Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Goughy]

So if you take out the periods he was a force of nature and only focus on the parts he wasnt then he only has the average of a good Test batsman.

 

[archie mac]

Interesting, again, I've just had a better look at Richards' career than ever before - until now I'd simply presumed he'd averaged 53 for most of his career (first 104 Tests) then tailed-off a bit to average 35 at the very end (last 17).

The truth is, Richards had two, short, periods where he was an utter phenomena. Between 23 January and 8 August '76, he scored 1664 runs in 10 Tests; in 15 between December '79 and March '81 he scored 1454 in 15.

In the other 79 games that form the vast bulk of his career that matters, he scored 4596 at an average of 41.

The Richards story is more myth than anything, IM (newly formed) O. I couldn't care less whether he had some of the ability to average 70 in Tests, I couldn't care less whether boredom was the main reason he didn't. Fact is, he didn't have the ability to average more than the early 40s for most of his career, though he had two periods where he was indeed a sensation perhaps only once otherwise seen in cricket's history, something I'm sure any number of others have. Equally, some others have probably convinced the unwary that they should have been the-second.

Two short periods, 25 Tests in total, though, do not make a career. Yes, indeed, anyone who rates Richards 2nd-best batsman after Bradman simply does not understand the game of cricket.

A quarter of his career? Take the best fourth of most batsman away from their final figures and what do you get?

 

[Jamee999]

"Remove all the runs and he averages 0! What a poor batsman!"

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A quarter of his career? Take the best fourth of most batsman away from their final figures and what do you get?

A photograph of a beetroot.

 

[silentstriker]

A quarter of his career? Take the best fourth of most batsman away from their final figures and what do you get?

I would bet that most all time great batsman would average more than 41 even after taking out their top 25%.


I'm not getting into this debate, I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Goughy]

Cant be bothered working it out, but for the periods Richard wants to ignore, what was the total runs scored and at what average?

 

[silentstriker]

Cant be bothered working it out, but for the periods Richard wants to ignore, what was the total runs scored and at what average?

97 in the first period, and 80.87 during the second.

Means, he had two Hussey-esque runs in his career, one lasting ten Tests and one lasting fifteen. He averaged at 41 in 79 Tests excluding those two peaks.

That first peak was impossibly insane though, and his scores were:

1. 30
2. 101
3. 50
4. 98
5. 142
6. 130
7. 20
8. 177
9. 23
10. 64
11. 232
12. 63
13. 4
14. 135
15. 66
16. 38
17. 291

Averaged 97 without a single "not-out".

 

[Sanz]

He averaged at 41 in 79 Tests excluding those two peaks.

That's crazy, so he averages 41 when he wasn't doing so well, how many batsmen in that era averaged 41 ? Gundappa Vishwanath was one of the best Indian batsman of his time, he averaged 41.93 throughout his career. If Richards was as good as Vishy when he wasn't doing great, I guess that tells how good he really was.

 

[archie mac]

I would bet that most all time great batsman would average more than 41 even after taking out their top 25%.


I'm not getting into this debate, I just wanted to point that out.

Well do someone

 

[wpdavid]

I would bet that most all time great batsman would average more than 41 even after taking out their top 25%.


I'm not getting into this debate, I just wanted to point that out.

I'd be surprised if that's the case. Perhaps someone could work it out for some of them.

 

[Richard]

I compared it to the Tendulkar case (Tendulkar being the one batsman I've always thought it most utterly outrageous the number of people who claim Richards was superior to).

Tendulkar's "peak" period of 95 Tests, 153 innings produced an overall average of just under 61; Richards' like-for-like period produced an average of just under 53 from 107 Tests and 156 innings. For all intents and purposes, an identical sample-size (Tendulkar's including 3 fewer innings).

Take out the two insanely good Richards periods and he averaged 41. I've done my best to find the two equivalent periods for Tendulkar, and settled on this one between 29 Jan '93 and 5 Dec '95, consisting of 17 Tests. And this one from 2 Aug '97 to 28 Mar '98.

In these two "absolute peak" periods combined, Tendulkar scored 2260 for 29 dismissals. Deduct these from the 153-innings period named above and still Tendulkar's average would be over 56. Even when you take out the absolute best parts of his best part.

More telling than this, though, is the fact that selecting such an "absolute peak" set of innings for Tendulkar is a damn difficult task. With Richards, it's very, very easy. Tendulkar was a far, far greater batsman for far, far longer than Richards, even if Richards touched heights in his brief "absolute peak" periods that only Bradman has ever touched aside from him.

One thing to remember, though, is that some hold strongly against Tendulkar the 2003-2006 period, something for which the Richards equivalent was quite a bit shorter. I don't really care greatly about this when assessing Tendulkar (or Richards his last 17 when assessing him).

Another thing to remember, of course, is that this is Tendulkar, the greatest batsman of his generation and certainly someone no-one would hold THAT far short of Richards. The trouble now, is that, as with the Lillee case, I imagine there will be far too many people who will overreact in the "how DARE you suggest Richards was not an all-time great" manner which I'm not, remotely, doing. I'm merely suggesting that what I'd previously thought was a bit silly, I now consider utterly outrageous - that being holding Richards as second-greatest Test batsman ever.

 

[Richard]

Cant be bothered working it out, but for the periods Richard wants to ignore, what was the total runs scored and at what average?

