Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[social]

Sorry guys but you seem to be suggesting that Richards was some sort of mindless hitter.

Nothing could be further from the truth

The guy scored at such an incredible rate because he was that much better than everyone else - no other reason

 

[Richard]

He was better than everyone else who tried scoring at such rates, yes.

He was no mindless hitter, certainly not.

That doesn't mean he, or anyone else, could have had such a desire to dominate against such high-calibre spin-bowlers, especially on turning, and more than ever on slow turning, surfaces, and still scored at a hefty average. Not that, as established, Richards did this for most of his career anyway.

 

[social]

He was better than everyone else who tried scoring at such rates, yes.

He was no mindless hitter, certainly not.

That doesn't mean he, or anyone else, could have had such a desire to dominate against such high-calibre spin-bowlers, especially on turning, and more than ever on slow turning, surfaces, and still scored at a hefty average. Not that, as established, Richards did this for most of his career anyway.

The point is that Richards didnt have to try to score at a high rate. At his peak, he was so good that he was almost impossible to bowl to.

Further, any batsman, no matter how good would struggle to dominate great bowlers in favourable bowling conditions. Likewise, they'd have little chance of containing him in conditions that were similarly favourable for batting

 

[Matt79]

Certainly wasn't suggesting that he was a mindless hitter, or that he'd blindly go on the all out attack. He wasn't an Afridi type of one-geared kamikaze. But he almost always batted with intent and refused to let the bowler settle into a pattern against him. Historically, this type of batsman is the type who's done the best against Warne and Murali - think Lara against Warne and the Aussie line-up against Murali. Batsman who are predominantly focused on survival tend to play into the hands of guys like Shane and Muttiah.

As I said, I think the two spinners would often take his wicket, although while on somedays it would be for not much, I think Viv's quality would mean that he'd often have done a fair bit of damage before they did get him. Do I think that overall he'd probably average less than his career average against Murali and Warne? Assuming that the rest of the attack was remotely decent, then yes, he probably would. They're two of the very best bowlers of all time, he's almost certainly going to do worse against them than the average test bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually, I tend to lean towards Viv against Warne. Viv was a fine player of spin bowling, and loved to dominate from the start. Warne faced that before in Lara, Tendulkar, Sidhu and Peitersen, and usually came out second best. Warne's biggest strength is his ability to psyche out the opposition, and I don't see Viv letting Warne dictate the terms. Plus, Warne's record against West Indies of the 90s isn't all that impressive, so I don't think he'll be able to rip through the 80s side with much frequency as people suggest.

Murali might be different, he's more into deceiving his opponent and is harder to pick than Warne. That would be an interesting struggle (well, both of them would be).

 

[Matt79]

Actually, I tend to lean towards Viv against Warne. Viv was a fine player of spin bowling, and loved to dominate from the start. Warne faced that before in Lara, Tendulkar, Sidhu and Peitersen, and usually came out second best. Warne's biggest strength is his ability to psyche out the opposition, and I don't see Viv letting Warne dictate the terms. Plus, Warne's record against West Indies of the 90s isn't all that impressive, so I don't think he'll be able to rip through the 80s side with much frequency as people suggest.

Murali might be different, he's more into deceiving his opponent and is harder to pick than Warne. That would be an interesting struggle (well, both of them would be).

Depends what stage in his career you're talking about with Warne as to how much he had in his bag besides 'psych'. And in any case to say that Warne relied on 'psyching' batsmen out is to sell short his accuracy and minute control over his stock leg-break. Loop, degree of side-spin, speed, he would varying them all constantly working towards a plan.

I also, however, think that Viv would do pretty well against Warne, but Shane would definitely have had his victories.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends what stage in his career you're talking about with Warne as to how much he had in his bag besides 'psych'. And in any case to say that Warne relied on 'psyching' batsmen out is to sell short his accuracy and minute control over his stock leg-break. Loop, degree of side-spin, speed, he would varying them all constantly working towards a plan.

I also, however, think that Viv would do pretty well against Warne, but Shane would definitely have had his victories.

I agree. I'm not belittling Warne's undoubted skill, but a good part of his game was using his aura to get wickets, it definitely worked against England.

He was a very cerebral bowler though, and would give Viv a fair share of trouble. No doubt a Viv-Warne battle would a sight to see, what a clash of egos.

 

[Jono]

Warne/Murali vs. Viv would be a dream to watch.

 

[Richard]

The point is that Richards didnt have to try to score at a high rate. At his peak, he was so good that he was almost impossible to bowl to.

Yeah, his peaks lasting a whole 15 and 10 Tests... fantastic. In his other 79 Tests (and his last 17 which aren't really terribly relevant) he was eminently bowlable-to, and good bowlers could and did get him out cheaply often enough.

Further, any batsman, no matter how good would struggle to dominate great bowlers in favourable bowling conditions. Likewise, they'd have little chance of containing him in conditions that were similarly favourable for batting

There's no such thing, really, as "conditions favourable to batting", just conditions which don't favour certain bowlers as much as others. And for Warne and Murali, such conditions are exceedingly rare, they can and did turn most conditions to their advantage.

 

[Richard]

Certainly wasn't suggesting that he was a mindless hitter, or that he'd blindly go on the all out attack. He wasn't an Afridi type of one-geared kamikaze. But he almost always batted with intent and refused to let the bowler settle into a pattern against him. Historically, this type of batsman is the type who's done the best against Warne and Murali - think Lara against Warne and the Aussie line-up against Murali. Batsman who are predominantly focused on survival tend to play into the hands of guys like Shane and Muttiah.

