son Andrew played a few first class games though.
 
Only memorable performance i remember is his 4 wickets in a row.

.

And you don't remember that Graeme Pollock actually had the highest test batting average after Bradman right up to the beginning of this decade?? :98:
 
I saw a lot of Barry Richards in county cricket and he was the greatest batsman that I have ever seen. The similarity between his Test and SuperTest stats, almost a decade apart,confirms this.

I never saw Pollock live. I saw "old" footage of his Tests and "new" video of him in the Rebel Tests, on his last legs. That footage was of whole innings, not just highlights.

I am fairly certain that he was the greatest left-hander of all-time. He didn't have the delicate touch of Barry Richards but he had fearsome power and hand speed allied to a great eye and frightening timing. Sort of half Chris Gayle added to half of Matthew Hayden but then with half of Adam Gilchrist added too!

You had to get him early in an innings or pay a terrible price. Because unlike Barry Richards, he didn't get bored and give away his wicket. But you could get him early because he didn't have the footwork of Richards.

He is a Test ATG but in T20 he would have been scary.
 
I saw a lot of Barry Richards in county cricket and he was the greatest batsman that I have ever seen. The similarity between his Test and SuperTest stats, almost a decade apart,confirms this.

I never saw Pollock live. I saw "old" footage of his Tests and "new" video of him in the Rebel Tests, on his last legs. That footage was of whole innings, not just highlights.

I am fairly certain that he was the greatest left-hander of all-time. He didn't have the delicate touch of Barry Richards but he had fearsome power and hand speed allied to a great eye and frightening timing. Sort of half Chris Gayle added to half of Matthew Hayden but then with half of Adam Gilchrist added too!

You had to get him early in an innings or pay a terrible price. Because unlike Barry Richards, he didn't get bored and give away his wicket. But you could get him early because he didn't have the footwork of Richards.

He is a Test ATG but in T20 he would have been scary.

Brian Lara ?
 
How many of us have seen "GREAME POLLOCk" play ??

Yar, there are indeed a few senior citizens on this forum lekin tum tou Bawa Adam k zamaanay ki baatayn kar Rahay ho.
 
I can see reflection of Greame pollock in Umar amin, and umar amin has potential of being the classesiest left hander ever, supreme talent.
 
Brian Lara ?

No, unfortunately not.

I loved to watch Lara in full flow, but he was not even the best West Indian left-hander - Sobers was significantly better.

Lara's is a terrible story of supreme talent only partially fulfilled. When the mood took him he could be almost as good as Sobers with the bat - which made him half the player that Sobers was, given that Sobers was the world's third or fourth best fielder, second best left-arm quick, second best slow left-arm bowler and best Chinaman bowler too when he played.

Unfortunately Lara was not as good a professional as Sobers or Pollock in terms of professionalism and it costs him in terms of his legacy. In contrast, Sangakkara is greater than Lara even though he had less God-given talent, because as he showed at Wellington in January when he is out of form he will work like a maniac to correct his flaws and as a result his bad patches are few and far between and short.
 
I didn't see him, though I remember that even in his playing dotage he was making the test bowlers Lever, Old, Hendrick, Underwood and Emburey of the English SAB XI look rubbish.
 
Been watching Pollock's videos. His batting has peculiar charm that is difficult to put into words. His heavy bat combined with powerful arms and impeccable gift of timing; ball seems to fly from the bat to the fence when he nonchalantly flicks the willow. Must have been a very special player for sure; him and Barry (been watching Richards as well)
 
lmao at the guy who said Umar Amin is comparable to him
 
No, unfortunately not.

I loved to watch Lara in full flow, but he was not even the best West Indian left-hander - Sobers was significantly better.

Lara's is a terrible story of supreme talent only partially fulfilled. When the mood took him he could be almost as good as Sobers with the bat - which made him half the player that Sobers was, given that Sobers was the world's third or fourth best fielder, second best left-arm quick, second best slow left-arm bowler and best Chinaman bowler too when he played.

