Richards The Perfectionist - A Genius of His Generation - Imran Khan

[open365]

I think the argument can sometimes get a bit lost as too whether the question is who had the most ability as opposed to who was the 'better' player.

For instance, Richards is probably one of if not thee most 'talented' players i've ever seen. Being talented in my book is things like reflexes and the ability to play a wide and varied range of shots to each type of delivery.

For example, Richards has (or at least has shown to have) the ability to hit shots that Rahul Dravid can't on a regular basis. He also had reflexes so quick that he wasn't troubled by the short ball giving the bowler no margin for error.

Dravid, on the other hand, is also an extremly talented player who has the ability and technique to play great defensive innings. He generaly will score slower and play less shots than Richards.

Dravid ends up scoring an average 7 more runs per innings than Richards did, however, Richards (imo and many other people's) had the more ability of the two because he was more naturaly gifted and could play shots Dravid can't. You could argue that Dravid has the ability to bat for longer periods of time than Richards, which is true and a great assest to have, but imo that has more to do with temprement than talent.

 

[Richard]

And temperament, basically, is a talent. You can't teach it.

People tend to have a somewhat narrow view of what talent is. C_C, in one of his better pieces of phrasemaking, once said "people tend to think of talents only as physical talent, and ignore the mental talent".

Rahul Dravid's ability to score runs is actually pretty much roughly equal to Richards', really, IMO, all things considered. But the two are totally different players, and to say that Richards was better just because he was more dominant is, to me, a fallacy.

 

[Swervy]

And temperament, basically, is a talent. You can't teach it.

People tend to have a somewhat narrow view of what talent is. C_C, in one of his better pieces of phrasemaking, once said "people tend to think of talents only as physical talent, and ignore the mental talent".

Rahul Dravid's ability to score runs is actually pretty much roughly equal to Richards', really, IMO, all things considered. But the two are totally different players, and to say that Richards was better just because he was more dominant is, to me, a fallacy.

I would say Richards was a better bat than Dravid, not because he was more dominant, just simply because I think he was better....and I wouldnt be able to really explain why. But that is one of the great things about cricket.

Some things you cannot put your finger on. Batting can be one of them. I think though, you only have to watch certain players play, and you spot it. Its that thing that you see in a player like Richards, which in his case is probably one in every 30 years maybe, where youknow instinctivly that he has that touch of greatness, in the true sense of the word, about him. A player like Dravid doesnt. Thats the real difference. And its not something you can really measure unfortunately...or maybe fortunately infact. If you could truely measure it, we wouldnt really have the need for discussion about who is the best etc, which fuels probably most of the cricket conversations around the world.

 

[Swervy]

I think the argument can sometimes get a bit lost as too whether the question is who had the most ability as opposed to who was the 'better' player.

For instance, Richards is probably one of if not thee most 'talented' players i've ever seen. Being talented in my book is things like reflexes and the ability to play a wide and varied range of shots to each type of delivery.

For example, Richards has (or at least has shown to have) the ability to hit shots that Rahul Dravid can't on a regular basis. He also had reflexes so quick that he wasn't troubled by the short ball giving the bowler no margin for error.

Dravid, on the other hand, is also an extremly talented player who has the ability and technique to play great defensive innings. He generaly will score slower and play less shots than Richards.

Dravid ends up scoring an average 7 more runs per innings than Richards did, however, Richards (imo and many other people's) had the more ability of the two because he was more naturaly gifted and could play shots Dravid can't. You could argue that Dravid has the ability to bat for longer periods of time than Richards, which is true and a great assest to have, but imo that has more to do with temprement than talent.

also you have to remember that Dravid and Richards had completely different roles within completely different types of teams. You just cant compare the two.

Although, there is little doubt in my mind that Richards is one or two divisions ahead of Dravid in the batting stakes. (and that is not to disrespect Dravid )

 

[open365]

And temperament, basically, is a talent. You can't teach it.

People tend to have a somewhat narrow view of what talent is. C_C, in one of his better pieces of phrasemaking, once said "people tend to think of talents only as physical talent, and ignore the mental talent".

