Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[archie mac]

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".

Yep we have heard it all before, you trott out silly stats, and people who saw him bat, just shake their heads

 

[Perm]

Yep we have heard it all before, you trott out silly stats, and people who saw him bat, just shake their heads

Silly stats? Seriously, you might not agree with what we're saying, but to say that facts are silly, well that in itself is silly. So far I've been provided very few reasons why I should consider Sir Vivian Richards as a better Test batsmen than the likes of George Headley, Ken Barrington and numerous other Test batsmen that out-scored him consistently. What I usually get is people saying "Statistics aren't important" or "I saw Viv bat and he's definitely #2", there is almost no justification behind the points raised.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Keep it up guys, every little snippet of doubt aimed at Viv Richards by those who's entire judgement comes from a book just makes you look sillier and sillier.

 

[Perm]

Keep it up guys, every little snippet of doubt aimed at Viv Richards by those who's entire judgement comes from a book just makes you look sillier and sillier.

For once, can we actually get some intelligent and proper reasons as to why Sir Viv Richards was such a good batsmen, rather than the usual rubbish?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For once, can we actually get some intelligent and proper reasons as to why Sir Viv Richards was such a good batsmen, rather than the usual rubbish?

As you didn't see him bat and never will, there's not much that can be done. The fact that the vast majority of people who did see him rate so highly should lead those who didn't to at least consider the possibility that stats are not everything. Instead they just prefer to get out the abacus in an attempt to prove otherwise.

 

[pasag]

Keep it up guys, every little snippet of doubt aimed at Viv Richards by those who's entire judgement comes from a book just makes you look sillier and sillier.

You've said this before a few times, from what book will you find this rubbish?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You've said this before a few times, from what book will you find this rubbish?

I'm not talking about a specific "book". I just mean those who's judgement comes entirely from Wisden or the Play Fair Annual because of the career stats contained within. These days of course these types are more likely to be using the Cric Info Stats Guru to make their judgement (or lack of).

 

[Perm]

As you didn't see him bat and never will, there's not much that can be done. The fact that the vast majority of people who did see him rate so highly should lead those who didn't to at least consider the possibility that stats are not everything. Instead they just prefer to get out the abacus in an attempt to prove otherwise.

I didn't see Bradman bat, and I don't need to talk to somebody who did to realise how good he was. What tells me that? Oh, that's right, the amount of runs he scored at such a prolific rate. Now, pray tell me, what is the aim of a batsman? Isn't it to score runs? Well, Sir Viv Richards didn't actually do that as well as some others did (apart from two spurts of amazing run-scoring), yet you are willing to call him better simply because he looked better, or more breath-taking.

 

[pasag]

I'm not talking about a specific "book". I just mean those who's judgement comes entirely from Wisden or the Play Fair Annual because of the career stats contained within. These days of course these types are more likely to be using the Cric Info Stats Guru to make their judgement (or lack of).

Yeah, this is historical revisionism at it lamest. It's sad when people have next to no idea come and tinker around with some website filter and attempt to disprove everything that's gone on before hand with this rubbish. I always find those innings break down trying to discredit a player laughable, I bet I could do the same thing with most of Bradman's hundrededs, writing one petty little comment about the bowlers, to discredit everything he achieved.

The notion that everyone else beforehand had wool over their eyes and simply have no idea what they're talking about is a woefully arrogant one. This tinpot statistical analysis is one of the worst aspects of CW for me.

 

[Perm]

Yeah, this is historical revisionism at it lamest. It's sad when people have next to no idea come and tinker around with some website filter and attempt to disprove everything that's gone on before hand with this rubbish.

Do you realise how extremely contradictory and hypocritical it is to call my argument 'woefully arrogant', when you make posts like this?

I always find those innings break down trying to discredit a player laughable, I bet I could do the same thing with most of Bradman's hundrededs to discredit everything he achieved.

For a start, I was merely responding to a query from another poster, and decided to link it here, because it was relevant. Regarding Bradman, I'd like to see you try.

The notion that everyone else beforehand had wool over their eyes and simply have no idea what they're talking about is a woefully arrogant one.

What is arrogant is not giving any credit to the statistics that prove Richards wasn't as good at scoring runs during his Test career as other batsmen who are considered by some as inferior, because their run-making methods weren't as attractive.

This tinpot statistical analysis is one of the worst aspects of CW for me.

So you would rather people hail Darren Ganga as a fine Test batsmen because he has an excellent technique, regardless of his lack of runs? Because essentially it's the same thing, judging a player on how they looked as opposed to what they actually did.

 

[pasag]

Do you realise how extremely contradictory and hypocritical it is to call my argument 'woefully arrogant', when you make posts like this?



For a start, I was merely responding to a query from another poster, and decided to link it here, because it was relevant. Regarding Bradman, I'd like to see you try.



