Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[social]

Cant believe we've soaked up 18 pages debating whether Viv was one of the greatest ever.

Clearly the best of his generation (against, I might add, supposedly some of the greatest bowlers) and some are still questioning because of highs and lows (which were still pretty good) - crazy stuff

 

[Sanz]

Very typical of how a thread is hijacked by a certain individual.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

IOW, "you got me there, can't comeback from that".

Rich baby, what colour is the sky in your world?

 

[Ikki]

It's not just his opinions - must people have long given up taking notice of those beyond comedy value. "Ways" is refering to his method of argument not the arguments themselves.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just giving you his reply when I asked the same question.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just giving you his reply when I asked the same question.

Oh I see. Oh well, never mind. At least it gave poor old Rich the opportunity to tell the World that everyone loves him.

 

[NUFAN]

Myth! As a bowler. Only Grant Flower was worse on SJS stats.

 

[roseboy64]

Very typical of how a thread is hijacked by a certain individual.

Richard has posted on the last 18 pages of this thread? Bias making you see things?

 

[The Sean]

I've found some of Richard's opinions in this thread laughable and cringeworthy tbh, but the fact remains, you play the post and not the man. If his opinions are 'poppycock', disprove them. If he is talking complete rubbish, show us how and tell us why. Alot of the stuff on the last page is ad hominem at best.

Gelman's use of Latin - gun or gratuitous?



FWIW, I'd vote gun.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've found some of Richard's opinions in this thread laughable and cringeworthy tbh, but the fact remains, you play the post and not the man. If his opinions are 'poppycock', disprove them. If he is talking complete rubbish, show us how and tell us why. Alot of the stuff on the last page is ad hominem at best.

Gelman's use of Latin - gun or gratuitous?



FWIW, I'd vote gun.

Gratuitous. It's almost as if he learnt the word the same day and was determined to throw it in somewhere. Also interesting to note the use of the words "laughable and cringeworthy" and then not making any attempt to "tell us why." Having said that it's a point not lacking in potential except for the fact that anyone trying to tell cricket lovers that Viv Richards wasn't a great batsman should probably join the Flat Earth Society instead.

 

[Fiery]

I've found some of Richard's opinions in this thread laughable and cringeworthy tbh, but the fact remains, you play the post and not the man. If his opinions are 'poppycock', disprove them. If he is talking complete rubbish, show us how and tell us why. Alot of the stuff on the last page is ad hominem at best.

Gelman's use of Latin - gun or gratuitous?



FWIW, I'd vote gun.

Gratuitous really when he had already said "you play the post and not the man", which is basically what ad hominem means. Also the 4th time he has used the word in the last 7 months

 

[shortpitched713]

Gratuitous really when he had already said "you play the post and not the man", which is basically what ad hominem means. Also the 4th time he has used the word in the last 7 months

Gratuitous really, when you'd already posted the same thing twice in a row.

 

[Fiery]

Fixed

 

[ChipSomeSixes]

myth

 

[Fiery]

myth

Care to expand on that?

 

[Richard]

Having said that it's a point not lacking in potential except for the fact that anyone trying to tell cricket lovers that Viv Richards wasn't a great batsman should probably join the Flat Earth Society instead.

No-one was trying to tell anyone that.

 

[Perm]

Just a little bit of research I've done, based on a comment in another thread.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1465600&postcount=752

From Best of the Best :
Viv Richards is an interesting case, falling outside the top 20 due to the number of runs he scored against statistically weak attacks.

Cant imagine this realistically, when he was chosen as Wisden's Top 5 of the last century and generally acknowledged amongst his peers and followers as the supreme striker of the sphere