Rahul Dravid's ability to score runs is actually pretty much roughly equal to Richards', really, IMO, all things considered. But the two are totally different players, and to say that Richards was better just because he was more dominant is, to me, a fallacy.

Of course you can teach temprement, it's a thought process, and thought processes can be altered.

 

[Swervy]

Of course you can teach temprement, it's a thought process, and thought processes can be altered.

its is quite true...a player can be 'taught' about how to play in a way which fits in with a role within the team etc, methods of being aware of responsibility etc. Part of any coaching process.

Richard lives in a very black and white world. Because he has shown only small signs of self improvement on this forum over the years (there was actually a time he said he would always be the way he was, when in fact, he has evolved slightly), I think he thinks other people do not have the ability to develop discipline and self worth in a team environment.

His loss!!!

 

[Richard]

I would say Richards was a better bat than Dravid, not because he was more dominant, just simply because I think he was better....and I wouldnt be able to really explain why. But that is one of the great things about cricket.

Some things you cannot put your finger on. Batting can be one of them. I think though, you only have to watch certain players play, and you spot it. Its that thing that you see in a player like Richards, which in his case is probably one in every 30 years maybe, where youknow instinctivly that he has that touch of greatness, in the true sense of the word, about him. A player like Dravid doesnt. Thats the real difference. And its not something you can really measure unfortunately...or maybe fortunately infact. If you could truely measure it, we wouldnt really have the need for discussion about who is the best etc, which fuels probably most of the cricket conversations around the world.

What to you is "instinctive feel for greatness" is to me "impulsive unconsidered judgement".

 

[Richard]

Of course you can teach temprement, it's a thought process, and thought processes can be altered.

its is quite true...a player can be 'taught' about how to play in a way which fits in with a role within the team etc, methods of being aware of responsibility etc. Part of any coaching process.

Richard lives in a very black and white world. Because he has shown only small signs of self improvement on this forum over the years (there was actually a time he said he would always be the way he was, when in fact, he has evolved slightly), I think he thinks other people do not have the ability to develop discipline and self worth in a team environment.

His loss!!!

I have always been the way I am. There are various things I try to do differently, yes - like trying to be more "nice" to people, basically. That's about the long-and-short of it. Because, purely and simply, that makes the forum a more pleasant place.

A player can be told what he needs to do, obviously, but he cannot always be trained to do it. This involves pretty much everything to do with the game, involving batting or bowling.

If you could teach anyone anything to any extent, he who wanted to be would always be the best cricketers.

 

[Swervy]

What to you is "instinctive feel for greatness" is to me "impulsive unconsidered judgement".

So its my ' impulsive unconsidered judgement' (even though I have had basically your lifespan to make this impulsive judgement) that Richards is a genuinely great player. WOW

your loss anyway!!! Its probably why you don't appear to truely enjoy the game, and its probably the reason why people on here think that when it comes down to the crunch, you really don't understand the real essence of the game.

And as I say, it is your loss!

 

[open365]

We all have innate abilities that are inherited and limit us. Most of these abilities and aspects can be improved through training/practice, however, the scope for improvement has it's limitations, most of us will never be able to react to a cricket ball being bowled at us like Richards can for instance.

The mind, however, is different, criminals aren't born for instance, they become that was as they experience life.

Like Ian Pont said in his book, "The mind has no quality control, whatever you put in there will blossom and flourish regardless of it's contents. If you think negative thoughts, you will become negative and the spiral goes down, if you think positive thoughts, the same occurs"

You can change the way people think. For example, Greg Chappel early in his career kept getting out after getting a start, he adressed this by changing his thought processes and started to score a hell of a lot more runs. His talent and natural ability didn't change, his thought processes did, and all of us can do the same.

 

[Swervy]

I have always been the way I am. There are various things I try to do differently, yes - like trying to be more "nice" to people, basically. That's about the long-and-short of it. Because, purely and simply, that makes the forum a more pleasant place.

A player can be told what he needs to do, obviously, but he cannot always be trained to do it. This involves pretty much everything to do with the game, involving batting or bowling.