What is arrogant is not giving any credit to the statistics that prove Richards wasn't as good at scoring runs during his Test career as other batsmen who are considered by some as inferior, because their run-making methods weren't as attractive.



So you would rather people hail Darren Ganga as a fine Test batsmen because he has an excellent technique, regardless of his lack of runs? Because essentially it's the same thing, judging a player on how they looked as opposed to what they actually did.

I'll give your statistics credit when you go read something about the game, listen to what people have watched him their whole lives say and NOT base opinions on scorecards and stats programs. I admire LT's restraint that he has a guy who has never seen the person in question play and is attempting to 'school' him with tinpot statistical analysis that would make even the staunchest stats junkie cringe with embarrassment.

 

[Perm]

I'll give your statistics credit when you go read something about the game, listen to what people have watched him their whole lives say and NOT base opinions on scorecards and stats programs. I admire LT's restraint that he has a guy who has never seen the person in question play and is attempting to 'school' him with tinpot statistical analysis that would make even the staunchest stats junkie cringe with embarrassment.

Really pasag, you're putting forward a weak argument. I'm basing my opinion on what Richards acheived, nothing more and nothing less. That you continue to take pot-shots at me is surprising, and you have yet to actually put forward a rebuttal. Instead you'd rather toy with the notion that I am ignprant, or whatever.

 

[NZTailender]

Jesus Perm, go out and get laid or something.

 

[pasag]

Really pasag, you're putting forward a weak argument. I'm basing my opinion on what Richards acheived, nothing more and nothing less. That you continue to take pot-shots at me is surprising, and you have yet to actually put forward a rebuttal. Instead you'd rather toy with the notion that I am ignprant, or whatever.

Well as you can see it's the subject I feel passionately about, so apology for the pot shots, but it does drive me insane sometimes. I'll try and stay away.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Some good attacks there and some good bowlers. I dont see the point.

Also, I think you will find that most batsmen, however great, do tend to make most of their highest and best knocks against less than top notch attacks (due to the simple fact that all it takes is one ball or one mistake to be trudging ones way to the pavilion).

In any case, have you looked at the attacks against whom Bradman scored his hundreds? Piss poor only begins to describe a good number of them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I admire LT's restraint that he has a guy who has never seen the person in question play and is attempting to 'school' him with tinpot statistical analysis that would make even the staunchest stats junkie cringe with embarrassment.

It doesn't take any restraint, it's actually quite amusing to see people who have watched cricket for 5 minutes thinking they're being really profound by discrediting the greatest players in history. I find it one of the endearing traits of CW that people will try to discredit the likes of Richards, Sobers and Lillee, it's only the odd few that do it and it's pure comedy.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Have you read Imrans autobiography? He rates Viv (iirc) as the best he bowled to and the best he saw. I believe Hadlee makes the same comments and Lillee put him in the top bracket too, as do, for that matter, most bowlers who bowled to him. I think they'd know.

 

[Ikki]

Some good attacks there and some good bowlers. I dont see the point.

Also, I think you will find that most batsmen, however great, do tend to make most of their highest and best knocks against less than top notch attacks (due to the simple fact that all it takes is one ball or one mistake to be trudging ones way to the pavilion).

In any case, have you looked at the attacks against whom Bradman scored his hundreds? Piss poor only begins to describe a good number of them.

Haha, I agree. I thought Perm was against the idea that Richards was overrated by posting that. Players that averaged under 25? I guess Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Underwood, Botham, Hogg, Dev, McDermott, Chatfield and Qadir (all which are listed by Perm) were poor bowlers.

 

[Swervy]

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".

But is that not a valid reason?...he is without a doubt in my mind the best batsman I have ever seen. That is not to over rate him, as its my opinion, as it is the opinion of many others, who either digested what he did as it happened or, (and this carries even more weight) played against him.

I watched some highlights of some old school late 70's early 80's domestic one dayers the other week. I sat down to watch Richards with a view to trying to de-bunk my own opinion on him. I finished watching it with my own opinion reinforcred. The shots he played, how he played them etc just confirmed to me how far ahead of ANYONE I have seen in the last 30 years Richards was...but again its not based on averages or whatever.

Whoever suggested that Richards scored the big runs vs weaker attacks, surely it is the same for pretty much all batsmen over history...shall we look at Gavaskar as an example at some point

PS in that list of Richards hundreds , there are some very decent bowling attacks...the 232 vs England jumps out especially for me

 

[Richard]

But is that not a valid reason?

Nope.

he is without a doubt in my mind the best batsman I have ever seen. That is not to over rate him, as its my opinion, as it is the opinion of many others, who either digested what he did as it happened or, (and this carries even more weight) played against him.

But it's not. "He's the best batsman I've seen" is opinion stated as fact. A correct way of putting it would be "I think he's the best batsman I've seen".