Viv Richards v Sunil Gavaskar

[Pigeon]

Yet he averaged 55 in games against Chandra and was taken 4 times by him in 14 innings. I don't think that's even, let alone a fail. He averaged 48 in maches against Lillee but was dismissed 9 times in 19 innings. I think a tad too much is made of Richards' rating of Chandra.

Let us go in a bit further into those stats:

	Mat	Inn	NO	Runs	HS	Batav	100	50
home	4	6	0	556	177	92.66	3	1
away	4	8	1	161	50	23.00	0	1

Chandra was clearly the tormentor-in-chief for Sir Viv during that series, accounting him for 3 times.

But Sir Viv owned the Indian bowlers in the return series in Windies though. So overall I think it is pretty clear why Viv himself said against Chandra it was even stevens.

Kind of looks like Ponting vs Harbhajan record there. [:P]

 

[Pigeon]

SJS, great post indeed. Debunked the theory that Viv was unassailable against quality pace bowling.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Is this another 12 year old with a pocket calculator?

 

[Ikki]

LOL, what SJS just did is what I would get belted with a shovel on this forum for. Yet he'll get his hands kissed. He comes across nice, and me a ****, but the substance is still there.

I think those figures are interesting SJS - in fact, they make me reconsider the Viv > Chappell G stance I've held.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

LOL, what SJS just did is what I would get belted with a shovel on this forum for. Yet he'll get his hands kissed. He comes across nice, and me a ****, but the substance is still there.

I think those figures are interesting SJS - in fact, they make me reconsider the Viv > Chappell G stance I've held.

That sort of selective statsmongering deserves belting with a shovel whether produced by Jesus or the devil.

 

[SJS]

That sort of selective statsmongering deserves belting with a shovel whether produced by Jesus or the devil.

Why do you think it is selective LT ?

 

[Ikki]

That sort of selective statsmongering deserves belting with a shovel whether produced by Jesus or the devil.

Why do you always seem to have a fit when someone produces an interesting statistical analysis?

SJS took the attacks that would be deemed very good (at least 2 world class bowlers) and showed Viv's figures against those teams.

If there is anything those stats are leaving unknown, then mention them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why do you always seem to have a fit when someone produces an interesting statistical analysis?

SJS took the attacks that would be deemed very good (at least 2 world class bowlers) and showed Viv's figures against those teams.

If there is anything those stats are leaving unknown, then mention them.

Like all stats they don't take any circumstances unique to each game into account because they can't. For example he might have had to come in with quick runs needed and thrown away his wicket in the cause on some occasions. I'm not saying he did or he didn't but it's the sort of thing blind numbers don't tell you.

 

[Ikki]

Like all stats they don't take any circumstances unique to each game into account because they can't. For example he might have had to come in with quick runs needed and thrown away his wicket in the cause on some occasions. I'm not saying he did or he didn't but it's the sort of thing blind numbers don't tell you.

I think most intelligible posters already have this in mind when they look at the stats. But, then again, you can't really make such a boisterous claim when the sample is almost 30 matches. An innings or two like that here or there won't really change those figures much. I don't think anyone is arguing Viv's ability in playing great attacks, but possibly questioning his consistency.

 

[Pigeon]

Lillian Thomson, mate, I don't think stats are be-and-end of all analysis. That's just stupid. But a complete analysus of a player is impossible without some stats sneaking in. SJS did not skew stats to suit his conclusion, but derived a perfectly plausible conclusion from those stats, without selectivity.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think most intelligible posters already have this in mind when they look at the stats. But, then again, you can't really make such a boisterous claim when the sample is almost 30 matches. An innings or two like that here or there won't really change those figures much. I don't think anyone is arguing Viv's ability in playing great attacks, but possibly questioning his consistency.

I didn't make any boisterous claims. It's just one example of many differing and unique circumstances that occur in every match and that don't show up on the Statsguru.

 

[bagapath]

Good one SJS. But still, the primary fast bowlers of his time worried more about Viv than anyone else. He was capable of changing the course of the match within a few overs and the very best ones, like imran, lillee, hadlee etc, respected that ability very much. I am not saying this to deny what you have written but just to reiterate the fact that his reputation was unsullied by these numbers.

I think those figures are interesting SJS - in fact, they make me reconsider the Viv > Chappell G stance I've held.

Ikki, I dont think either Viv or Greg can be chosen over the other based on stats, however detailed the analysis might be. The fact is, both Richards and Chappell were perfectly capable of walking in at any situation and dominate the proceedings against any attack. You can hold onto V > G (or otherwise) irrespective of what stats show you.

But between Gavaskar and Richards the ability to dominate might be the factor that would decide the race. Obviously Richards was capable of more damage than Sunny and that is swinging the votes in his favor.

Let me write down some of the seminal knocks by them without the help of statsguru and see what I remember of them

Viv Richards

232 vs Eng in 1976
291 vs Eng in 1976
The series vs Aus in 79-80
110* Vs Eng in 1986
200+ vs Aus in 1985
the hundred vs Akram and Imran in 89-90

Sunil Gavaskar

221 vs Eng 1979
96 vs Pak 1986-87
90 vs WI 1983-84
182 vs Pak 1980?

 

[Pigeon]

I think the faster bowlers were afraid of him also because of his dominance in the shorter version as well.

 

[slippyslip]

While Indian pitches were more suited to batting, Sunny's average overseas is higher than his average at home, I believe. So this point is moot.

