Viv Richards v Sunil Gavaskar

[SJS]

Interesting to see how well Ray Bright did in those games. Certainly out-stripped his record in Test cricket.

I believe the wickets for the WSC were not exactly batsman friendly. Could be because the WSC had to quickly manage grounds and get wickets ready inspite of the establishment's lack of cooperation.

 

[Burgey]

That's a good point actually. Certainly for the first year they actually used drop in pitches at some venues - I believe it was the first time they'd ever been used.

Other venues were very likely not up to standard given that the ACB (as I think it then was) banned WSC from using the normal FC venues.

 

[Dissector]

Interesting to see how well Ray Bright did in those games. Certainly out-stripped his record in Test cricket.

Yes I noticed that myself. Perhaps he benefited from having all those other top fast bowlers around him. Going from playing Lillee to playing Bright would have been a huge relief and maybe batsmen got careless and threw away their wickets. Similarly Roger Harper did surprisingly well on the 1984 tour of England.

 

[archie mac]

I knew Viv would win, but I don't think it should be by this much

 

[The Sean]

Archie! Nice to see you around these parts mate, it seems like it's been a while.

 

[archie mac]

Archie! Nice to see you around these parts mate, it seems like it's been a while.

I had computer trouble for a few weeks, and there has not been much on here that has taken my fancy of late

 

[SJS]

I knew Viv would win, but I don't think it should be by this much

Archie! Nice to see you around these parts mate, it seems like it's been a while.

Yes where have you vanished ??

Its getting a bit lonely here. I will have to set free some inmates from my "ignore Gitmo" if it gets any worse

 

[archie mac]

Yes where have you vanished ??

Its getting a bit lonely here. I will have to set free some inmates from my "ignore Gitmo" if it gets any worse

Did you ever read those pages of my book? I hope it was not so bad that you do not want to hurt my feelings!!!

 

[SJS]

Did you ever read those pages of my book? I hope it was not so bad that you do not want to hurt my feelings!!!

My dear, I never got them. I waited and waited and then gave up.

Hope you didn't send them to your boss instead of the sales presentation you were supposed to be working on

Seriously. I haven't got it as of the time of writing

 

[archie mac]

My dear, I never got them. I waited and waited and then gave up.

Hope you didn't send them to your boss instead of the sales presentation you were supposed to be working on

Seriously. I haven't got it as of the time of writing

Just sent it again

 

[Richard]

Well, I for one acknowledge that there is more to a player than just tests but I would want WSC matches included as tests. I understand your reasoning why they shouldn't be but I don't agree with it.

You think that private competitions, deliberately set-up to try to disrupt Test cricket and only played in the interests of one TV channel, should be given Test status? In spite of the sides being thrown together on a whim, with no prior qualification needed, and everything being organised by one TV moghul and a few committee-men below him?

It always surprises me that anyone who realises the truth behind WSC wants the matches to be given Test status. Those who don't require their stats spoon-fed to them have no need at all for such a thing.

Again, I suppose, it all comes down to the fact that it's a shame WSC happened at all. Would've been so much better if Packer had gotten the Test rights he wanted in 1976.

 

[Richard]

I knew Viv would win, but I don't think it should be by this much

Said it in the Lillee-Hadlee thread, just because someone wins a two-way poll by a massive margin, doesn't make them automatically, say, 20 times better. There isn't all that much between Richards and Gavaskar as batsmen but it's enough for it to be obvious to most, so therefore it's not surprising to see the vast majority vote Richards.

 

[archie mac]

Said it in the Lillee-Hadlee thread, just because someone wins a two-way poll by a massive margin, doesn't make them automatically, say, 20 times better. There isn't all that much between Richards and Gavaskar as batsmen but it's enough for it to be obvious to most, so therefore it's not surprising to see the vast majority vote Richards.

I thought the Indian members who had not watched both, may have gone for Sunny

 

[archie mac]

You think that private competitions, deliberately set-up to try to disrupt Test cricket and only played in the interests of one TV channel, should be given Test status? In spite of the sides being thrown together on a whim, with no prior qualification needed, and everything being organised by one TV moghul and a few committee-men below him?

It always surprises me that anyone who realises the truth behind WSC wants the matches to be given Test status. Those who don't require their stats spoon-fed to them have no need at all for such a thing.

Again, I suppose, it all comes down to the fact that it's a shame WSC happened at all. Would've been so much better if Packer had gotten the Test rights he wanted in 1976.

I am sure I have pointed out to you more then once that the players who played in those matches all agreed it was the toughest cricket they ever played, and for that reason alone should always be considered in these players records. Not as Test but as FCC

 

[Richard]

Why should it be First-Class just because the players considered it the best cricket they'd played in? As I say, First-Class and Test cricket is not just about the standard, it's about all sorts of things besides. Packer was anti everything that Test and First-Class cricket stood for - all he cared about was getting cricket on his channel that would draw in the viewers. Therefore, in my book, nothing organised by Packer should have any form of status above that of a game on Sir Paul Getty's lawn.

 

[archie mac]

Why should it be First-Class just because the players considered it the best cricket they'd played in? As I say, First-Class and Test cricket is not just about the standard, it's about all sorts of things besides. Packer was anti everything that Test and First-Class cricket stood for - all he cared about was getting cricket on his channel that would draw in the viewers. Therefore, in my book, nothing organised by Packer should have any form of status above that of a game on Sir Paul Getty's lawn.

So the first Test matches were organised to make money, and were privately organised by players. By your rules they should be discounted?

