Mark Richardson

[flanflinger]

Bit of a debate going on about Mark Richardson going on only the England forum - http://www.world-a-team.com/showthre...3943#post93943

Just thought I would start a poll simple question, was Mark Richardson one of the greatest Test openers of his generation, or was he an average batter who made the most of his limited ability?

I do admire Mark Richardson for what he did, but I would not call him one of Test Cricket's greats, particularly as he did not even get past 3000 Test runs and only scored 4 Test Match centuries - although he did have a good average - 44.

So what are your thoughts?

[Rachael]

Who, exactly, is Mark Richardson up against in this discussion? In terms of attritional openers... it's basically Atherton... Langer.. and that's about it - it's not exactly BEEN a great generation for genuine openers!

Is Richardson really unworthy of comparison with that pair?

If you rate flat track bullies like Sehwag, Gayle and Jayasuria as something more than overgrown pinch hitters then you widen the pool.... but Richardson surely eclipsed THAT trio!

Standing out as a great middle order batsmen in this generation has been tough: the standard set by Lara amd Tendulkar is such that even Steve Waugh, Kirsten, Ponting, Inzi, Dravid and Kallis have played second fiddle... but list they greats of this generation and how many are openers you'd be prepared to see bat for your life?

As I noted in the original thread... his final 6 innings (including 2 in Bangladesh) yielded <91 runs in total at 15.16... but aside from that one blemish his record pretty much speaks for itself....

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
        To Summer 2004       34   59   3  2685 145  143  106   47.94   4  19   1
        
        v Australia            3    5   0   152  57   30   30   30.40   0   1   0
        v Bangladesh           2    2   0   226 143   83    -  113.00   1   1   0
        v England              6   12   0   541 101   93   76   45.08   1   4   0
        v India                4    7   1   316 145   89   28   52.66   1   1   0
        v Pakistan             6   11   1   507 106   82   73*  50.70   1   3   0
        v South Africa         6   10   0   342  77   60   46   34.20   0   2   0
        v Sri Lanka            2    4   1   201  85   55   55   67.00   0   3   0
        v West Indies          2    4   0   207  95   71   41   51.75   0   2   1
        v Zimbabwe             3    4   0   193  99   75   13   48.25   0   2   0
        
        home                  16   27   2  1194 143  106   89   47.76   2   8   0
        away                  18   32   1  1491 145  101   99   48.09   2  11   1
        
        season 2000/01         9   14   1   710 106   99   77   54.61   1   6   0
        season 2001/02         8   13   0   550 143   83   76   42.30   1   4   0
        season 2002            3    6   0   247  95   71   41   41.16   0   2   1
        season 2002/03         2    4   1   144  89   28   14*  48.00   0   1   0
        season 2003            2    4   1   201  85   55   55   67.00   0   3   0
        season 2003/04         7   12   0   464 145   82   45   38.66   1   1   0
        season 2004            3    6   0   369 101   93   73   61.50   1   2   0
        
        toss won              20   34   2  1731 145  106  101   54.09   3  14   0
 toss lost 14 25 1 954 143 95 77 39.75 1 5 1

[Jonny88]

Mark Richardson was a very complete batsmen, he was a steady rock at the start of NZ innings. He helped their innings get of to a good start and allowed players like Fleming and Astle to come in with a good base and show how they can play. OK, he wasn't the most expolsive batsmen ever but he did a job for his country and in my eyes very well. Another thing he helped do was frustrate the bowling side as he was so hard to get out.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Jonny88

Mark Richardson was a very complete batsmen

There's no way you can say he was 'complete'. That's suggests he had it all - solid defence, all-round attacking strokes, concentration, shot selection etc. It's pretty clear that Richardson had limitations. However, he was very good at playing in such a way that his limitations had minimal impact on his batting. He knew his own game and stuck to it, making him far more successful than many batsmen of similar ability.

[Lemming]

Mongoose is right. Richardson was far from complete. His main shot was the forward defensive, occasionally he would push through and turn it into a cover drive. He was a brilliant leaver, an obvious skill to have by any top batsman. He could judge the width beautifully and be in complete control, even with the ball extremely close to his stumps. It is his leaving ability that helped him build long innings. He was very poor against the short ball, but often had the ability to not play with his bat, this of course meant he had to take a few blows to the body/head. Well, you can't make an omlette....

A good player, very interesting. He could concentrate and had a tremendous amount of patience and discipline but I think his career was very hard work for him. He pretty much admitted that, after his Lords century, he was spent. He retired soon after.

A nice guy, an excellent cricketer, a credit to cricket, but a limited player and somewhat an over-acheiver I feel.

A great player? No chance. A guy you'd want on your side? Yeah!, why not?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

A great player? No chance. A guy you'd want on your side? Yeah!, why not?

I quite agree if you mean "does he merit comparison with such complete batsmen as Bradman, Hutton, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting"... but Flanflinger has rather skewed his poll in the phrasing... and what's really being asked is whether he belongs alongside the best openers of his generation.

So... instead of comparing him with Bradman and Lara we need to compare him with the likes of Atherton, Langer, Smith and Trescothick: whilst he may have "overachieved"... I don't see a problem rating him alongside those guys.

Let's face it... Gooch "overachieved" in the sense of managing, through sheer hard work, to contribute hugely more than many more talented players and yet if you looked post Hutton..... he'd be a front runner to bat alongside Boycott in a fantasy England XI!!!

[greg]

He was not great to watch but England could do with a player like him between Pietersen and Flintoff right now.

[Jonny88]

I agree with you Mongoose, but I meant that he had the shots to score runs as well as defend but he focused his batting on defence to support his team. He did not have many shots, but he did have some and as Lemming pointed out he played to his strengths and minized his limitations.

[sittingduck]

I think he had three shots, if my memory serves me correctly.

Four if you include the duck and periscope to the shorter balls.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

he'd be a front runner to bat alongside Boycott in a fantasy England XI!!!

Not my fantasy XI, maybe a knightmare XI, or a potential to bore you to death XI...