Unfortunately Lara was not as good a professional as Sobers or Pollock in terms of professionalism and it costs him in terms of his legacy. In contrast, Sangakkara is greater than Lara even though he had less God-given talent, because as he showed at Wellington in January when he is out of form he will work like a maniac to correct his flaws and as a result his bad patches are few and far between and short.

Do you genuinely believe Sanga is better than Lara or you have changed your opinion over these years?
 
No, unfortunately not.

I loved to watch Lara in full flow, but he was not even the best West Indian left-hander - Sobers was significantly better.

Lara's is a terrible story of supreme talent only partially fulfilled. When the mood took him he could be almost as good as Sobers with the bat - which made him half the player that Sobers was, given that Sobers was the world's third or fourth best fielder, second best left-arm quick, second best slow left-arm bowler and best Chinaman bowler too when he played.

Unfortunately Lara was not as good a professional as Sobers or Pollock in terms of professionalism and it costs him in terms of his legacy. In contrast, Sangakkara is greater than Lara even though he had less God-given talent, because as he showed at Wellington in January when he is out of form he will work like a maniac to correct his flaws and as a result his bad patches are few and far between and short.

Lol at Sanga being better than Lara.
 
Having watched Brian Lara's glorious 277 at Sydney against a mediocre Aussie attack in 92-93 and Kumar Sangakkara's fourth innings 192 at Hobart in 07-08, which would have won the Test but for an awful umpiring decision, this is what I think.

Lara had more God-given talent. But Sangakkara was more professional and had a vastly superior temperament, which made him a better batsman than Lara, let alone all-round keeper.

Sangakkara was a good keeper too. Aussies tend to think Gilchrist was the ATG Batsman-Keeper. He wasn't. Sangakkara was.
 
Having watched Brian Lara's glorious 277 at Sydney against a mediocre Aussie attack in 92-93 and Kumar Sangakkara's fourth innings 192 at Hobart in 07-08, which would have won the Test but for an awful umpiring decision, this is what I think.

Lara had more God-given talent. But Sangakkara was more professional and had a vastly superior temperament, which made him a better batsman than Lara, let alone all-round keeper.

Sangakkara was a good keeper too. Aussies tend to think Gilchrist was the ATG Batsman-Keeper. He wasn't. Sangakkara was.

I forgot to say, Sangakkara's 192 was against Johnson, Lee, Clark and MacGill.

A far stronger attack than Lara faced in his 277 against McDermott, Hughes literally on his last legs, a novice Warne and Greg Matthews.
 
South Africa played Test matches in the 80's?
We all know they did.

The Rest of the World Series in England and Australia in the early '70's were played as and recognised as Tests at the time.

The SuperTests in Australia and the West Indies in 77-79 were clearly superior to the so-called "official" Tests of that period, and indeed to any Tests in history.

The Rebel South African Tests v England, Australia and the West Indies of the 1980's were at least equal to official Tests. We all know that in reality South Africa, not Pakistan, was the world's second best Test team in the 1980's. The Rebel Sri Lanka series in 1982-83 is the only one which fell short of Test quality, but so too did official Sri Lanka Tests at that time.
 
I saw a lot of Barry Richards in county cricket and he was the greatest batsman that I have ever seen. The similarity between his Test and SuperTest stats, almost a decade apart,confirms this.

I never saw Pollock live. I saw "old" footage of his Tests and "new" video of him in the Rebel Tests, on his last legs. That footage was of whole innings, not just highlights.

I am fairly certain that he was the greatest left-hander of all-time. He didn't have the delicate touch of Barry Richards but he had fearsome power and hand speed allied to a great eye and frightening timing. Sort of half Chris Gayle added to half of Matthew Hayden but then with half of Adam Gilchrist added too!

You had to get him early in an innings or pay a terrible price. Because unlike Barry Richards, he didn't get bored and give away his wicket. But you could get him early because he didn't have the footwork of Richards.

