Swervy
International Captain
sweet jesus
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?
- Thread starter Lillian Thomson
- Start date
sweet jesus
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Richard, stay off the crack. "He's the best batsman I've seen" is clearly an opinion. Take a day off mate.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I've long since grown sick of Swervy's (and often older posters' in general - though to their great credit there's several on CW who defy this trend, the Sean PRs, the Matt79s, the David Lewises, the stumpskis) superiorist attitude regarding Richards. It is opinion put across as fact - the fact it's such a ludicrously (yes, ludicrously) formed opinion simply makes it worse.
BTW, I've had far more "days off" (from CW) in the last week than normal. Surprised, very surprised, you haven't noticed.
BTW, I've had far more "days off" (from CW) in the last week than normal. Surprised, very surprised, you haven't noticed.
Swervy
International Captain
Superiorist attitude? I am not too sure where you are coming from on this one..
I can't see how you can say it it is a ludicrously formed opinion. I am just going from the values I hold to be important, and also trust the judgment of other people who watch him play, and also played against him.
For me, just watching him bat when he was in his pomp was simply an unrivaled experience, and is only something that Tendulkar or Lara at their very best could even hope to match. So that is my opinion.....but conveniently a lot of the stats back up the idea that he was ahead of pretty much everyone.
His record from 76 to say 82 surely can't be matched (and this is a period a lot of people would say was of a very high standard bowling wise around the world)
And this of course isnt including his amazing one day record.
So how is it a ludicrously formed opinion?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Just FYI, I had rated him higher before I bothered to go back and watch most of his career. Why? Because I was caught up in the myth. You can believe what you want though.Yep we have heard it all before, you trott out silly stats, and people who saw him bat, just shake their heads
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The "I watched Richards and you silly kids couldn't possibly have a clue because you don't understand how to assess players you haven't watched". It's annoying, TSTL.
His record from '76 to '82 is in fact composed of two shortish periods of phenomenal run-scoring (I actually said as much earlier this thread), and there are other parts in amongst said periods which conform to the '74-'75 and '83-'88 time. Richards' career comprised a lot of very good play and two short periods of play the sensation like of which we've probably only seen from Bradman.
Too many people, AFAIC, place almost all emphasis on these 25 Tests, when the other 79 (excluding his last 17 where he was not the force he once was) form a completely different picture. I'm more inclined to treat these 25 Tests as something of an anomaly (and NO, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THEY "DON'T COUNT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and judge him more on the 79, where the inevitable constraints of his extremely unusual style of batsmanship did indeed impose themselves. He had 25 "breakout" Tests where he was able to use this style and still prosper better than most.
Tendulkar is a far, far better batsman than Richards. Lara is better too. That's my opinion. Sobers was beyond question better, though obviously there's virtually no-one who saw him play on CW.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I see Richard is on form today.
Many people don't realise the social impact this drivel has on the rest of the UK. In the Canterbury Dover and Stoves Retirement Homes they gather around and choose a Post of Week which gave them the biggest laugh. In Surrey Cathedral, Sister O'Hara and the Order of the Third Merit were so bemused by the notion that Michael Atherton could have averaged 60 in Test Cricket that they started to question whether Jesus was really white.
Many people don't realise the social impact this drivel has on the rest of the UK. In the Canterbury Dover and Stoves Retirement Homes they gather around and choose a Post of Week which gave them the biggest laugh. In Surrey Cathedral, Sister O'Hara and the Order of the Third Merit were so bemused by the notion that Michael Atherton could have averaged 60 in Test Cricket that they started to question whether Jesus was really white.
Swervy
International Captain
I think a 5 or 6 year period is more than just a breakout period, and of course its not just with tests, its ODIs and domestic cricket that people have based judgements on
and there is nothing wrong with that opinion, I would disagree, as would many others, but I can see why people would consider those two to be better batsmen.
But with regards to the title of this thread...Richards-Master or Myth, I can't really see how anyone could deny Richards was a master (I just think he was THE master)
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Jesus probably wasn't. At least not the blue eyes/blond hair variety.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Who said anything about blue eyes and blond hair? You appear to be confusing the birth of Our Lord with Hitler's attempt to create a master race.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Is that supposed to be a coloured Jesus or a white Viv Richards?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
You mean they were different people?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
ODIs and domestic cricket are different games to Tests. Judge them on their own merits. And it's not a solid period, it's 2 periods (of just over 18 months each) separated by 4 years.
Oh, I know why people consider Richards to be preeminent, but I just find it fairly ludicrous.
No-one does deny he's a master - it's just there's a hell of a lot of myth about him too.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, though rumour has it that Viv might have been his Father.
Swervy
International Captain
How is it ludicrous though??? I just don't understand how anyone can say it is ludicrous, when there are so many people (spectators, players, commentators, writers, umpires and the like) that think he was the best batsman post-Sobers
Of course there is, just like there is about SF Barnes, Gilbert Jessop, Bradman, Headley, or whoever...its just there are a lot more people around who saw Richards compared to the others, who can actually confirm some of the things they saw (also the copious amounts of footage of him as well)
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Why they think that way I don't know (there were only a tiny number of dissenters back before Tendulkar declined mind), but to me it's just not understanding of the game to think that way. It's basically saying that what a batsman looked like is more important than what he actually did.
Which is hardly fair, TBH. And hence, I speak out against it.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
As your understanding of the game doesn't actually coincide with anyone else living or dead that should be taken as a great compliment by all Viv Richards supporters.