If you could teach anyone anything to any extent, he who wanted to be would always be the best cricketers.

now you are talking about the physical side of things...were we not talking about the mental side of things???? Correct me if I am wrong!

What i was saying was that it is possible to coach a player into playing ceratin roles within a team. However, whether you would really want to do that with a pure talent like Richards is doubtful. You let players like that get on with it.

 

[Swervy]

Out of all the aspects to a players performance in cricket, changing their mindset, temprement and approach to the game is by far the easiest and most likely to be changed.

deffo, because the brain is much more flexible and maliable than the body

 

[Richard]

So its my ' impulsive unconsidered judgement' (even though I have had basically your lifespan to make this impulsive judgement) that Richards is a genuinely great player. WOW

Don't pull the ageist crap out.

your loss anyway!!! Its probably why you don't appear to truely enjoy the game

Well whether I appear to others to truly enjoy the game doesn't really matter - same way it doesn't really matter if my Mum thinks I'm having a few fags in secret. As long as, respectively, I do, and am not having them, it neither harms me nor matters that the perception is incorrect.

and its probably the reason why people on here think that when it comes down to the crunch, you really don't understand the real essence of the game.

People on here don't think that, though - at least, most of them don't.

And as I say, it is your loss!

But it's not, really, because I don't regret it.

 

[Richard]

now you are talking about the physical side of things...were we not talking about the mental side of things???? Correct me if I am wrong!

Both.

What i was saying was that it is possible to coach a player into playing ceratin roles within a team.

Not if the player isn't good enough to play them it's not.

 

[adharcric]

Of course you can teach temprement, it's a thought process, and thought processes can be altered.

Can you explain why Dravid and Kallis are the only two (more or less) batsmen in the world who can do what they can? Do the others simply not bother or has nobody given them a lesson on temperament? Temperament may not be as inherent a characteristic as physical "talent" but it certainly requires ability that is very valuable and very difficult to develop. Mental application is talent, yes. Talent that can be harnessed by an individual.

 

[Swervy]

Both.

Forgive me, I assumed it was pretty clear that Open and I were actually talking about the temprement side of things. I wont make those assumptions again.

Lets make it clear....we were talking about the mental side of things. Care to respond?

Not if the player isn't good enough to play them it's not.

OK , lets assume a player of Richards physical talent then!!!!

 

[open365]

Can you explain why Dravid and Kallis are the only two (more or less) batsmen in the world who can do what they can? Do the others simply not bother or has nobody given them a lesson on temperament? Temperament may not be as inherent a characteristic as physical "talent" but it certainly requires ability that is very valuable and very difficult to develop. Mental application is talent, yes. Talent that can be harnessed by an individual.

Yes, they have amazing defensive techniques that pretty much more or less no body can match.

 

[Swervy]

Can you explain why Dravid and Kallis are the only two (more or less) batsmen in the world who can do what they can? Do the others simply not bother or has nobody given them a lesson on temperament? Temperament may not be as inherent a characteristic as physical "talent" but it certainly requires ability that is very valuable and very difficult to develop. Mental application is talent, yes. Talent that can be harnessed by an individual.

Different players are driven by different goals...one would suspect that Kallis is driven by slightly different personal goals than say a KP, or a Viv Richards.

I dont think anyone said it wasnt hard to develop the mental side of things

 

[Richard]

Forgive me, I assumed it was pretty clear that Open and I were actually talking about the temprement side of things. I wont make those assumptions again.

Lets make it clear....we were talking about the mental side of things. Care to respond?

Bowman and yourself were talking about mental talents... what I said could fairly obviously have applied to mental talents. Re-read it. I don't see why it can apply only to physical ones.

OK , lets assume a player of Richards physical talent then!!!!

I don't really see why Richards applies to this - Richards, as you actually said, had ability in many respects without really needing a great deal of training to them.

 

[Swervy]

Bowman and yourself were talking about mental talents... what I said could fairly obviously have applied to mental talents. Re-read it. I don't see why it can apply only to physical ones.

I don't really see why Richards applies to this - Richards, as you actually said, had ability in many respects without really needing a great deal of training to them.

OK Richard..well done at avoiding really joining in in a constructive manner.