Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Swervy]

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.

Well you see, its an understanding of the game that gives people the ability to look beyond the statistics. Its been said before, but the absolute elite players have that X-factor that you deny the existance of. What makes a player great is how they are perceived, by the people who watch the game, or who played against them. Your perception of Richards is mainly based on how you interpret the stats. Those who saw him play have the the honour of seeing him play there and then, and therefore have just that bit more depth of knowledge of his impact

You must understand that the value of a player in terms of greatness totally depends on the values of the people that player has an effect on (ie spectators and players)

Which is hardly fair, TBH. And hence, I speak out against it.

I meant its harsher on Richards, because as soon as someone starts talking about his 189* at Old Trafford, someone can then show footage of some silly shot he played to get out for 5 just to burst the bubble. SF Barnes has the advantage reputation-wise of basically only having the positive things being written about him, but if someone had footage of him bowling a pile of tripe (which no doubt he did at some point) maybe all the Barnes worship wouldnt be so massive.

 

[Richard]

Well you see, its an understanding of the game that gives people the ability to look beyond the statistics. Its been said before, but the absolute elite players have that X-factor that you deny the existance of. What makes a player great is how they are perceived, by the people who watch the game, or who played against them. Your perception of Richards is mainly based on how you interpret the stats. Those who saw him play have the the honour of seeing him play there and then, and therefore have just that bit more depth of knowledge of his impact

You must understand that the value of a player in terms of greatness totally depends on the values of the people that player has an effect on (ie spectators and players)

"X-factor" is no more than a cosmetic matter, really. What makes a batsman or bowler great is what they did, not how they're perceived. As "players" there's more of a cosmetic element and I've no truck at all with Richards being voted, for example, a Cricketer Of The 20th Century.

I meant its harsher on Richards, because as soon as someone starts talking about his 189* at Old Trafford, someone can then show footage of some silly shot he played to get out for 5 just to burst the bubble. SF Barnes has the advantage reputation-wise of basically only having the positive things being written about him, but if someone had footage of him bowling a pile of tripe (which no doubt he did at some point) maybe all the Barnes worship wouldnt be so massive.

I highly doubt it - Barnes has impossibly good performance on his side, as well as repute and anecdote. There's little doubt in the minds of anyone with much of an education on the game that he's the Bradman of bowling. Richards, and someone like Merchant who might easily have been greater, are far more subjective.

 

[archie mac]

When I was young and read that a large % who watched Trumper ,said he was the greatest player of their time, and one of the greatest ever. I didn't look at his average of 39 and say they must be wrong, I read and learned why

 

[thierry henry]

Yes, because the majority is always right

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, because the majority is always right

Not necessarily,but, when everyone who actually saw someone play says that that someone is the one of best if not THE best batsman they've seen anyone capable of rational thought might consider the possibility that there's something in it. Instead they get the pocket calculators out and tell all these people they're wrong.
Although it irritates a few, it's just comical to me.

 

[SJS]

When I was young and read that a large % who watched Trumper ,said he was the greatest player of their time, and one of the greatest ever. I didn't look at his average of 39 and say they must be wrong, I read and learned why

 

[Arrow]

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.
.

Dont almost all great bowlers and batsmen have a great purple patch for a period of time that is their peak and then flat line, before or after?
Lara had a couple of peaks , Sachin also, even bowlers like Waqar, Wasim.

 

[Arrow]

The book. Sir Viv Richards scored runs against some pretty poor bowlers, and rarely, made runs against statistically great bowlers. .

Could say that about pretty much all the 'great' batsmen of this era. Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Hayden, ect.

 

[Goughy]

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

Completly agree. I looked at the list and though, wow, some good attacks there.

Especially when looking at stats will never show how good a guy like Chilly Old was and especially a guy like Mike Hendrick who was a special bowler.

In other news, Jack Hobbs was a poor batsman as he was 'owned' by Arthur Mailey who averaged well over 30 with the ball in Tests

 

[Richard]

Dont almost all great bowlers and batsmen have a great purple patch for a period of time that is their peak and then flat line, before or after?
Lara had a couple of peaks , Sachin also, even bowlers like Waqar, Wasim.

These sorts of peaks are different things (in all cases bar Waqar's - his is absolutely comparable). Tendulkar basically had one virtually non-stop peak between 1990 and 2002. Lara had a couple lasting 40-odd Test-matches.

This is different to having two peaks of 10 or 15 Test-matches that drag an average of 41 up to 53.

 

[Goughy]

Hmm, interesting.

A quick check and I as suprised to see that he was in the top 10 quickest (in terms on innings) from 2000-8000 runs. Noone else, apart from the obvious, has that level of consistency and domination.