Lets take his average against Australia in Austrlia. Very good 51.11 over 11 matches., virtually identical to his career average.

But lets break this down.

1977/78 where he made a lot of runs was against a weakened Australia without the WSC players.

However, when India toured Australia in 1980/81 with Australia at full strength he averaged a whopping 19.66.

His 3rd and last tour of Australia in 1985/86 was against one of the worst Australian teams on record and he plundered a pathetic Australian attack.

So 2/3 times he toured Australia Australia had sub-standard attacks. The only time he faced a full strength Australia he was totally dominated.

Now lets look at his great West Indian record. 13 matches at an average of 70. This is the era before the great fast bowlers. IN the first series Gibbs was probably West Indies leading bowler and an off spinner wouldnt trouble Gavaskar.

He had a good series in 1975 against Holding and Roberts (who for some reason missed the last 2 matches)

But in 1983, when West Indies were at their peak they dominated Gavaskar.

Gavaskar's average against England in England is only 41. New Zealand 43.55.

Theres no doubt that Gavaskar scored a lot of runs away from home against weakened teams or before teams hit their peak.

In the 80's, when the ball started to dominate the bat again, his away average was 38.

 

[Sanz]

Why do you think it is selective LT ?

Like all stats they don't take any circumstances unique to each game into account because they can't. For example he might have had to come in with quick runs needed and thrown away his wicket in the cause on some occasions. I'm not saying he did or he didn't but it's the sort of thing blind numbers don't tell you.

Well said LT. It is quite annoying to see almost every discussion denigrate to statistical manipulations and then somehow build shallow arguments.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, I dont think either Viv or Greg can be chosen over the other based on stats,

Well the reason I say that is in light of some new info I had gained on Chappell and the man did it pretty much every where, every time and he shellacked probably the best attack of all-time. In fact, I think he is more than a tad underrated when I look at his record as objectively as possible. Sure, he is always mentioned as a great, but rarely as "the greatest after Bradman" when his record shows he has a clear case of being as much as Viv and every other batsman if not moreso.

 

[Ikki]

I didn't make any boisterous claims. It's just one example of many differing and unique circumstances that occur in every match and that don't show up on the Statsguru.

Yeh, but list the many unique circumstances and they are not really that many - that's why they're "unique". In a big enough sample, it's evened out.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeh, but list the many unique circumstances and they are not really that many - that's why they're "unique". In a big enough sample, it's evened out.

Not very many? Every single game of cricket is, and has, it's own unique circumstances.
I know the statistician will say things even themselves out but in sport that's the lamest argument ever used.

 

[SJS]

Good one SJS. But still, the primary fast bowlers of his time worried more about Viv than anyone else. He was capable of changing the course of the match within a few overs and the very best ones, like imran, lillee, hadlee etc, respected that ability very much. I am not saying this to deny what you have written but just to reiterate the fact that his reputation was unsullied by these numbers.

Oh yes.

As I said in the very first line, I voted for Richards in this poll so no one needs to convince me about how good Richards was. I am on record on CC to say that Richards is the greatest right handed batsman I have seen in 48 years of watching Test cricket. I say right handed because I rate Sobers higher than him.

The problem is that people think, if you really like a player so much you must never, ever say anything remotely negative about them. I am sorry, I do not think nor deify my favourite cricketers like that.

It does not matter what people say here because they want to hear one sided, long playing records with nothing but all positives or all negatives. If they do not see it they invent and read what they want into what one writes. Thats okay its there problem. I do not bother to answer everyone unless they seem to be reading what is written.

Coming to Richards and Gavaskar. I think the comparison is unfair since Gavaskar was an opener and thats his strength. Richards couldn't have been a better opener than Gavaskar and vice-versa.

I still rate Richards higher because of exactly what you have written, his capacity to dominate and completely demolish an attack. I haven't seen anyone do it with as much self belief as him. I cant think of anyone who would turn a match with an innings of brutal stroke play as often as he did.

Coming back to playing great pace attacks. Why should we be so surprised (let alone being offended which is childish) if even the greatest of players has not had their best records against the great pace attacks. There haven't been very many great pace attacks over time. You get one or two a decade on average. Almost all players including the truly greats would have relatively lower scores against them. This is not to show that they are lesser players but to acknowledge a great attack. Thats why they are great attacks.

If you have Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts bowling together why should on not expect the finest of batsmen not to have less than their best results against them. This is not manipulation of statistics. This is acknowledgment of facts.

I did this exercise to show that even as great a player as Richards can not be given a blanket clearance to having been great against the fastest bowlers of his time by just rattling off names of the fast bowlers of his time. There will always be series where a great fast bowling pair would have got better of him as they have done over 140 years with other great batsmen from Trumper to Ponting.

 

[SJS]

There is a major difference between Gavaskar's and Richards games. Gavaskar played percentage cricket. He would leave alone the really good balls if they were not going onto the stumps and play them with copybok defense if they were; bowl him a half volley or a shortball even in the middle of an hour of defensive batting and he would pounce on it and hit it to the fence. This was a major difference between him and another opener like say Boycott.

Richards on the other hand would hit you irrespective of the ball being of a good length or not. Gavaskar treated each ball on merit, Richards treated each ball as he wanted. Richards was Tendulkar with Afridi's attitude towards the cricket ball and the bowlers.