Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[steds]

Sobers was a poor performer against Australia. So I suppose it's not really fair to rate him either.

Most lesser mortals would accept 1510 runs @ 43.14 with 4 hundreds and 6 fifties perfectly happily.





...Let's not talk about his bowling record.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I have never seen, and never expect to see a greater batsman than Viv Richards, yet his Test Match record doesn't show any hint of supreme greatness. It's the record of a great player of course, but nowhere near what his talent should have produced.

Tests=121 Innings=182 Runs=8540 HS=291 Average=50.23 100's=24 60's=45

He should have had another 10 centuries and he was good enough to average in the mid 70's.
He should have broken all records(apart from the Dons 99.94 average) but didn't. There are players with much less ability yet better records. Maybe with so many great players around him he didn't always concentrate like he should, maybe his distain for all bowlers lead to his early dismissal on occasions.
Whatever the reasons, history will remember Viv as a great batsmen, but only those that saw him will remember him as the Greatest.

Much talk of Viv Richards in other threads not entirely appropriate so I thought I would re-visit this one from two years ago. I'm still happy with what I wrote then in the opening post.

 

[pasag]

Two or three excellent posts in this thread.

 

[Ikki]

I think we've read different books. The one I read was 'Hitting Across the Line'. There was a later one he wrote, right? Where he was a bit more animated? Not sure.

As for the performance vs style debate, it depends on what one values. Viv rocked because he brought 'cool' to the game but still managed to be a fantastic player. I appreciate both sides of the debate but it depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking Dravid, a great Dravid knock for me is a ton. If we're talking about Mark Waugh, I can watch him score 70 and feel entertained. And if we're talking Shahid Afridi, he can make 30 entertaining.

Viv was able to do it all. He didn't do it as consistently as Dravid or Tendulkar because, well, he didn't seem interested in being consistent. Like most people who are artists, sometimes they are inspired and sometimes they're not. They live for those moments and don't really worry about when they don't do as well because they know another good innings is but a moment away. Consistent players work on their consistency, artists work on sensing the mood when they are in the zone and then they have a stage on which to flourish.

I guess it's like two different sorts of girlfriends. There's the person whose always there for you, supports you when you're down, remembers your birthday, listens to you, laughs at your jokes, is into the stuff you're into and considers your views. You appreciate the fact she fits you so well and is consistent but you're less than inspired.

Then there's the ***** who treats you like crap, starts arguments for no reason other than that she's bored, leaves town for a fortnight without calling then comes back and acts like nothing has happened. After you've yelled at her for doing all of this, she smiles and leans over then kisses you on the lips and breathes "I'm sorry, baby." into your ear then walks out of the room.

Now I challenge anyone who has been out with both types of females (*hand up*) and NOT forgive the second one.

It's the human condition; people appreciate the volume of excellence and consistency from guys like Dravid yet remember the one innings of Viv which changed their lives. Personally, I'm aware that Viv was the leading run-scorer for the year of 1976 but if I was asked quickly what I remember most about Viv's play from vids I've seen, it'd have to be his hook-shot off Sylvester Clarke which sailed over the square-leg fence or the hoik over square-leg off the last-ball of the 1979 WC final. Conversely, I saw every ball of Dravid's double ton at Adelaide oval last time India was here and although I remember appreciating it at the time and remember it was a great knock, when I think of him, I remember the 50+ average, the fantastic 2003 he had, etc.

Like I said, it just depends on what you value in a player.

LOL @ the GF examples. I know what you're talkin' about mate.

 

[Nate]

Quality thread. Miss thorough discussion like this.

 

[Richard]

Well Corey is back...

Think, as so often, he hits the nail spring-on - the girlfriend example is a fantastic one. And it's telling that most people would take the example he mentions they would take, and I'd take the former. Everytime. Provided they're both lookers, obv.

