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

[silentstriker]

its because of how he batted, of which a by-product was a high scoring rate.

I don't quite understand this.

 

[open365]

I don't quite understand this.

I think he's saying that Richards had the ability to play more shots to more deliveries than Dravid so Richards naturaly scored at a higher rate.

 

[Swervy]

I don't quite understand this.

I mean most people who saw him play see how he played, they didnt see the indepth statistcal bells and whistles of it. His strike rate is neither here nor there really to the people who saw him play

 

[Swervy]

I think he's saying that Richards had the ability to play more shots to more deliveries than Dravid so Richards naturaly scored at a higher rate.

yah and that..hahaha

 

[Ikki]

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.

If Dravid and Richards averaged the same, the dominant strike rate puts Richards much ahead. There are no two ways about it. The faster you score, the better. It's akin and as simple as saying: "the more runs you score the better". The main two virtues of batting, IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

I think he's saying that Richards had the ability to play more shots to more deliveries than Dravid so Richards naturaly scored at a higher rate.

Not disputing that of course. Laxman has more shots than Dravid (or at least plays them more), but that doesn't make him a better player.

I mean most people who saw him play see how he played, they didnt see the indepth statistcal bells and whistles of it.

Again, that means he was better to watch, but in terms of being a better player, it is irrelevant how he looked. I'd rather watch Darren Ganga over Matthew Hayden, that means nothing when evaluating the quality.

 

[open365]

If Dravid and Richards averaged the same, the dominant strike rate puts Richards much ahead. There are no two ways about it. The faster you score, the better. It's akin and as simple as saying: "the more runs you score the better".

Imo it can go deeper than that, say for instance Richards scored really quickly when it was nice and easy to bat, but when it got tough he got out early so as not to affect his SR.

Whereas a player like Dravid may have toughed it out in really difficult circumstances and helped his side more.

 

[Swervy]

Imo it can go deeper than that, say for instance Richards scored really quickly when it was nice and easy to bat, but when it got tough he got out early so as not to affect his SR.

Which in fact tended to not be the case. Richards often looked quite bored when not challenged, and got out forcing the issue.

 

[silentstriker]

If Dravid and Richards averaged the same, the dominant strike rate puts Richards much ahead. There are no two ways about it. The faster you score, the better. It's akin and as simple as saying: "the more runs you score the better". The main two virtues of batting, IMO.

While undoubtedly true in ODIs, I don't think it necessarily is true in Tests. There are very specific circumstances in tests where scoring fast matters, but the vast majority of the time, it doesn't matter all that much as long as you go along at a respectable S/R (of 40+).

 

[open365]

Not disputing that of course. Laxman has more shots than Dravid (or at least plays them more), but that doesn't make him a better player.


Again, that means he was better to watch, but in terms of being a better player, it is irrelevant how he looked. I'd rather watch Darren Ganga over Matthew Hayden, that means nothing when evaluating the quality.

I think there's a difference between being better and a players value to a side, in the way that everyone rates Trumper so highly despite him averaging less than other people.

 

[silentstriker]

Which in fact tended to not be the case. Richards often looked quite bored when not challenged, and got out forcing the issue.

But that's fine - in the end getting out when being bored and getting out because you're comprehensively beaten by the bowler - it is irrelevant.

 

[silentstriker]

I think there's a difference between being better and a players value to a side, in the way that everyone rates Trumper so highly despite him averaging less than other people.

Unless you are scoring at a really low pace, the guy who will score more runs will be more valuable than the guy who scores less. Dravid isn't necessarily less valuable than Tendulkar, even if they average the same amount and one scores a lot faster than the other.

 

[Swervy]

But that's fine - in the end getting out when being bored and getting out because you're comprehensively beaten by the bowler - it is irrelevant.

only when you look at the final score and then ultimatly averages. As this thread is alluding to, there is more to the game

 

[silentstriker]

only when you look at the final score and then ultimatly averages. As this thread is alluding to, there is more to the game

Over the long term, the final score is what makes a good player. It may not be what makes a good looking player, but then I am not arguing that.

 

[Swervy]

Over the long term, the final score is what makes a good player. It may not be what makes a good looking player, but then I am not arguing that.

its not about what looks good, its about effect on opposition and the audience. Ultimately, it is they who make the final judgement.

 

[Engle]

its not about what looks good, its about effect on opposition and the audience. Ultimately, it is they who make the final judgement.

Absolutely. IIRC wasn't it Thomson who said he felt like wearing a helmet when bowling to Viv ?
Its not just what you do individually. It's the effect you have on the oppostion and your teammates.

e.g. assume you're batting with a frighteningly fast bowler with bad intentions.
Who wud you want as your batting partner ? Dravid or Richards ?

