Richardson, however, was a solid 'keeper and a fairly reliable batsman who played for South Africa between 1991-1998.
But for the years of South Africa's isolation, Richardson's international career would have been much longer. He's 56.
Richardson spoke to The Telegraph in Mumbai a couple of days ago.
Excerpts...
Q You grew up watching two of the all-time great batsmen - Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards... Did you actually get to play against them?
A In fact, I played with and against Pollock, for he'd been in first-class cricket till 43... As for Barry, I only played against him at the end of his career, at the provincial level... I remember Pollock got a hundred in his last 'Test,' which was a rebel series against Australia, I think. I myself played in that 'Test,' which was in the mid Eighties.
Given that you played against both legends, what was special about Pollock and Barry? In India, we only read about their exploits...
Pollock and Barry were completely different in their approach to the game. Their respective style, too, was very different.
How?
Pollock, a left-hander, was majestic, yet could be savage in the way he took on bowlers. I can't forget his cover drives... They'd be screaming cover drives, quite like Sourav Ganguly in the latter part of the 1990s. Then, if the ball was pitched short, he'd pull with impunity. Tall and powerfully built, he'd dominate bowlers. Pollock was my boyhood hero, for I grew up in the same city as him - Port Elizabeth. As a kid, I would watch Pollock almost every weekend, either turning out for his province or his club.
Barry?
I didn't get to see much of Barry, didn't see his best years. However, he was technically very correct... There wasn't a flaw. An orthodox right-hander... Barry was always side-on, never got squared up. The way he launched into cover drives, the way he hooked, the way he square-cut... Almost perfect. Even the straight drives... The one quality which really stood out was that he had so much time. Barry didn't have to slog, for he'd take an attack apart through pure cricket shots. You could say he had no reason to slog.
After South Africa got readmitted into the International Cricket Council, you played against the more recent greats - Steve Waugh, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara. Of the three, who stood out and why?
Well, during the time I played, Sachin and Lara were generally regarded as the greatest of their time. Both, of course, had a similarity: On their day, you just couldn't bowl to them. I recall Sachin had an outstanding hundred in Cape Town (169 in 1996-97), we couldn't bowl to him. Equally, if Lara caught you on his good day, you had it... Would turn out to be a very bad day for you. Having said that, as South Africa had seam bowlers and conditions at home suited to their type of bowling, we always had a chance against both Sachin and Lara. So, they were brilliant. Both of them.
Steve?
Of the three top-class batsmen you've mentioned, Steve was the most difficult to get out... He was more in the Jacques Kallis mould and if you wanted somebody to bat for your life, you'd probably go for Steve. He got runs most of the time and was supremely determined.
What if entertainment was your priority?
Then I'd go for either Lara or Sachin.
If you could choose only one, who would you pitch for?
That's tough... If it was his day, I'd go for Lara.
Why?
Because left-handers like Lara have an advantage. There's more elegance, more flamboyance... Left-handers have that plus vis-a-vis right-handed batsmen... But I'd like to add that if Sachin was in the mood and his bat seemed six feet wide, then you'd love to watch him. He'd be special in that innings... If you had a son, you could tell him 'watch Sachin Tendulkar bat'... When forward, he'd get really forward, get to the pitch of the ball... The bat would be perfectly down the line.
Anybody else outside the three we've talked about?
Mohammed Azharuddin had some very fine knocks... I remember Kapil Dev, more as an all-rounder, though... Alec Stewart... Ricky Ponting much later... I'm sure I've missed out some names.
In the present times, you've watched Virat Kohli. Where would you place him?
Right now, Kohli's the best in his generation. He's got all the shots and, for a modern-day batsman, is incredibly fit. Kohli has that aggressive streak in him, which makes him a tremendous competitor. I didn't watch the Colin Cowdreys and the Peter Mays bat, but I imagine they'd be more gentle, more docile than Kohli. His USP: Incredible range of shots and determination of the highest order. Kohli's quite a unique talent.
Virat could get better...
I'm sure Kohli will get better... Relatively speaking, he's still young (27). Of course, there will be times when he won't get many runs, but should be able to get over those phases.
In fact, Virat struggled in England on the last tour, in 2014...
The next time Kohli goes to England, he'll be that much more determined to set that right. I assume he'd be keen to taste success in all countries.
AB de Villiers, Steve Smith and Joe Root also enjoy high ratings...
AB isn't as orthodox as Smith and Root.. He's just an amazing talent... Root is more in the Barry mould, much more correct than AB... For that one reason, he's likely to be more consistent in all conditions. Root's a tremendous batsman... Smith fidgets a lot at the crease and so, in that sense, is rather unorthodox. I think his determination is not dissimilar to Kohli's. Two-three years ago, some thought Smith would never be a great, but his determination is that of a fighter and combined with good hand-eye coordination puts him in the top bracket.
I forgot Kane Williamson...
Yes, we forgot about Williamson, who has been the find for New Zealand in recent times. What I like most about him is that he plays pure cricket shots, even in the T20 format... Like Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara, Williamson can overcome an asking rate of 9-10 an over with the help of good shots, not a slog... There are batsmen who go for the slog-sweep and play across the line, but the more consistent ones would be those who don't resort to slogging.
Now, for some questions outside the top batsmen... Your thoughts on this World T20...
Generally, the cricket has been interesting... Bangladesh and Afghanistan performed well, so that's been somewhat unique. Bangladesh, for example, could have beaten India (in Bangalore)... Except for one or two pitches which haven't been great for a T20 spectacle, most have provided for interesting cricket... Teams with really talented batsmen have come out on top... We wouldn't like all pitches to be like they are in Australia and in South Africa and it's nice to have pitches with a character of their own... Spinners have played a significant role, which is good. Not too long ago many suggested spinners would have no role in this format. That talk has been buried.
Shouldn't Afghanistan be encouraged a lot more by the ICC? They upset the West Indies and certainly have talent...
Yes... Afghanistan and Ireland are in the ODI FTP and so would get to regularly play against (the 10) Full Members. We're looking to create a fund to help subsidise those series... That would have to be done as they wouldn't be economically viable. Both will get opportunities for more cricket, 50 overs and in the T20 format.
Finally... When did you last visit Calcutta?
(Grins) A long time back... Two decades ago, for that 1996-97 Test which we won rather handsomely. Eden Gardens will always stay special as I made my South Africa debut there in November 1991. What an atmosphere.