Similarly, give me Tendulkar or Lara over Richards ANYDAY if you want contributions to doing the best in a game of cricket. If you want entertainment... well, probably give me Tendulkar or Lara too TBH, I rather prefer to watch their manner of batting to a Richards or Gilchrist really. But obviously, give most a Richards.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Similarly, give me Tendulkar or Lara over Richards ANYDAY if you want contributions to doing the best in a game of cricket.

Agreed.

If you want entertainment... well, probably give me Tendulkar or Lara too TBH, I rather prefer to watch their manner of batting to a Richards or Gilchrist really. But obviously, give most a Richards.

WTF?

 

[Richard]

I prefer watching the runmaking methods of a Lara or Tendulkar than a Richards.

The "complete destruction" that is such a turn-on to most cricket fans is not to me - if anything I find the opposite. Any scoring-rate too slow or too fast I dislike.

 

[The_Bunny]

I prefer watching the runmaking methods of a Lara or Tendulkar than a Richards.

The "complete destruction" that is such a turn-on to most cricket fans is not to me - if anything I find the opposite. Any scoring-rate too slow or too fast I dislike.

For mine I couldnt give a flying **** what the scoring rate is, all that matters is the cricket being played.

The perfect senario for mine is quality attacking bowling vs quality attacking batting, (By this I mean Gilchrist/Richards not the Afridi types).

 

[JBH001]

Why do so many place so much importance on ability over actual performance?

Because cricket is not just about the runs scored and wickets taken but also about how & when they are scored and how they are taken. The intangibles count.

Edit/ Edited like Vic Orthodox said.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Because cricket is not just about the runs scored and wickets taken but also about how they are scored and how they are taken. The intangibles count.

And when.

 

[Pratters]

Test cricket is all about making runs, taking wickets. How stylish or aesthetically thrilling you are doesn't matter. Natasha might look ***y and have a hot body but if she can't walk on the ramp, she won't become a good model.

 

[Perm]

Test cricket is all about making runs, taking wickets. How stylish or aesthetically thrilling you are doesn't matter. Natasha might look ***y and have a hot body but if she can't walk on the ramp, she won't become a good model.

Totally agree with you though. Style doesn't matter when batting, making runs does.

 

[The Sean]

There seems to be something of a mix-up in terminology here - most of us who advocate Viv's place among the greats by virtue of intangibles and factors like the "way" he made his runs aren't saying he was better because he looked better or was more stylish. Or even that he scored faster, per se (though the rate of his scoring over bowling attacks certainly contributed to the intangible, psychological dominance we hold him in such high regard for).

I've gone into Viv's appeal beyond pure numbers before so won't do it again in detail (and others on here are doing a fine job of it anyway), but I do feel the need for this to be cleared up because there seems to be a misunderstanding on here that we are advocating a looking good = better player theory which, certainly from my point of view, isn't the pro-Viv argument at all.

 

[wpdavid]

There seems to be something of a mix-up in terminology here - most of us who advocate Viv's place among the greats by virtue of intangibles and factors like the "way" he made his runs aren't saying he was better because he looked better or was more stylish. Or even that he scored faster, per se (though the rate of his scoring over bowling attacks certainly contributed to the intangible, psychological dominance we hold him in such high regard for).

I've gone into Viv's appeal beyond pure numbers before so won't do it again in detail (and others on here are doing a fine job of it anyway), but I do feel the need for this to be cleared up because there seems to be a misunderstanding on here that we are advocating a looking good = better player theory which, certainly from my point of view, isn't the pro-Viv argument at all.

Agreed. It's the aura of dominance that he brought to the crease which goes beyond his actual figures. Don't forget that this was a very different era, so those who have been brought up on Gilchrist, Hayden et al perhaps won't realise how revolutionary Richards' approach was at the time.

That being said, it would be interesting to compare his stats up to the end of 1980 with the rest of his career. Whilst he was never going to maintain his 1976 record for ever, my impression is that there was something of a tailing off from 1981 onwards. Obviously he still produced great innings, but at least I felt we had a chance of getting him out then, which wasn't the case in 1976, and perhaps the Aus fans felt the same in 1979/80. Maybe once WI had established themselves as the number 1 side in the world, the hunger wasn't quite the same.