 

[Anil]

richards used to take an attack by the scruff of its neck and dispatch it to all parts of the ground and beyond summarily...what it did was to intimidate the opposition bowlers, take away their confidence, basically take the game away from the fielding team, while he was at the crease and after a richards whirlwind, an attack usually took time to recover if at all and the rest of the batsmen also got to cash in...that's the kind of presence that a batsman like dravid(he usually needs a take-charge kind of batsman at one end while he grinds it out at the other), as exceptional as he is, lacks...that's the kind of effect on a match that stats don't show...

 

[Fiery]

richards used to take an attack by the scruff of its neck and dispatch it to all parts of the ground and beyond summarily...what it did was to intimidate the opposition bowlers, take away their confidence, basically take the game away from the fielding team, while he was at the crease and after a richards whirlwind, an attack usually took time to recover if at all and the rest of the batsmen also got to cash in...that's the kind of presence that a batsman like dravid(he usually needs a take-charge kind of batsman at one end while he grinds it out at the other), as exceptional as he is, lacks...that's the kind of effect on a match that stats don't show...

Well said

 

[silentstriker]

richards used to take an attack by the scruff of its neck and dispatch it to all parts of the ground and beyond summarily...what it did was to intimidate the opposition bowlers, take away their confidence, basically take the game away from the fielding team, while he was at the crease and after a richards whirlwind, an attack usually took time to recover if at all and the rest of the batsmen also got to cash in...that's the kind of presence that a batsman like dravid(he usually needs a take-charge kind of batsman at one end while he grinds it out at the other), as exceptional as he is, lacks...that's the kind of effect on a match that stats don't show...

Fair enough, and I understand the importance. Gilchrist is the fastest batsman in modern Test history (by all accounts he is almost/just as fast as Viv though they didn't measure SR back then), and Lara when on song is up there too, and while I appreciate the effect of innings such as his, and realize that they could demoralize bowlers, I would still take someone who scores appreciatively more, even if it is at a slower pace in my Test side.

Of course, in his prime he scored as much as anyone and did it very destructively too, so thats why I rate him as one of the best of all time (top ten). But my estimation of him would not go down (top ten easily, top five maybe) if he had scored much slower (or as swervy put it, in a different manner which leads to a lower S/R). Maybe yours would and that's fair enough, but I still maintain that runs scored is the primary focus, the method of scoring is a secondary criteria.

If you think he would still be second to Bradman if he scored a little differently, then I accept it as there is usually very little to separate #2 from #10 or so in an all time list. But my point earlier, and it is one which I still stand by, is that from my experience people rate him higher than they would primarily because he scored fast and thus had that aura, hence my terming him 'overrated'.

 

[Anil]

Fair enough, and I understand the importance. Gilchrist is the fastest batsman in modern Test history (by all accounts he is almost/just as fast as Viv though they didn't measure SR back then), and Lara when on song is up there too, and while I appreciate the effect of innings such as his, and realize that they could demoralize bowlers, I would still take someone who scores appreciatively more, even if it is at a slower pace in my Test side.

Of course, in his prime he scored as much as anyone and did it very destructively too, so thats why I rate him as one of the best of all time (top ten). But my estimation of him would not go down (top ten easily, top five maybe) if he had scored much slower (or as swervy put it, in a different manner which leads to a lower S/R). Maybe yours would and that's fair enough, but I still maintain that runs scored is the primary focus, the method of scoring is a secondary criteria.

If you think he would still be second to Bradman if he scored a little differently, then I accept it as there is usually very little to separate #2 from #10 or so in an all time list. But my point earlier, and it is one which I still stand by, is that from my experience people rate him higher than they would primarily because he scored fast and thus had that aura, hence my terming him 'overrated'.

first of all lara's scoring pattern is quite dissimilar to richards', you cannot really compare the two on strike rate...and gilchrist's role in the lower middle order of the aussie lineup is very different from what was richards' role in the pivotal no: 4 position in the champion windies teams of the 80s...in any case, you cannot just compare two batsmen just on strike rate...with richards, it was a combination of his gum-chewing, arrogant, "i'm going to own you" attitude at the crease and that penchant to dominate and tear apart the bowling from the first ball he faced that made him unique...and as you said, just because he scored fast didn't mean that he fell early, he scored heavily and quickly and with excellent lineups around him throughout his career to complement magnificent bowling attacks and great fielding sides, it was no wonder that they made short work of most of their opponents...

as for being 2nd to bradman, i am not so sure on where i stand on that to be honest...i am of the opinion that there are a few players who can stake claim to that spot and viv is certainly one of them but i cannot discount the claims of sobers or chappell or hobbs and a handful of others that easily....