He is a Test ATG but in T20 he would have been scary.

Never understood your love affair with everything that was born/created before 1970 despite me refuting your views a few times .... but maybe you will answer this ...

Can you tell me what is soooo great about Barry Richards batting in this clip (which is supposed to be his best inngs) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjA9vI-i18

Please explain in terms of technique style and quality of bowling. And NOT he said-she said accounts from "sources".

And pretty sure you never saw that inngs as you would have been 2 yrs old at that time.
 
No, he wasn't.

I saw him demolish Derek Underwood at The Wanderers in 1982.

He just clubbed him around the park. In a Test match.

Underwood wasn't a big turner of ball. His strength relied on accuracy that came handy on rainy wickets
 
Never understood your love affair with everything that was born/created before 1970 despite me refuting your views a few times .... but maybe you will answer this ...

Can you tell me what is soooo great about Barry Richards batting in this clip (which is supposed to be his best inngs) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjA9vI-i18

Please explain in terms of technique style and quality of bowling. And NOT he said-she said accounts from "sources".

And pretty sure you never saw that inngs as you would have been 2 yrs old at that time.
I was 1 actually, and living in England!

But I watched Barry Richards for dozens of hours in England, when the County Championship hoarded the world's best players like the IPL today.

I saw Richards bat against Bedi and Underwood, the world's best spinners. And Intikhab Alam, the world's best leggie. And I saw him bat against Hadlee, Garner, Procter and Imran.

It's hard to explain just how strong county cricket was. Hampshire's opening batsmen were Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge, so unquestionably the best opening pair in the history of cricket. Their opening bowler was Sir Andy Roberts, who from 1976-79 was the fastest bowler in the world, and far more skilled than Thommo who had been the fastest before him.
 
I was 1 actually, and living in England!

But I watched Barry Richards for dozens of hours in England, when the County Championship hoarded the world's best players like the IPL today.

I saw Richards bat against Bedi and Underwood, the world's best spinners. And Intikhab Alam, the world's best leggie. And I saw him bat against Hadlee, Garner, Procter and Imran.

It's hard to explain just how strong county cricket was. Hampshire's opening batsmen were Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge, so unquestionably the best opening pair in the history of cricket. Their opening bowler was Sir Andy Roberts, who from 1976-79 was the fastest bowler in the world, and far more skilled than Thommo who had been the fastest before him.

Its all great to claim these things but hate to sound like a broken record .... whats written does not match up to what I see. It just isnt even close. Horrible footwork , horrible bowling actions non-existant fielding. Thats why I asked you to comment on the video footage that I linked ... here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjA9vI-i18
 
Never understood your love affair with everything that was born/created before 1970 despite me refuting your views a few times .... but maybe you will answer this ...

Can you tell me what is soooo great about Barry Richards batting in this clip (which is supposed to be his best inngs) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjA9vI-i18

Please explain in terms of technique style and quality of bowling. And NOT he said-she said accounts from "sources".

And pretty sure you never saw that inngs as you would have been 2 yrs old at that time.

Its all great to claim these things but hate to sound like a broken record .... whats written does not match up to what I see. It just isnt even close. Horrible footwork , horrible bowling actions non-existant fielding. Thats why I asked you to comment on the video footage that I linked ... here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjA9vI-i18

Am I missing something?

I can see an attack containing Australia's GOAT fast bowler, plus the-then Australian all-time record pace bowling Test wicket-taker, plus a notorious left-arm chucker from England who was like a leftie version of Murali.

It's an excellent attack - better than any current Test attack - getting taken to the cleaners on a quick, bouncy track by a batsman with a lovely classical technique, quick hands and a great eye.

This isn't like the Hobbs video or even the Tyson video. This is an ATG attack against the GOAT opening batsman.
 
