Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[GotSpin]

I dunno. If it is, It is sad, I guess.

It's the same with a tonne of threads in CC. A lot of them directly criticise one player while indirectly propping up their favourite.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's the same with a tonne of threads in CC. A lot of them directly criticise one player while indirectly propping up their favourite.

Haha yeah it's like the bowling with/without support thread which basically became a subtler way to argue Warne v Murali.

 

[Slifer]

You wouldn't be saying this, if the poster reminded you of say, Chappell's or Lara's superiority, Would you?

Umm, well TBH I'm Lara's biggest fan but even I am realistic of his frailties (Ive always said this). Lara doesnt come close to Viv tbh and this is a sentiment reflected by most West Indians (outside of T&T). As for Chappell well, Im one of his biggest fans and it helps to have actually seen him and followed him on radio live. I was gonna make this point earlier but if I had to choose an all time XI of middle order batsmen the only other player who Ive seen who I'd possibly choose over Viv (apart from the Don for obvious reasons) would be Chappell. The guy took apart the apocalypse for goodness sake, a performance that none have close to (Incl SRT and Lara).

 

[vcs]

I blame Migara for bringing Tendulkar into this thread with that throwaway statement at the end of one of his posts.

Have to say, I find posts like this very irritating, not because I make my decisions based on only stats or only on what I've seen, but because they drip with condescension and elitism and often it can be a method of shutting down discussion.

It's not inconceivable that people might rate Viv lower or higher based on something other than stats. Even if people use stats to form their opinions, why does it matter? It's just another way of coming to a conclusion about something that is definitely not clear-cut.

I think what they mean is that you need to have lived through that generation to properly appreciate certain players and the stat-sheets just don't give you the context of some of their achievements, their style and their impact. No doubt we will be saying the same for Ponting and Tendulkar in a few years as well when a batsman from the next generation crosses 15K runs or whatever.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think what they mean is that you need to have lived through that generation to properly appreciate certain players and the stat-sheets just don't give you the context of some of their achievements, their style and their impact. No doubt we will be saying the same for Ponting and Tendulkar in a few years as well when a batsman from the next generation crosses 15K runs or whatever.

I personally like to separate that from my opinion of the quality of a player though. Regardless of your style and your reputation, your quality as a batsman is defined by your ability to score runs, for mine.

 

[Slifer]

For mine its how one does in the tough situations against the best. Tough situations would be like chasing in the 4th innings or facing the apocalypse on a Sabina or Perth pitch. The best would be: Pak, RSA, WI of the 90s, Oz (with McWarne gravy with Gillespie). From the 70s and 80s the WI with ne two of their great bowlers, Lillee and co, Imran, Qasim, Qadir etc.

 

[Dasa]

I think what they mean is that you need to have lived through that generation to properly appreciate certain players and the stat-sheets just don't give you the context of some of their achievements, their style and their impact. No doubt we will be saying the same for Ponting and Tendulkar in a few years as well when a batsman from the next generation crosses 15K runs or whatever.

That may be, but imo that point can be made without the rubbishing of anyone who might dare to look at an average to form an opinion. The posts I singled out seem to suggest that there's a clear cut divide between the 'stats junkies' and the real cricket fans - but this is arguing against something that doesn't really exist imo. There's also the danger of romanticising the past which I think happens quite often.

I'm also with EWS somewhat (if I'm not misunderstanding what he's saying) in that I separate the players I like from the players most effective. Of course, there might always be intangibles that an average may not recognise, e.g. Viv's presence at the crease and it's effect on the other players in both his and opposing teams - however, ultimately, an average is a decent indicator of effectiveness imo. It's not everything, but I don't think many people here, if any, would argue it is.

 

[smash84]

Be realistic here, this thread was always going to be about Sachin v Richards. Same as the other guy who always says Sobers is overrated and Imran is better.

LOL......now who is this guy???? Quite funny really.