 

[The Sean]

No question Viv's stats declined steadily over the second half of his career - when he came to Australia at the start of the 1981/82 series he was nudging 4000 Test runs at an average of 62. By the time he got to 5000 it had fallen to 56, 6000 at 54, 7000 at 53, 8000 at 51 and finally finishing on 50.23.

Your suggestion that the hunger wasn't quite the same once his team was dominant is one I've seen written many times before - it was quite often spoken during the second half of his career that Viv tended to save his best for the big occasion or the instances (albeit rare) where his side was in trouble. Hence his breathtaking best was as good as ever, but the frequency with which he performed such remarkable feats became less. Two other factors which contributed to his average declining as well were a relative lack of not-outs and the fact that as his career went on his centuries were rarely converted into "big" ones of 150 or more, 110 or 120 often did the trick.

Still, I'm getting involved in the numbers here and I try not to do that too much over Viv, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Richard]

For mine I couldnt give a flying **** what the scoring rate is, all that matters is the cricket being played.

I don't mind too much, but I do have a general preference for a rate of around about 3-an-over (ideally a bit below). Generally, when it's too far below and certainly too far above, it means high-quality cricket is not being played.

The perfect senario for mine is quality attacking bowling vs quality attacking batting, (By this I mean Gilchrist/Richards not the Afridi types).

Yeah, you have that in common with most people. I don't, though - I like a balance between attack and defence, ideally with a slight coming down on the side of defence, as I say above.

I hate it when it's just attack-attack-attack, no chance of bowling economically, little hint of perminance in batting. Really hate it.

Give me a solid innings over a flashy one anyday, and a bowler who can produce both line-and-length and wicket-taking deliveries over one who can only do one.

 

[White Lightning]

ahhh Viv was great. Before my time but the old video's and a few new dvd's are lying around every now and then you stick them on and your just in awe of what he could do.

what he could do, and what he did do (consistently), are a bit different though and that is a blight on him as a batsman.

but as someone said, its about how and when you score you runs as well... if he scored runs, it was done in such devestating fashion that the opposition were basically out of the match. even if not so much for the amount of runs (100 of 130 balls is, at the end of teh day the same as 100 of 220 balls is it not??), but more because they were shell shocked for the next 2 sessions which allowed other batsman to capatalise.

In saying that i would take a couple of current day players over him, but not many...

 

[Fusion]

There seems to be something of a mix-up in terminology here - most of us who advocate Viv's place among the greats by virtue of intangibles and factors like the "way" he made his runs aren't saying he was better because he looked better or was more stylish. Or even that he scored faster, per se (though the rate of his scoring over bowling attacks certainly contributed to the intangible, psychological dominance we hold him in such high regard for).

I've gone into Viv's appeal beyond pure numbers before so won't do it again in detail (and others on here are doing a fine job of it anyway), but I do feel the need for this to be cleared up because there seems to be a misunderstanding on here that we are advocating a looking good = better player theory which, certainly from my point of view, isn't the pro-Viv argument at all.

Great post mate. My thoughts on it exactly.

 

[Ikki]

Test cricket is all about making runs, taking wickets. How stylish or aesthetically thrilling you are doesn't matter. Natasha might look ***y and have a hot body but if she can't walk on the ramp, she won't become a good model.

I think the thing that is being missed is that people think others rate guys like Viv, Warne and Lillee because of a supposed style or way about them...which just isn't scratching the surface. Viv could score a century, but the way he would do it would change the match and the put the pressure on the bowlers. Not only does that mean bowlers would have a hard time against him, but the rest of his company. Or likewise, Warne or Lillee could take 2-3 quick wickets which statistically may not seem a great feat, but in terms of the mood of the match and the position of strength, it empowers their side to go on and do better. I mean, how are you going to place a stat on that? People forget, there are wars on the fields and wars in the minds as well.