Having watched Brian Lara's glorious 277 at Sydney against a mediocre Aussie attack in 92-93 and Kumar Sangakkara's fourth innings 192 at Hobart in 07-08, which would have won the Test but for an awful umpiring decision, this is what I think.

Lara had more God-given talent. But Sangakkara was more professional and had a vastly superior temperament, which made him a better batsman than Lara, let alone all-round keeper.

Sangakkara was a good keeper too. Aussies tend to think Gilchrist was the ATG Batsman-Keeper. He wasn't. Sangakkara was.


So your judging both of one innings LOL?

Sangakkara had a brilliant tempremeant but he wasn't as destructive as Lara so it works both ways.

Gilly and Sanga are both atgs for me.
 
So your judging both of one innings LOL?

Sangakkara had a brilliant tempremeant but he wasn't as destructive as Lara so it works both ways.

Gilly and Sanga are both atgs for me.
Lara is an ATG too.

He just always left me feeling disappointed a bit like Tendulkar. Lara and Tendulkar are two batsmen who failed to improve on how good they were after three years of their careers because they had mediocre brains and inferior temperaments.

Whereas Sangakkara had less natural talent but is smarter, has a much better temperament and became a significantly better cricketer than both Lara or Tendulkar.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something?

I can see an attack containing Australia's GOAT fast bowler, plus the-then Australian all-time record pace bowling Test wicket-taker, plus a notorious left-arm chucker from England who was like a leftie version of Murali.

It's an excellent attack - better than any current Test attack - getting taken to the cleaners on a quick, bouncy track by a batsman with a lovely classical technique, quick hands and a great eye.

This isn't like the Hobbs video or even the Tyson video. This is an ATG attack against the GOAT opening batsman.

Again ... you are just name dropping. Take away the big names and look at them as John Doe bowlers and see if you can still call that as quality bowling. I see no speed at all in any of the bowlers nor spin. So why is this considered top quality cricket ?

Next point to substantiate would be Barry's batting technique. I see very little footwork.
 
Lara is an ATG too.

He just always left me feeling disappointed a bit like Tendulkar. Lara and Tendulkar are two batsmen who failed to improve on how good they were after three years of their careers because they had mediocre brains and inferior temperaments.

Whereas Sangakkara had less natural talent but is smarter, has a much better temperament and became a significantly better cricketer than both Lara or Tendulkar.


Sangakkara is one of my all time favourites but saying he is better than Sachin and Lara is something which i don't agree with at all. Sangakkara cemented atg status towards the end of his career. Lara and Sachin were dominating bowling attacks whilst they were still young and they were carrying there batting line ups.

Tempremeant isn't the only way to judge a batsmen.
 
Lara is an ATG too.

He just always left me feeling disappointed a bit like Tendulkar. Lara and Tendulkar are two batsmen who failed to improve on how good they were after three years of their careers because they had mediocre brains and inferior temperaments.

Whereas Sangakkara had less natural talent but is smarter, has a much better temperament and became a significantly better cricketer than both Lara or Tendulkar.

You just keep saying that ... and never substantiate that ... I have countered your claim through this (again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzpDddFEb2Y

If anything Tendulkar was criticized for over analyzing instead of just relying his skills.
 
So your judging both of one innings LOL?

Sangakkara had a brilliant tempremeant but he wasn't as destructive as Lara so it works both ways.

Gilly and Sanga are both atgs for me.

Sangakkara is one of my all time favourites but saying he is better than Sachin and Lara is something which i don't agree with at all. Sangakkara cemented atg status towards the end of his career. Lara and Sachin were dominating bowling attacks whilst they were still young and they were carrying there batting line ups.

Tempremeant isn't the only way to judge a batsmen.
Ultimately, neither Lara nor Tendulkar managed to demonstrate that they were better than one another, let alone Kallis as a pure batsman and Ponting. Or Dravid. Or Sangakkara as a pure batsman.

