Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[archie mac]

You're too young to have seen Richards live aren't you? Highlights don't really tell the whole picture. Lara, even when 200+, always looks like a cat on a hot tin roof. Viv is laconic and always in control, even when he's belted a few 6's in a roll. I only saw Viv live towards the end (1989-1991) but they're two totally different players.

He does not like it when you mention he did not watch Viv Or Lillee

 

[Richard]

You're too young to have seen Richards live aren't you? Highlights don't really tell the whole picture. Lara, even when 200+, always looks like a cat on a hot tin roof. Viv is laconic and always in control, even when he's belted a few 6's in a roll. I only saw Viv live towards the end (1989-1991) but they're two totally different players.

Lara might look like that to some eyes, but for mine you can tell easily when he's in control. The jump and the awkward stance, the late jab down, never went away. But I don't let it deceive me. Lara was as difficult to get out when he was "in" as anyone has ever been.

Either way, that doesn't really relate to the level of aggression in them. Richards always gave off the air of the desire to play more strokes than Lara did. That's not to say Richards was incapable of assessing, just that Lara did it better than he did.

He does not like it when you mention he did not watch Viv Or Lillee

No, it doesn't bother me at all. It's the way it is. I don't feel it prevents me from assessing them, in the slightest.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, it doesn't bother me at all. It's the way it is. I don't feel it prevents me from assessing them, in the slightest.

This is the thing, though; it should. If you want to conduct a scientific analysis of anything, you have to have seen it with your very own eyes as well as having seen the raw data. There is no such thing as a complete data set and that's the same thing in science, statistics, etc. Your analysis/interpretation of Viv is by no means invalid because the stats do tell a story but it is, necessarily, incomplete if you didn't see him bat live. For example, many of those who never saw Viv bat live often believe the hype that he didn't have a good defensive game which is total rubbish.

 

[Richard]

I don't, though. Many people who didn't see Richards bat live don't understand the aura, the presence, the intimidation, etc. I do, very much so. I've seen it in other players, if not over the length of time and to the extent that it was seen in Richards.

I've never, however, been one to base a terribly large amount on this. This is evident in my judgements both of players I have seen live a great many times and those I haven't.

I've read plenty from those who've watched Richards (much of it of a patronising nature) and fully understand precisely what it was that, to their minds, made him so special. I just disagree with the idea.

 

[social]

(though one could argue that in scoring his 375s and 400*s Lara's best trumped even Richards' best. .

Aside from being world records, these were 2 relatively meaningless innings on flat tracks that did nothing more than ensure that no side was capable of achieving victory - not a good example I'm afraid as Richards enerally put the team first

 

[aussie]

Actually, I tend to lean towards Viv against Warne. Viv was a fine player of spin bowling, and loved to dominate from the start. Warne faced that before in Lara, Tendulkar, Sidhu and Peitersen, and usually came out second best.

Tendulkar & Sidhu for sure. Lara & Pietersen its even for me since they where days when Lara & KP dominated him & Warne got them out cheaply as well.

Warne's biggest strength is his ability to psyche out the opposition, and I don't see Viv letting Warne dictate the terms. Plus, Warne's record against West Indies of the 90s isn't all that impressive, so I don't think he'll be able to rip through the 80s side with much frequency as people suggest.

Hate when people bring this up, its as if they don't watch cricket (no offense to you of course yo). When looking at Warne's record vs WI in the 90's his series in 99 should be overlooked given he was injured & wasn't anywhere near his best, but at his best vs in 95 & 96/97 he did very well.

Going back to the point though Warne vs Richards i think Viv might come out victories deep down but if Warne got a turning pitch i'd back him to win.

 

[aussie]

I don't, though. Many people who didn't see Richards bat live don't understand the aura, the presence, the intimidation, etc. I do, very much so. I've seen it in other players, if not over the length of time and to the extent that it was seen in Richards.
I've never, however, been one to base a terribly large amount on this. This is evident in my judgements both of players I have seen live a great many times and those I haven't.

I've read plenty from those who've watched Richards (much of it of a patronising nature) and fully understand precisely what it was that, to their minds, made him so special. I just disagree with the idea.

After reading this entire thread including your views on Richard with your typical selective stats garbage you must be in dreamland to think that you do son..

 

[Richard]

 

[Richard]

Aside from being world records, these were 2 relatively meaningless innings on flat tracks that did nothing more than ensure that no side was capable of achieving victory - not a good example I'm afraid as Richards enerally put the team first

I'm more than sick of proving pure idiocy like that viewpoint of said Lara innings wrong, so I'm not going to bother again.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm more than sick of proving pure idiocy like that viewpoint of said Lara innings wrong, so I'm not going to bother again.

Proving it wrong and giving a different view point which no one else agrees with are not the same thing.

 

[social]

I'm more than sick of proving pure idiocy like that viewpoint of said Lara innings wrong, so I'm not going to bother again.