As I say - that's not the case, though. Lara's approach and Richards' are totally different. I can only think of one occasion where Lara played Murali (and never Warne) how Richards played as-a-rule, and that was because he was gambling on inducing panic.

Lara was always about controlled aggression. So were the Husseys and Clarkes in the recent series in Australia. So have the Indians and Lara been against Warne. They've looked for their scoring areas and exploited them. That wasn't the Richards way, and he could conceivably have suffered for it.

 

[subshakerz]

As I say - that's not the case, though. Lara's approach and Richards' are totally different. I can only think of one occasion where Lara played Murali (and never Warne) how Richards played as-a-rule, and that was because he was gambling on inducing panic.

Lara was always about controlled aggression. So were the Husseys and Clarkes in the recent series in Australia. So have the Indians and Lara been against Warne. They've looked for their scoring areas and exploited them. That wasn't the Richards way, and he could conceivably have suffered for it.

What about Kevin Peitersen? He's taken to Warne with success and always looks to dominate.

 

[Migara]

Certainly wasn't suggesting that he was a mindless hitter, or that he'd blindly go on the all out attack. He wasn't an Afridi type of one-geared kamikaze. But he almost always batted with intent and refused to let the bowler settle into a pattern against him. Historically, this type of batsman is the type who's done the best against Warne and Murali - think Lara against Warne and the Aussie line-up against Murali. Batsman who are predominantly focused on survival tend to play into the hands of guys like Shane and Muttiah.

But, Viv most of the time looked unlike his self when playing Chandrashekar and Qadir, who were among the best in that era. Both Warne and Murali are quite superior to Qadir and Chandra, so we can expect more trouble for him when facing them.

 

[Migara]

What about Kevin Peitersen? He's taken to Warne with success and always looks to dominate.

But just failed innings after innings aginst Murali, after that two big knocks in England.

 

[Ikki]

What about Kevin Peitersen? He's taken to Warne with success and always looks to dominate.

But just failed innings after innings aginst Murali, after that two big knocks in England.

Actually, that's quite the misconception. Warne's dismissed Pietersen 5 times in their 10 matches together at about an average of 22 at the score of dismissal. Murali has dismissed him 6 times in their 6 matches together at an average of about 44 at the score of dismissal.

Of course, that isn't an accurate reflection either as there are times where Warne's been hit around and McGrath has taken the wickets and also Murali has taken the wicket because no one else could.

 

[Migara]

Actually, that's quite the misconception. Warne's dismissed Pietersen 5 times in their 10 matches together at about an average of 22 at the score of dismissal. Murali has dismissed him 6 times in their 6 matches together at an average of about 44 at the score of dismissal.

Debating whether Murali or Warne is better against Pietersen is not the topic. My point was how Murali improved his grip on Pietersen by every match

Now KPs scores against SL reads 158, 142, 13, 41, 6, 31, 18, 1, 45*, 1, 30, which is in a down ward trend. This trend is not much obserevd in matches against Aussies.

KP Agaisnt Lankans

KP Against Aussies

 

[Richard]

What about Kevin Peitersen? He's taken to Warne with success and always looks to dominate.

Pietersen is probably the best example as he's very much Richards-esque in his aggression - not Lara-esque, or Hussey-esque. Pretty much unbridled, rather than controlled.

And Pietersen has had his spectacular successes against both Murali and Warne, but he's also undeniably had his failures. Overall, I'd say Murali's had the better of him; overall, I'd say he's had the better of Warne, but only just. And who knows how different that might have been if Warne himself had caught him at The Oval in 2005.

 

[Swervy]

Pietersen is probably the best example as he's very much Richards-esque in his aggression - not Lara-esque, or Hussey-esque. Pretty much unbridled, rather than controlled.

You see, you miss the point...Richards didn't display much unbridled aggression, it was totally controlled, largely due to his quick eye and superb timing and brute strength.

 

[Richard]

I've watched Richards innings aplenty (and read scorecards of them), both during the short sensational periods and the more "normal" ones. And there's absolutely no doubt he was far, far more unbridled than Lara, by-and-large. This is why Lara was able to be good for so much longer, despite never coming close to the sorts of sensations Richards occasionally managed (though one could argue that in scoring his 375s and 400*s Lara's best trumped even Richards' best. Even Lara, though, could not score 375s within months of each other).

 

[archie mac]

Warne/Murali vs. Viv would be a dream to watch.

Yes would be great, I would put my money on the 'master blaster', not that he would win with a knock out innings everytime, but enough for a points win

 

[Top_Cat]

I've watched Richards innings aplenty (and read scorecards of them), both during the short sensational periods and the more "normal" ones. And there's absolutely no doubt he was far, far more unbridled than Lara, by-and-large. This is why Lara was able to be good for so much longer, despite never coming close to the sorts of sensations Richards occasionally managed (though one could argue that in scoring his 375s and 400*s Lara's best trumped even Richards' best. Even Lara, though, could not score 375s within months of each other).

You're too young to have seen Richards live aren't you? Highlights don't really tell the whole picture. Lara, even when 200+, always looks like a cat on a hot tin roof. Viv is laconic and always in control, even when he's belted a few 6's in a roll. I only saw Viv live towards the end (1989-1991) but they're two totally different players.