Ok Tendy is better in tests. There u have it. Probably the reason behind this thread in the first place. Next week we'll probably have a thread on y Bradman is overrated and then itll denigrate into an argument as to y Srt is greater.

Ps dont read too much into cricketweb polls or ne polls comparing west indian batsmen (or most batsmen in general) to SRT there r many more Indians here on this forum (and in general) than there r West Indians for one. 33-18 yeah right.

Agreed. In most online cricket forums you would find Pakistanis and Indians outnumbering everybody else. I remember a poll on cricinfo regarding the best all rounder ever and they had something like 15 or 20 of the best all rounders ever. The public was asked to vote for who they thought was the best ever and the cricinfo panel would rate their best. The panel unsurprisingly came up with the name of Gary Sobers as the best ever with Imran in second place.

The public came up with Imran as the best ever then daylight and then Sobers. And guess what? Sobers was closely followed by Wasim Akram as the third best all rounder ever. No marks for guessing from where most of the votes were coming. I guess hero worship can blind one to the merits of others.

I personally like to separate that from my opinion of the quality of a player though. Regardless of your style and your reputation, your quality as a batsman is defined by your ability to score runs, for mine.

Prince, I am not too sure about this criteria. Scoring runs is important but quality of opposition is important too. Also on what kind of pitches the player has played mostly.

For mine its how one does in the tough situations against the best. Tough situations would be like chasing in the 4th innings or facing the apocalypse on a Sabina or Perth pitch. The best would be: Pak, RSA, WI of the 90s, Oz (with McWarne gravy with Gillespie). From the 70s and 80s the WI with ne two of their great bowlers, Lillee and co, Imran, Qasim, Qadir etc.

Agreed. Not to mention that Wasim was in the Pak side by 1984 and until then they had Sarfaraz too who was quite a decent medium fast bowler himself. Pakistan had a very good attack in the 1980s and I think all of them would rate Viv as the best of that generation. And I think the same goes for the best Aussie and English bowlers of the 70s and 80s.

 

[Prince EWS]

Prince, I am not too sure about this criteria. Scoring runs is important but quality of opposition is important too. Also on what kind of pitches the player has played mostly.

Yeah, that all comes into it though. Your ability to score runs and the total number of runs you score aren't quite the same thing - the latter is effected by the former and the overall difficulty of it in the games you play.

 

[Flem274*]

I personally like to separate that from my opinion of the quality of a player though. Regardless of your style and your reputation, your quality as a batsman is defined by your ability to score runs, for mine.

Pretty much. Career average doesn't show the whole story, but when stats take into account era, whether they were elevated at the right time/stayed too long, who they scored against etc etc then you can get a pretty good idea of effectiveness.

 

[fredfertang]

Those who watched Viv have no doubt he was the best

I imagine the frustration I feel when others come along with stats to prove that such and such was a better batsman than Richards, is the same as those who had the pleasure of watching Trumper felt when others would hold his average up and say such and such has better figures.

I bet they said to those who disparaged Trumper what I say to those who disparage Viv

"if you just would have watched him bat, we would not be having this debate"

Well said that man

More Archie Mac please - you've been sorely missed mate

 

[GotSpin]

LOL......now who is this guy???? Quite funny really.

I'm guessing that was you who create that thread then

 

[smash84]

I'm guessing that was you who create that thread then

As always, you are wrong my friend. I would never start such a thread. As much as I would like Imran to be number one I am realistic enough to know that Gary Sobers is the second best cricketer ever to have played the game. Although I might say that Imran has a good case for being the 3rd best i.e. after Bradman and Sobers.

And before people jump on to my post please read carefully that I never said that Imran is definitely the 3rd best ever. I just said that he has a good case.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, PEWS hits the nail on the head, as usual.