Whereas Sangakkara and Gilchrist are clearly the greatest two batsmen-keepers of all time, and TBH Sangakkara has a markedly better Test record than Gilly does. Alan Knott and Rod Marsh and Jeff Dujon are boyhood heroes of mine, but I'm the first to admit that Sangakkara was streets ahead of them!
 
You just keep saying that ... and never substantiate that ... I have countered your claim through this (again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzpDddFEb2Y

If anything Tendulkar was criticized for over analyzing instead of just relying his skills.

How so?

Tendulkar had clearly already plateau'd by 1993, and the remaining 19 years of his career was just Groundhog Day.

He never developed the temperament or the skills to bat out the fifth day to save a Test that ended up being lost.

You know as well as I do that before the Final Day of the Third Test between NZ and SA was washed out a couple of weeks ago, FAF du Plessis had set himself to bat all day to save the game.

Right from his debut at Adelaide, FAF had the intelligence, calmness and cool under pressure to do that.

Sachin Tendulkar went on and on and on, but never developed the ability to do that. He has the powers of analysis of Shahid Afridi.

It's quite ironic in this thread. Graeme Pollock could, but only if he didn't get out early not moving his feet.

Barry Richards could if he felt he was in a contest, but if it was too easy he just got bored and challenged himself to play silly shots.
 
How so?

Tendulkar had clearly already plateau'd by 1993, and the remaining 19 years of his career was just Groundhog Day.

He never developed the temperament or the skills to bat out the fifth day to save a Test that ended up being lost.

Remains the ONLY player that has made 2 hundreds on day 5 of a Test in India
Remains the ONLY player to have made a 100 in first 3 Tours of Eng,Aus,SA ( First set as a Teen )
First Hundred was a match saving 100 at Old Trafford on Day-5.

(IN B4 the excuses start coming in to write off these)


Barry Richards could if he felt he was in a contest, but if it was too easy he just got bored and challenged himself to play silly shots


Again where is the bowling quality ? See my response in Post#36 (above)
 
Remains the ONLY player that has made 2 hundreds on day 5 of a Test in India
Remains the ONLY player to have made a 100 in first 3 Tours of Eng,Aus,SA ( First set as a Teen )
First Hundred was a match saving 100 at Old Trafford on Day-5.

(IN B4 the excuses start coming in to write off these)





Again where is the bowling quality ? See my response in Post#36 (above)
With respect, you are making my point for me!

Tendulkar's greatness was already complete as a boy. But he didn't get better as a man. He hadn't got the brains to fix his relative weaknesses.

All that happened was that his total inability to save losing causes in the fourth innings went from being a sneaking suspicion (in Bradman's lifetime) to being a point proven more times than by any other batsman in history.
 
I would rate neither Sanga nor ABDV as keeper batsmen since they didn't do it for more than half of their games. Their comparison with Gilly is out of question
 
With respect, you are making my point for me!

Tendulkar's greatness was already complete as a boy. But he didn't get better as a man. He hadn't got the brains to fix his relative weaknesses.

All that happened was that his total inability to save losing causes in the fourth innings went from being a sneaking suspicion (in Bradman's lifetime) to being a point proven more times than by any other batsman in history.

Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Lara all have poor 4th innings stats

Gavaskar has to be among GOAT according to your criteria then
 
With respect, you are making my point for me!

well you probably dont realize that between the time he made that first 100 at Old Trafford to the time he made the 5th day hundred against Swann , Flintoff , Anderson and Co there is a small matter of 18 yrs.

You also conveniently ignore many many great inngs but it doesnt surprise me at all.


Now back to the main question I had - Barry Richards. Could you please respond to Post#36 ?
 
These guys are bowling as fast as they can, yet are reaching the pace of your average domestic bowler.

Even the supposed fastest bowler of all time is reaching a pace that nearly any current bowler can reach with minimal effort.

Shows the supposed quality of these prehistoric greats.
 
I have only watched his batting clips but boy was he a timer of the ball. Easily the best left handed batsman I have ever watched. Will be in my all time XI.
 
Back
Top