SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Its very difficult to exactly 'cubby-hole' a players 'issues' with technique, temperament, etc. Often times one could be the cause or effect of the other.
I too have felt, like TC, that Richards did not get 'bored' as Lillee suggests. Of course he liked to give the impression that he wasn't taking "all this drama too seriously" all through the time he was at the crease; from the instant he walked out to face the very first ball. That was part of his swagger and persona. It was the "you-guys-are-just-kids-in-the-park" attitude he conveyed to opponents when he had the bat in hand. But couldn't this attitude lead to his downfall just as Sehwag's "I-am-like-that-only" leads to his.
The answer has to be - probably yes. But thats all right. A player stuck with a completely defensive mind-set can also be led to his end when a sudden bad ball comes along and he isn't able to handle it as he should be able to do in his sleep.
This attitude of Richards (or Sehwag though I am not suggesting he is as great a batsman as Richards) to dominate would surely increase the percentage of risk involved in his batting. We can look at it as a weakness and denounce him or look at his fifty plus batting average inspite of it and stand in complete awe of the man.
When Richards played without a helmet, he was not just making a statement as far as the fast bowlers of the day were concerned he was also relying on his fabulously quick reflexes and wonderful eyesight to prevent a bad injury. The fact that he did avoid getting hurt in a long career is a testimony to his gifts but the risk was surely there.
Simlarly when you try to play with his aggressive intent, surely you increase the chances of the odd mistake you are likely to commit when the really good ball comes along. The fact that the real fast bowling leaves you with so little time to react for late adjustments makes the risk that much greater. Again we can point to it as a weakness or admire him for performing as he did and yet produced such tremendous results.
The problem I see here, on this thread as well as others like it, is the desire or compulsion (you can find a better word I am sure) of some posters to pin the great player down on one side or the other of the argument. Unfortunately, thats not going to happen except in our own small heads because whosoever maybe your favourite, these are great players you are comparing.
Late last night, after leaving my PC and the CW world behind, I went to bed reading the autobiography of the great umpire from the first half of the 20th century, Frank Chester. I came across a wonderful chapter which reminded me of this debate on this very thread. I really thought I would quote two halfs of the same chapter here and ask the members of CW to try and guess who wrote each piece. Trust me, if I hadn't let the cat out of the bag no one could have said it was written by the same person. But it was and in the same chapter. There was just one paragraph at the beginning that I would have to omit and one sentence between the two parts.
The chapter is titled Hobbs v. Bradman. Read the first half and you are convinced that it could be anyone of Bradman's millions of 'devotees' for he leaves you in n doubt that he considers Bradman the greatest batsman of all times. Read the second and you will consider him to be someone who is obviously English and who could not stand Bradman's success (if you disagree with what he says) or someone who knows his cricket and is willing to call a spade a spade (if you agree).
The fact of the matter is that he is both an Englishman and a Bradman fan and there is no dichotomy in what he writes. To see that you have to stop thinking that even though he was the greatest batsman of all time, Bradman was perfect - because he wasn't. No one is. So why should we expect our Gavaskar's and our Sir Vivian's to be perfect and flawless.
Lillee clearly states that he considers Richards the finest batsman of his times and uses very powerful (for Lillee) imagery of Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel to make that point. Why isn't that enough for us. Why should we think that if he talks of Richards' weakness outside the off stump to an away swinger (or even to his getting bored) somehow he is being critical which is not correct.
This is what we need to ask ourselves in this and other debates,
By the way, for those who haven't read it, Frank Chester's "How's that!" is probably the finest cricket book from an umpire and highly recommended. It is full of insights and portraits of some of the greatest players Chester saw from just 22 yards away for decades.