See, this is what is so frustrating - I've never remotely suggested to "ignore" these two parts of Richards' career. I just want people to understand that the time Richards was a phenomenon who genuinely was truly out-of-the-ordinary was much, much, much, much shorter than most seem to realise.

And that outside this time, he was no more than a good Test batsman.

 

[Ikki]

The more fairer thing would be to take out the same proportion, instead of just 2 peaks. For Sachin that is 2 peaks (25 matches) out of 141 tests and counting, whilst for Richards it is 2 peaks (also 25 matches) out of 121 tests.

Also, it is quite plausible that Tendulkar will average more than Richards, but the fact is that they both had 2 approaches to batting. Whilst Richards' may not have been as run-conducive as Sachin's, it was certainly more desctructive and game-changing. But when you factor that their averages are still within a small distance of each other, that is what makes Richard so great as a batsman. Because in order to be the Richards' type batsman, you will put yourself at much greater risk and your successes will, bar a super-human talent, be in great balance with your failures. Yet Richards still manages to have such a high average.

 

[Richard]

The more fairer thing would be to take out the same proportion of, instead just 2 peaks. For Sachin that is 2 peaks (25 matches) out of 141 tests and counting, whilst for Richards it is 2 peaks (also 25 matches) out of 121 tests.

I don't think that's fair at all, but as I said - some consider the past-best times more important than I do. If a batsman can be brilliant for 150-odd innings, I don't really care that there are 40 or so more where they can't.

Also, it is quite plausible that Tendulkar will average more than Richards, but the fact is that they both had 2 approaches to batting. Whilst Richards' may not have been as run-conducive as Sachin's, it was certainly more desctructive and game-changing. But when you factor that their averages are still within a small distance of each other, that is what makes Richard so great as a batsman. Because in order to be the Richards' type batsman, you will put yourself at much greater risk and your successes will, bar a super-human talent, be in great balance with your failures. Yet Richards still manages to have such a high average.

For mine, scoring runs more regularly and changing more games makes one a better batsman than scoring the runs you do score in a destructive manner and changing the lesser number of games you change that way.

For others, obviously, it's different.

One thing's for sure, though - as I said, I'll now be looking upon Richards' career differently to how I previously did. Because for most of his career, his average was unexceptional. Only briefly was it truly remarkable.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think that's fair at all, but as I said - some consider the past-best times more important than I do. If a batsman can be brilliant for 150-odd innings, I don't really care that there are 40 or so more where they can't.

It is fairer, you can't make a statistical comparison and not make it proportional to make it more equal.

Nevertheless, by the standard above, Richards could be sporting an average like Tendulkar's whilst having a higher SR and all the rest that comes with his legend. That is, if you stop considering the past-best times where batsmen's averages drop.

For mine, scoring runs more regularly and changing more games makes one a better batsman than scoring the runs you do score in a destructive manner and changing the lesser number of games you change that way.

For others, obviously, it's different.

But that's the whole point of people who rate Richards greatly. He managed to change a great deal of games batting that way and also sports an average that the best batsmen who're 'consistent' have obtained.

One thing's for sure, though - as I said, I'll now be looking upon Richards' career differently to how I previously did. Because for most of his career, his average was unexceptional. Only briefly was it truly remarkable.

You're entitled to your opinion, but like most of your other opinions you'll be very lonely with it.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps because relatively few actually seem aware of the facts, dwarfed instead by the legend. Heck, I myself was until yesterday.

 

[Ikki]

Perhaps because relatively few actually seem aware of the facts, dwarfed instead by the legend. Heck, I myself was until yesterday.

Nah, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I consider your argument factual.

 

[Richard]

What I say is factual - it's just whether you place any value on those facts. You, clearly, don't. I just wonder how many are genuinely aware of them. Not that I'd imagine many people would change their mind even if they hadn't been and were then made aware of - some people (IMO) place too little value on stats.

 

[TheLad]

Viv is was great


Stats alone don’t say everything about a batsman and a few contributing factors need to be mentioned here.

When Richards was playing the pitches in the West Indies were made for rip roaring fast bowlers. The were some very good bowlers going around for a most of the sides rather than just some like it has been in recent years.

But the stat that needs to be taken is how often Richards contributed to the winning team and it was often. A lot of batsmen with better figures have not been the spearhead of a winning team, the West Indies of Richards era were the best in the world and he would attack the bowlers including the great ones put them to the sword and intimidate them with his shot making. From time to time it failed him and he also had out of form patches. But overall put the stats into context and realise his contribution to a one of the best teams ever in the game and you realise he is a master.

 

[Ikki]

What I say is factual - it's just whether you place any value on those facts. You, clearly, don't. I just wonder how many are genuinely aware of them. Not that I'd imagine many people would change their mind even if they hadn't been and were then made aware of - some people (IMO) place too little value on stats.

I don't mean 'factual' in the sense that an argument consists of facts, but the usual meaning where 'good' facts apply, so to say.

I can say Lara hit Murali for a six therefore, IMO, he is the greatest batsman of all time. It consists of a fact, but not an argument that has much merit.

Anyway, I know I'm not going to change your mind and the argument you're giving is not one that will sway mine. That doesn't mean I am giving little value to stats, just the argument you are trying to perpetrate with facts.