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

[pasag]

Swervy is spot on for mine. I sometimes feel SS and Richard miss the point about what cricket is all about, well for me anyways, but it's all good and...

same way it doesn't really matter if my Mum thinks I'm having a few fags in secret.

 

[Fiery]

same way it doesn't really matter if my Mum thinks I'm having a few fags in secret

Shall I?....nah

 

[honestbharani]

Excellent article, great find Sanz. Another reason why people commenting on players they haven't seen play, solely based on statistics is so very flawed.

totally agree, but happens a little too much around here.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

no much Richards was much more consistent and much better at doing it than Laxman which means there is easily enough grounds to put Richards ahead of Dravid, for someone who has seen both play.

 

[honestbharani]

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'.

the problem is, Dravid doesn't really score "appreciably" more against quality attacks compared to Lara and even Gilchrist.

 

[archie mac]

I must say I feel a little sorry for those who never had the chance to watch King Viv live, he was an all time great and amongst my most treasured cricket memories are those of watching Richards in full flight.

I imagine those who watched Bradman and Sobers live feel sorry for me

I know I envy them

 

[honestbharani]

I must say I feel a little sorry for those who never had the chance to watch King Viv live, he was an all time great and amongst my most treasured cricket memories are those of watching Richards in full flight.

I imagine those who watched Bradman and Sobers live feel sorry for me

I know I envy them

yeah, has always been a bit of a regret for me, I just seem to have missed his best years.

 

[nightprowler10]

Re: Viv vs Dravid. Its not just Viv's SR that makes him so great nor his average. Its the combination of both done against the cream of the crop bowlers. The man was capable of dancing down the wicket to Thomson with the new ball and dispatching him for six. Can you image what that sort of an onslaught can do for the morale of the bowling attack? Can you imagine what you would feel like when bowling to the man who just took apart your best man? I don't think a player of Dravid's style could do that. That's obviously not to say that people like Dravid aren't as useful as Viv, but I'll take a man who knows how remove a great bowler's cojones and make things easier for the rest of the line-up than a dependable rock.

Anyway, thanks to Sanz for posting this article here.

 

[archie mac]

yeah, has always been a bit of a regret for me, I just seem to have missed his best years.

Just for Richard may I also say that Viv thought Lillee the best that bowled to him, but hey I am sure he (Viv) is brainwashed like the rest, it must be the Moe?

 

[nightprowler10]

Just for Richard may I also say that Viv thought Lillee the best that bowled to him, but hey I am sure he (Viv) is brainwashed like the rest, it must be the Moe?

Viv never saw him bowl in the sub-continent.

 

[archie mac]

Viv never saw him bowl in the sub-continent.

Neither did many others mate, his huge three Tests on flat as a tack wickets in Pakistan, where no one else did much, and one Test is SL at the very end of his career

It amazes me, so if he would have taken a five for in Pakistan he would suddendly be the best? Silly, silly argument

 

[nightprowler10]

Neither did many others mate, his huge three Tests on flat as a tack wickets in Pakistan, where no one else did much, and one Test is SL at the very end of his career

It amazes me, so if he would have taken a five for in Pakistan he would suddendly be the best? Silly, silly argument

Haha, it was a joke. I've never taken part in that debate.

 

[archie mac]

Haha, it was a joke. I've never taken part in that debate.

Are you winding me up

I need to stop having this debate I see red when ever someone mentions the great mans name

 

[Sanz]

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'.

You dont understand SS. Most of us dont care if he scored faster or slower. It's not about the strike rate, it is about his approach, his dominance, his willingness to attack the bowling and succeeding at it almost every time. There is hardly any bowler of his era that got better of him, There was hardly any condition he didn't succeed in, same cant be said about Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Ponting etc. He dominated pretty much every bowler he played against regardless of the conditions, opposition and location or any other factor.

It didn't matter if the the conditions were bowler friendly, Sir Richards could and would still dominate the bowlers which you rarely witness these days.

I was reading an article by Vic Marks and this is what he had to say about Richards :-

"...The eyes still look sharp -- these were the eyes that subjugated every bowler in the 1970s and 1980s. One moment they allowed him to see the ball that millisecond faster than anyone else, the next they could stare down the pitch with such intensity that bowlers shrivelled in his presence....Richards never sought survival against the best bowlers, he sought domination -- and was rarely denied. Against England this meant putting Bob Willis and Derek Underwood to the sword..."

 

[Fiery]

Are you winding me up

I need to stop having this debate I see red when ever someone mentions the great mans name

Sean, if you had to decide on the 2 all-time best West Indies ODI openers, who out of Greenidge, Haynes and Gayle would you leave out?...Just curious

 

[archie mac]

Sean, if you had to decide on the 2 all-time best West Indies ODI openers, who out of Greenidge, Haynes and Gayle would you leave out?...Just curious

I am not a big fan of ODI cricket tbh, but that is still a hard question, Haynes a certain pick. Greenidge cut the ball harder than anyone else I have ever watched, and I think him a little more reliable than Gayle, but in the end I think I would have Gayle he can take a game away from the opposition faster than just about anyone except Afridi.

So the short answer Haynes and Gayle

 

[Fiery]

I am not a big fan of ODI cricket tbh, but that is still a hard question, Haynes a certain pick. Greenidge cut the ball harder than anyone else I have ever watched, and I think him a little more reliable than Gayle, but in the end I think I would have Gayle he can take a game away from the opposition faster than just about anyone except Afridi.

So the short answer Haynes and Gayle

Interesting, I would have Greenidge over Gayle. He averaged 45 in ODers which is outstanding for someone who scored over 5000 runs. He could be almost as destructive as Richards on his day...Gayle is good but I don't put him in the Greenidge or Haynes class yet

 

[archie mac]

Interesting, I would have Greenidge over Gayle. He averaged about 45 in ODers which is outstanding for someone who scored over 5000 runs. Gayle is good but I don't put him in the Greenidge or Haynes class yet

I was thinking more about the way the game is played now, I think Gayle can win the game off his own bat, what are the respective S/R?

 

[Fiery]

I was thinking more about the way the game is played now, I think Gayle can win the game off his own bat, what are the respective S/R?

Quite a big difference actually. Greenidge's was 65 and Gayle's 80 but his average is 7 more than Gayle's and teams back in those days seldom went with the early over assaults that they do these days. I'm sure if Greenidge had been given a license to play more attacking at the start of the innings he would have been more effective and consistent than Gayle

 

[archie mac]

Quite a big difference actually. Greenidge's was 65 and Gayle's 80 but his average is 7 more than Gayle's and teams back in those days seldom went with the early over assaults that they do these days. I'm sure if Greenidge had been given a license to play more attacking at the start of the innings he would have been more effective and consistent than Gayle

Yes he was certainly a great player, would have adapted quite well I would think

But do you think his average would have dropped? And if yes by how much?