Fastest to 2000

DG	Bradman
GA	Headley
H	Sutcliffe
MEK	Hussey
KD	Walters
BC	Lara
AR	Morris
ED	Weekes
FMM	Worrell
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]

Fastest to 3000

DG	Bradman
ED	Weekes
H	Sutcliffe
BC	Lara
RN	Harvey
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
GS	Sobers
V	Sehwag
CL	Walcott
DCS	Compton

Fastest to 4000

DG	Bradman
H	Sutcliffe
ED	Weekes
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
JB	Hobbs
WR	Hammond
BC	Lara
L	Hutton
GS	Sobers
ML	Hayden

Fastest to 5000

DG	Bradman
JB	Hobbs
GS	Sobers
SM	Gavaskar
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
ML	Hayden
WR	Hammond
KF	Barrington
L	Hutton
SR	Tendulkar

Fastest to 6000

DG	Bradman
GS	Sobers
WR	Hammond
L	Hutton
KF	Barrington
KC	Sangakkara
SM	Gavaskar
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
SR	Tendulkar
Mohammad	Yousuf

Fastest to 7000

WR	Hammond
SR	Tendulkar
GS	Sobers
SM	Gavaskar
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
R	Dravid
ML	Hayden
Javed	Miandad
RT	Ponting
BC	Lara

Fastest to 8000

SR	Tendulkar
GS	Sobers
R	Dravid
Javed	Miandad
BC	Lara
ML	Hayden
RT	Ponting
SM	Gavaskar
[B]IVA	Richards[/B]
JH	Kallis

Make of it what you will

 

[Migara]

Which bowler(s) do you think he was never able to truly dominate? And which bowler(s) in turn dominated him to some extent?

1. BS Chandrashekar
2. Abdul Qadir.

Viv was a magnificient player, but never got to play the best of the spinners. Chandra and Qadir were masters of their craft, but easily a tier below Warne and Murali. If Viv had to face two 2nd tier spinners (who were the best in business by then among a whole lot a tier below them) modern batsman have to tackle Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq toadd to the variety on top of playing Murali and Warne. So I am very scptical about his spin play. Never scored a century in India when Chandra played, IIRC.

Once show him playing Murali in a charity match during SL's first tour of WI. By then Murali did not have the doosra, but Viv was clueless against him, and Murali sent one through his gate eventually. During his youth he might have done better, but that footage shown in a local TV station made me think of the position of most of the great players of the past, because they just did not got to play two freaks of spin bowlers during their career.

Des Haynes was very well known for his classy batting. When WI came for their first test tour to SL he was so intimidating for SL seamers he was sweeping them! But, once spinners came on, he was made to look utter foolish, playing and missing. I cannot say how he would've played Murali, because he was scalped by lesser spinners before Murali came in to the attack!

 

[Richard]

Interesting. The likes of Kallicharran and Lloyd were of course masterful batsmen against spin, but of Richards and Haynes' play against it, little has been seriously documented.

Would have been good to see him take-on Underwood on an uncovered wicket.

 

[Migara]

Interesting. The likes of Kallicharran and Lloyd were of course masterful batsmen against spin, but of Richards and Haynes' play against it, little has been seriously documented.

Would have been good to see him take-on Underwood on an uncovered wicket.

I can remeber Viv saying Chandra was the most difficult bowler he played. He mentioned that Chandra was not hesitant to bowl bouncers at him! But never mentioned much about Qadir. IIRC Viv had his lowes average against Pakistan with their string of wrist spinners.

 

[social]

Tbh, cant believe that this topic is still being debated

Easily the best player of quicks I've seen - and bear in mind he did it in the strongest era with no helmet

Unbelievable strike rate

Unbelievable average when compared to his peers

AND voted one of the greats of the 20th century

Unless you believe he is ranked where he is because of his "friendly" personality, the guy's a myth

 

[Richard]

Easily the best player of quicks I've seen

Can only presume you've never seen Tendulkar or Lara then.

Unbelievable strike rate

Relatively unimportant in Test-cricket.

Unbelievable average when compared to his peers

Greg Chappell's was better still.

AND voted one of the greats of the 20th century

One of the great cricketers. Different question to being a great batsman. Not that he wasn't a great batsmen, but there are easily 5 better batsmen in the 20th century.

Unless you believe he is ranked where he is because of his "friendly" personality, the guy's a myth

His personality was certainly far from friendly, but does undoubtedly contribute to his aura and his standing as a cricketer, as well as mislead assessment of him as a batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Can only presume you've never seen Tendulkar or Lara then.

Relatively unimportant in Test-cricket.

Greg Chappell's was better still.

One of the great cricketers. Different question to being a great batsman. Not that he wasn't a great batsmen, but there are easily 5 better batsmen in the 20th century.

His personality was certainly far from friendly, but does undoubtedly contribute to his aura and his standing as a cricketer, as well as mislead assessment of him as a batsman.

Excuse me Richard, you should write: "In my opinion there are easily 5 better batsmen in the 20th century". Don't go start making statements as if they're fact.

 

[Richard]

Well batsmen being better than one another is always a MOO, it barely needs to be stated.

 

[Ikki]

Well batsmen being better than one another is always a MOO, it barely needs to be stated.

I reckon 'practicing what you preach', is the point here.

 

[Richard]

Anything Swervy can do, I can do better.