192* vs S Abid Ali (42.12), ED Solkar (59.44), BS Bedi (28.71), EAP Prasanna (30.38), S Venkataraghavan (36.11)
101 vs GJ Gilmour (26.03), JR Thomson (28.00), DK Lillee (23.92), AA Mallett (29.84), IM Chappell (65.80), GS Chappell (40.70)
142 vs S Madan Lal (38.00), M Amarnath (28.00), BS Bedi (28.71), BS Chandrasekhar (29.39), EAP Prasanna (30.38)
130 vs S Madan Lal (38.00), M Amarnath (28.00), BS Bedi (28.71), BS Chandrasekhar (29.39), S Venkataraghavan (36.11)
177 vs S Madan Lal (38.00), M Amarnath (28.00), ED Solkar (59.44), BS Bedi (28.71), BS Chandrasekhar (29.39), S Venkataraghavan (36.11)
232 vs JA Snow (26.66), M Hendrick (25.83), CM Old (28.11), AW Greig (32.30), RA Woolmer (74.75), DL Underwood (24.92)
135 vs M Hendrick (25.83), MWW Selvey (57.16), AW Greig (32.30), DL Underwood (25.83), PI Pocock (44.41)
291 vs RGD Willis (25.20), MWW Selvey (57.16), DL Underwood (25.83), RA Woolmer (74.75), G Miller (30.98), JC Balderstone (80.00), P Willey (65.14), DS Steele (19.50)
140 vs DK Lillee (23.92), RM Hogg (28.47), JR Thomson (28.00), RJ Bright (41.13), AR Border (39.10), DW Hookes (41.00)
145 vs RGD Willis (25.20), IT Botham (28.40), DL Underwood (25.83), M Hendrick (25.83), GA Gooch (46.47), P Willey (65.14), G Boycott (54.57)
120* vs Imran Khan (22.81), Sarfraz Nawaz (32.75), Iqbal Qasim (28.11), Mohammad Nazir (33.05), Wasim Raja (35.80)
182* vs GR Dilley (29.76), IT Botham (28.40), RD Jackman (31.78), JE Emburey (38.40), P Willey (65.14)
114 vs GR Dilley (29.76), IT Botham (28.40), GB Stevenson (36.60), JE Emburey (38.40), P Willey (65.14), GA Gooch (46.47), G Boycott (54.57)
109 vs N Kapil Dev (29.64), BS Sandhu (55.70), RJ Shastri (40.96), Maninder Singh (37.36), S Venkataraghavan (36.11)
120 vs N Kapil Dev (29.64), RJ Shastri (40.96), Maninder Singh (37.36), S Madan Lal (38.00), RMH Binny (32.63), NS Yadav (35.09)
178 vs GF Lawson (30.56), CG Rackermann (29.15), JN Maguire (32.30), TG Hogan (47.06)
117 vs RGD Willis (25.20), IT Botham (28.40), DR Pringle (35.97), NGB Cook (32.48), G Miller (30.98)
208 vs GF Lawson (30.56), RM Hogg (28.47), CJ McDermott (28.63), MJ Bennett (54.16), GRJ Matthews (48.22)
105 vs RJ Hadlee (22.29), EJ Chatfield (32.17), DA Stirling (46.23), MD Crowe (48.28), SL Boock (34.64)
110* vs IT Botham (28.40), NA Foster (32.85), RM Ellison (29.94), JE Emburey (38.40)
109* vs N Kapil Dev (29.64), C Sharma (35.45), Maninder Singh (37.36), Arshad Ayub (35.07), RJ Shastri (40.96)
123 vs Imran Khan (22.81), Wasim Akram (23.62), Abdul Qadir (32.80), Ijaz Faqih (74.75), Shoaib Mohammad (34.00)
146 vs GF Lawson (30.56), MG Hughes (28.38), AIC Dodemaide (28.02), SR Waugh (37.44), TBA May (34.74)
110 vs N Kapil Dev (29.64), C Sharma (35.45), Arshad Ayub (35.07), M Venkataramana (58.00), RJ Shastri (40.96)

The man has a fair point.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You agreeing with the book, or Engle?

 

[silentstriker]

Great player, but overrated by many.

 

[Perm]

You agreeing with the book, or Engle?

The book. Sir Viv Richards scored runs against some pretty poor bowlers, and rarely, made runs against statistically great bowlers. In that list of centuries, I think only Dennis Lillee, Sir Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan and Wasim Akram average under 25 over their career.

Richards initially clashed with Imran Khan when he (Richards) was in the height of form, averaging 60, and Imran was nothing more than a mediocre Test bowler with an average touching 30. His second clash with Imran was at the tail-end of the bowlers career, when he was no longer the force he once was. When he encountered Akram, the bowler was young, having only been playing Test career for a couple of years, and was nothing special at that time, certainly not close to being as good as he ended up being.

When he faced Dennis Lillee in 1976 he was a poor Test batsmen, and that innings was the start of an amazing run of form in which Richards scored seven centuries (two of them doubles), and five half-centuries in 16 innings. When the two clashed again in 1979 it was after Lillee had a long break from the Test game of almost two years. Admittedly Sir Viv Richards did well against Hadlee in his prime, but other than that, didn't score too many against great bowlers.

 

[Perm]

Great player, but overrated by many.

Too true. Almost the only reason provided for ranking Richards so highly by a few posters is "I've seen him play, and he was the second best batsmen ever".