Thank God, we can only hope that you adopt a similar policy with some of your other theories

 

[Goughy]

Thank God, we can only hope that you adopt a similar policy with some of your other theories

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, his peaks lasting a whole 15 and 10 Tests... fantastic. In his other 79 Tests (and his last 17 which aren't really terribly relevant) he was eminently bowlable-to, and good bowlers could and did get him out cheaply often enough.

Rich, the removal of Viv's phenomenal Tests to make your point is all well and good, but you have to see the counter-argument too - ie removing his particularly poor matches to show things the other way.

You say that the "real Viv" was his first 104 Tests. Fair enough - in this period of time he made 7,714 runs at 52.84. A very, very fine record, but tarnished you say by the fact that if you remove his 25 extraordinary matches then he averaged low-40s in his other 79. No argument there, what you say is statistically true, even if I don't agree necessarily with the assertions you make from it.

However, shortly after his second amazing peak of 15 Tests, Richards had a bad run, due in part to an eye complaint, exhaustion and simple loss of form. In a 16 Test period from late 1981 to early 1984 he made just 771 runs at 33.52.

Here's where the argument works the other way - if you take away that very poor 16 Test run (which to me is no less legitimate than excluding his 25 force-of-nature matches), then the other 88 Tests of the "real Viv's" career produced 6,943 runs at an average of 56.44 - which is absolutely superb by any standards throughout cricket history.

I feel dirty now. I've just gotten into an argument over Viv using stats. I'll be analysing Trumper's numbers next...

 

[Matt79]

Sean - stop right there and go read Pasag's sig before you go near Trumper with your Statsguru and calculator!

 

[The Sean]

Well if anyone asks I'll maintain I was arguing the principle, not the stats.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar & Sidhu for sure. Lara & Pietersen its even for me since they where days when Lara & KP dominated him & Warne got them out cheaply as well.

Lara has three double tons against Warne each at different stages of Warne's career, which says something, though his inconsistency is such that he has quite a few low scores as well. Overall though, Lara seemed generally at ease against Warne and rarely did I see him troubled when in form. Pietersen also has an ever so slight edge over Warne in their battles.

I rate a victory not just by how many runs or wickets, but by who seems to be in charge when at the crease.

Hate when people bring this up, its as if they don't watch cricket (no offense to you of course yo). When looking at Warne's record vs WI in the 90's his series in 99 should be overlooked given he was injured & wasn't anywhere near his best, but at his best vs in 95 & 96/97 he did very well. .

You're right, 99 wasn't really Warne in his prime. Though before that, he only 47 wickets in 13 matches at 28, good but hardly enough to suggest he would rip through the stronger 80s side like tissue paper. I would back him on a spinning wicket though.

 

[Richard]

Thank God, we can only hope that you adopt a similar policy with some of your other theories

Nonetheless, as I said a fair while ago now, I do make an effort to cut the repetetiveness.

 

[Richard]

Rich, the removal of Viv's phenomenal Tests to make your point is all well and good, but you have to see the counter-argument too - ie removing his particularly poor matches to show things the other way.

You say that the "real Viv" was his first 104 Tests. Fair enough - in this period of time he made 7,714 runs at 52.84. A very, very fine record, but tarnished you say by the fact that if you remove his 25 extraordinary matches then he averaged low-40s in his other 79. No argument there, what you say is statistically true, even if I don't agree necessarily with the assertions you make from it.

However, shortly after his second amazing peak of 15 Tests, Richards had a bad run, due in part to an eye complaint, exhaustion and simple loss of form. In a 16 Test period from late 1981 to early 1984 he made just 771 runs at 33.52.

Here's where the argument works the other way - if you take away that very poor 16 Test run (which to me is no less legitimate than excluding his 25 force-of-nature matches), then the other 88 Tests of the "real Viv's" career produced 6,943 runs at an average of 56.44 - which is absolutely superb by any standards throughout cricket history.

Fair enough removing that bit I suppose, especially if he had some sort of eye complaint (not something I've heard before). As I said, though - I don't feel any Richards argument is complete without treating those peak periods as separate. You can get rid of these times when the eye infection (surely it didn't last 3 years?) caused problems, sure, but there's no way you can do that and include the stupidly sensational peak periods.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Thank God, we can only hope that you adopt a similar policy with some of your other theories

 

[nato]

I was reading through the pages, but i think on page 14 an argument broke out and so i just skipped to the end. I wanted to say 1 thing about Viv Richards.

Imagine if he was using some of the bats that these guys use today. How many 6's would he have hit? I think Gilchrist took him over not long ago. Now consider even if Richards was using a 3lbs railway sleeper....the bat would of been nothing even close to what Gilchrist would of been using in his career.

Personally, i wish we could give him some good eyes back and some reflexes, and he could boost the West Indian batting. Imagine him and Lara going off at the same time?