Also, If two batsmen, in different games, were to face an attack that had 2 ATG bowlers and 2 average ones in extremely tough conditions,(All hypothetical)

Batsman A utterly dominates the bowling, plays magical strokes to convert brilliantly bowled yorkers into fours, never looks like giving a chance, does four somersaults before facing every ball, makes the bowler bow down in admiration and makes the crows go wild, all against the 2 ATG bowlers and then gets out for 50 runs.

Batsman B enters nervously, gets his first run after 7 balls, largely uses only three strokes to get his runs, looks pretty shaky at the crease, waits for the straight ball outside off stump to score, tires down the ATG bowlers so he can score runs easier against the average bowlers and ends up scoring 60 runs.

IMHO, Batsman B's Innings is definitely the better Innings. And, If this happens repeatedly over the course of their careers, Batsman B will be the better batsman, regardless of all the great bowlers of their generation swearing that Batsman A is better.

You can make it as complicated as you wish, personae and techniques and all that, but ultimately, It's all about the statistical runs.

 

[GotSpin]

As always, you are wrong my friend. I would never start such a thread. As much as I would like Imran to be number one I am realistic enough to know that Gary Sobers is the second best cricketer ever to have played the game. Although I might say that Imran has a good case for being the 3rd best i.e. after Bradman and Sobers.

And before people jump on to my post please read carefully that I never said that Imran is definitely the 3rd best ever. I just said that he has a good case.

I like to think I get some things right. Not sure why you were having a go at me for a valid point before...But then again, you're new around and filled with optimism over cricket discussion. You'll get how things work around here

 

[Teja.]

I think what they mean is that you need to have lived through that generation to properly appreciate certain players and the stat-sheets just don't give you the context of some of their achievements, their style and their impact. No doubt we will be saying the same for Ponting and Tendulkar in a few years as well when a batsman from the next generation crosses 15K runs or whatever.

More than the content, It's the tone of condescension and sheer annoyance.

It's like the posts start with an invisible "Hey Ignorant little one,"

 

[Teja.]

It's the same with a tonne of threads in CC. A lot of them directly criticise one player while indirectly propping up their favourite.

That is tragic then. I believe that being a cricket fan entitles one to criticize and have meaningful debate on any cricketer including Bradman, Tendulkar & Richards without being accused of fanboyism or ignorance.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, PEWS hits the nail on the head, as usual.

Also, If two batsmen, in different games, were to face an attack that had 2 ATG bowlers and 2 average ones in extremely tough conditions,(All hypothetical)

Batsman A utterly dominates the bowling, plays magical strokes to convert brilliantly bowled yorkers into fours, never looks like giving a chance, does four somersaults before facing every ball, makes the bowler bow down in admiration and makes the crows go wild, all against the 2 ATG bowlers and then gets out for 50 runs.

Batsman B enters nervously, gets his first run after 7 balls, largely uses only three strokes to get his runs, looks pretty shaky at the crease, waits for the straight ball outside off stump to score, tires down the ATG bowlers so he can score runs easier against the average bowlers and ends up scoring 60 runs.

IMHO, Batsman B's Innings is definitely the better Innings. And, If this happens repeatedly over the course of their careers, Batsman B will be the better batsman, regardless of all the great bowlers of their generation swearing that Batsman A is better.

You can make it as complicated as you wish, personae and techniques and all that, but ultimately, It's all about the statistical runs.

Good post.

 

[vcs]

More than the content, It's the tone of condescension and sheer annoyance.

It's like the posts start with an invisible "Hey Ignorant little one,"

Fair enough. I didn't really get that feeling from the posts in question, I also haven't watched Richards play BTW.

 

[GotSpin]

That is tragic then. I believe that being a cricket fan entitles one to criticize and have meaningful debate on any cricketer including Bradman, Tendulkar & Richards without being accused of fanboyism or ignorance.

Yeah I'm not saying there shouldn't be meaningful debate and there's nothing wrong with fanboyism sometimes, but I'm a bit over the tendency of CW to produce threads aimed at putting down the accomplishments of one player in a somewhat covert attempt to prop up another player.