I don't care why Packer organised those games, it was still some of the hardest cricket ever played. Comparing to fun games on someones lawn is the silliest thing you have said for awhile

 

[Richard]

So the first Test matches were organised to make money, and were privately organised by players. By your rules they should be discounted?

I've long since sat rather uncomfortably with some of the early Tests having Test status. So many were given said status only in retrospect, and were private tours with no form of implication that the players were representing, by chain, their country. If it wasn't for the fact that it'd be borderline scandalous to strip 'em of Test status, I'd seriously consider it.

I don't care why Packer organised those games, it was still some of the hardest cricket ever played. Comparing to fun games on someones lawn is the silliest thing you have said for awhile

Well I do care. Why games were organised is a factor - not the only one, but certainly a factor - in whether or not games should be given a certain status. Another factor - again, not the only one - is the standard.

Packer organised those games for the same reason Sir Paul Getty organised games on his lawn (well, rather, his own private cricket ground) - and those reasons were nothing to do with wanting to play any form of First-Class cricket. They were purely because people wanted to watch them, and the players wanted to play. I'm absolutely sure some of the games on Sir Paul Getty's lawn, and indeed those of any number of other rich cricket-mad entrepreneurs who have from time to time signed-up a load of the best cricketers to come and play on their grounds, were also played hard and to a very high standard. None of them deserve First-Class status, because none of them were organised by people who were bothered about First-Class cricket.

 

[archie mac]

I've long since sat rather uncomfortably with some of the early Tests having Test status. So many were given said status only in retrospect, and were private tours with no form of implication that the players were representing, by chain, their country. If it wasn't for the fact that it'd be borderline scandalous to strip 'em of Test status, I'd seriously consider it.

Well I do care. Why games were organised is a factor - not the only one, but certainly a factor - in whether or not games should be given a certain status. Another factor - again, not the only one - is the standard.

Packer organised those games for the same reason Sir Paul Getty organised games on his lawn (well, rather, his own private cricket ground) - and those reasons were nothing to do with wanting to play any form of First-Class cricket. They were purely because people wanted to watch them, and the players wanted to play. I'm absolutely sure some of the games on Sir Paul Getty's lawn, and indeed those of any number of other rich cricket-mad entrepreneurs who have from time to time signed-up a load of the best cricketers to come and play on their grounds, were also played hard and to a very high standard. None of them deserve First-Class status, because none of them were organised by people who were bothered about First-Class cricket.

No there was no comparison between the games played on privated grounds by rich people and WSC; ask the players who took part. Read the bios of any of the players that took part and "The Packer Affair" by Henry Blofeld.

I also think some of the private trips to SA should be given FC status. Not sure if any of them ever were. They were not Test class but certainly FC and played as such.

My last post on the subject. Not because I am not enjoying the debate, but because I have a lot of work to do

 

[SJS]

Said it in the Lillee-Hadlee thread, just because someone wins a two-way poll by a massive margin, doesn't make them automatically, say, 20 times better. There isn't all that much between Richards and Gavaskar as batsmen but it's enough for it to be obvious to most, so therefore it's not surprising to see the vast majority vote Richards.

Those are good points Richard.

I also feel that there is a tendency, not necessarily wrong, to prefer, in such close cases, the more aggressive, dominating stroke play to the technically perfect, studied stroke play of the old school Test batsman. There was a time when people felt Bradman just couldn't be really that great for he played far too many strokes and scored much too quickly for a batsman of that caliber.

We have come a long way.

The things to admire in the two of them are so different that comparing them becomes that much more difficult.

Gavaskar came from a country with no tradition for great opening batsmen (Merchant played far too little for it to contribute to make it a tradition). Then he came from a country with no fast bowlers of its own and was brought up on a diet of spin and very mediocre pacers of slow medium to medium pace range. Finally he came from a side where batsmen, the top most in the side, were not unknown to refuse to go into bat at their regular position if a fiery bowler was bowling and even throw away their wickets to avoid getting hit. Further he was born in an era where fast bowlers abounded in many nations though not in his own. Thus he was a remarkable batsman in manners other than his obvious phenomenal skills as a batsman and technician.

Richards on the other hand was lucky to be playing in a side that was very strong in batting. In his first five years the Windies batting side was Greenidge, Fredericks, Kallicharan, Rowe, Lloyd and Richards; in the next five years Haynes had replaced Fredericks and Gomes and Bachhus got added even as Rowe was ending his career with Dujon as a batting wicket keeper; finally in his last years Richardson and Logie were great reolacements for Kallicharan and Bachhus.

It was a terrific line up with a great attack and they hardly ever lost a series. In fact, between 1975-76 and 1994-95 (which covers almost the entire of his career, Windies lost just two series, 1-0 to India in 78-79 and 1-0 to Kiwis next year. Thats all. It must have been great to keep pulverising all comers with not a whimper in response. Surely, the dominating style of Richards was more easily put on display in as dominating a side as the one Windies were at that time.

This is not to deny Richards his greatness but just to put other things in perspective and to put on record how easy it is to just express our preference for one player ot the other when it must be such a difficult thing to do objectively.

I agree the 'score line' here is not a true reflection of their contributions to their respective country's cricket, and even of their merits as individuals.

I wonder how Gavaskar would have fared if he was in this batting line up.

1. Gavaskar
2. Greenidge
3. Richards
4. Kallicharan
5. Rowe
6. Lloyd
7. Dujon
8. Marshall
9. Hodling
10. Roberts
11. Garner

 

[archie mac]

Got it mate