But in full flow is a bit of a loaded term, no? I am not disputing if Richards was the best to look at, or the most destructive 'when in full flow', but that does not make him better.
Really, the amount of the runs you score, where you score them, and who you score them against make you a batsman. How fast you score them, or how you look while doing it, is really not a concern for me.
mmm...well over about 11 years from 1975 to 1986, vs the likes of Botham, Imran, Hadlee, Willis,Lillee,Thomson, Abdul qadir, Underwood,Bedi, Chandrasekhar,Venkat, Dev, Pringle...erm...forget Pringle
....Richards averaged over 56, and for the first half of that period, he averaged about 67ish. No-one came close for so long in that era.
But for me it isnt always about sheer volume of runs. Richards was basically undismissable a lot of the time. What frustrated me a lot of the time was that it appeared like boredom or a sense of 'job done' took over with Richards, and he allowed himself to get out. What Richards did was destroy opposition. In the late 70s, early 80s there were two batsmen in world cricket that could do that. Richards and Botham. When you destroy the opposition, you gain huge advantages in games, even if you don't always get the huge runs.
Of course, the shots Richards played just added to the spectacle.
Give me the player who averages 50 and bats like Richards, over the player who averages 55 and bats like Boycott every single day of the week, because you will win more games, and that is what it is about
