Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Pratters]

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.

I do know this. Psychological edge is very important in sport. Sampras for instance didn't used to show he was in pain even at times when he was to try and given an invincible aura about him to his opponent.

I was just putting across that style for the sake of it isn't important to me. For instance, I, and most people would take Steve Waugh ahead of Mark Waugh for tests even though Mark Waugh was much more stylish and aesthetically thrilling.

 

[Ikki]

I do know this. Psychological edge is very important in sport. Sampras for instance didn't used to show he was in pain even at times when he was to try and given an invincible aura about him to his opponent.

I was just putting across that style for the sake of it isn't important to me. For instance, I, and most people would take Steve Waugh ahead of Mark Waugh for tests even though Mark Waugh was much more stylish and aesthetically thrilling.

Yes, in that example you have a point. I just don't think it's what most people are referring to here.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Personally,I have no doubt that Viv Richards is the 2nd greatest batsman ever.

 

[archie mac]

Personally,I have no doubt that Viv Richards is the 2nd greatest batsman ever.

I don't rate him the second greatest either, but I can certainly see why others would, and can't understand why anyone would critiicise that choice


And if anyone thinks cricket is not about style but just about taking runs and claiming wickets then please do not respond to any of my posts, I am simply not interested iyo

 

[Richard]

Personally,I have no doubt that Viv Richards is the 2nd greatest batsman ever.

Personally, I can't help but at that. 2nd most remarkably unusual person ever to pick-up a cricket-bat? Possibly (and even then only possibly).

2nd-best batsman since 1900? Not a chance. As I've said several times, there are 10 or 15 who'd rate ahead of him for mine.

 

[Richard]

I don't rate him the second greatest either, but I can certainly see why others would, and can't understand why anyone would critiicise that choice

I can't understand why anyone would criticise the choice of rating Joel Garner the best seam-bowler of all-time ever either.

And if anyone thinks cricket is not about style but just about taking runs and claiming wickets then please do not respond to any of my posts, I am simply not interested iyo

Not many think that's all it's about. Many people, however, realise that this is all that counts when it comes to making a difference to the result. The result, however, is not all there is to a game of cricket, otherwise no-one'd watch.

 

[archie mac]

I can't understand why anyone would criticise the choice of rating Joel Garner the best seam-bowler of all-time ever either.
.

Joel Garner was a great bowler, and if people can give decent reasons why he should be considered that, then I would have no problem

 

[Perm]

Personally,I have no doubt that Viv Richards is the 2nd greatest batsman ever.

That surprises me ITBT. You've said in the past that you base a fair few of your judgements on statistics, yet there is a strong statistical case for alot of other batsman to be ranked ahead of Sir Viv Richards.

 

[pasag]

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.

Yeah spot on, a point I tried to make before giving up.

 

[pasag]

That surprises me ITBT. You've said in the past that you base a fair few of your judgements on statistics, yet there is a strong statistical case for alot of other batsman to be ranked ahead of Sir Viv Richards.

Fair call, for someone like BS who places such a high value on stats, having Viv as the second greatest is a bit strange, unless he's changed his position on that.

 

[Richard]

Doubly strange, for mine, given he's one of the first to talk down Lillee, and the reasons for Lillee being rated best seamer are the same as those for rating Richards 2nd-best batsman.

Granted there's no Pakistani who IVAR impinges on though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Stats only matter to BS when he wants to talk up a moderately great cricketer like Imran Khan and talk down a genius like Garry Sobers.

 

[Richard]

And they don't matter to people who want to talk-up a moderately great batsman like Richards and talk down a genius like, for instance, George Headley.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And they don't matter to people who want to talk-up a moderately great batsman like Richards and talk down a genius like, for instance, George Headley.

Someone been having a go at George?

 

[Richard]

Anyone who considers Vivian Richards a better batsman than him, TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyone who considers Vivian Richards a better batsman than him, TBH.

I always say Viv Richards is the best batsman I've seen. I'm willing to listen to anyone who's seen them both play if they consider Headley to be superior. Someone who's seen neither I take with a pinch of salt.

 

[Richard]

And quite often, someone who's seen Vivian Richards I'll take with a pinch of salt too.

Not always, but quite often.

Very few will have seen Headley and Richards (never mind and still be around today), and even if someone had, the human memory is a faulty thing and will rarely be capable of accurately comparing things which happen 40 years apart.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And quite often, someone who's seen Vivian Richards I'll take with a pinch of salt too.

Not always, but quite often.

Very few will have seen Headley and Richards (never mind and still be around today), and even if someone had, the human memory is a faulty thing and will rarely be capable of accurately comparing things which happen 40 years apart.

Still more reliable than someone who's entire knowledge (or lack of) comes from a book.

 

[kiwipostereborn]

Books> your opinions.

Stats> your opinions

Stats show what was achieved. They ARE everything.

What you see is only opinion and only shows how good they look not how good they actually did.
Stats are facts.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Books> your opinions.

Stats> your opinions

Stats show what was achieved. They ARE everything.

What you see is only opinion and only shows how good they look not how good they actually did.
Stats are facts.

That certainly puts the lid on Steven Hawking.