Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[andyc]

Dasa and Teja bang on the money here for mine.

 

[NUFAN]

Sounds like Mark vs Steve Waugh..

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 repatedly 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.

 

[Migara]

When you think of how Warne @ his peak bowled vs WI in 95/96 & 96/97 (when the windies didn't hit rock bottom yet). Hollywood was just good againts the likes of Lara, Chanders, Hooper over those two series - he didn't even take a 5 for. So imagine what a superior batsman like Viv would have done to him.

And you may be able to remember how Murali took apart THAT batting line up in to pieces during his dirst tour to West Indies. He averaged around 20 in that tour, and that was a young Murali. Would have steamrolled WI of mid 90s if Murali bowled to them in their peak

Then of course we all know how well Lara played Murali. Watching KP take on Murali when SRI toured ENG in 06, with all those invitive shots is certainly what Viv would have done if he faced Murali.

Lara was known to be better against spin than pace. He has taken apart good spinners more than often he has taken apart good pace bowlers. (Even in the series that he scored 600 odd runs he had nearly had a dozen of let offs against Vaas due to poor umpiring - and that series was the one Vaas at his best, who's not the world's best fast bowler). KP was did dominate Murali for two knocks and that was the end of it. After that Murali was all over KP every single time they met. Actually in their last meetings KP was a sorry sight against Murali.

To speculate that a batsman like Viv would dominate Murali / Warne is one thing, but using lame examples is another.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

WAG.

 

[shivfan]

Nice story. You think you can find the scorecard for these on cricinfo?

I've tried to find it on cricinfo, but with no success....

Unfortunately, the cricinfo archives on Caribbean domestic cricket is patchy at best. But those were the days when there was a great deal of excitement over Caribbean domestic cricket. Sadly, only three men and a dog follow domestic cricket now.

 

[Migara]

As a group they were better than the above. And Individually they may not be better, but still very very good.

Very good and legendary are the key difference that we are discussing about. FFS we are discussing about Viv Richards, not a normal batsman!

Don't change your statement, you said "Viv's weakness was against Spinners" which is very different from the above statement. And no what you said above is not a fact but your opinion, which I disagree with but have no problem with.

You can only use comparative terms, because strength (or weakness) is anot an absolute value. Since there's only two forms about discussion (fast bowling and spin bowling) weaker means less stronger.

Okay so you are going to use Mike Gatting's performance to prove that Richards had a weakness against spinner ?

As usual taking the argument by the wrong end and diverting the attention towards names forgetting the issue that is being addressed.

Issue - can you judge a particular player's ability against legendary spinners by looking at the way they play non-legendary spinners?
My answer - No. Because there have been players who have faltered against the best who looked like champion players of spin against lesser of the kind.
Your impression - Oh geez! Mike Gatting is taken as an example! WTF this is?

Hope you'd get the point.

 

[shivfan]

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....

Personally, I think it's pointless comparing batsmen of different eras. Pitches are covered more now, they're more batsman-friendly, your stats could reflect which team you played for and which region you played most of your Tests, one era had better pacers and another better spinners, and so on....

Rather, I enjoyed watching Viv, because he generally contributed to so many of the West Indies wins. And that is why I enjoyed watching him so much. This differs from watching Shiv, who bats well, but his team loses.

Interestingly, when I watched Sachin in the Caribbean, he usually disappointed. He hardly ever seemed to have a stand-out tour of the West Indies. It was always Dravid who impressed with the bat in the Caribbean, which is why you will find a lot of Dravid fans in the Windies....

 

[Migara]

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.

AWTA. More correctly, it would be how much he scored in comparison to his peers during his time. A batsman averaging 45 in an era where the batting average is 28 is comparable to one averaging 50 in an era where the batting average is 32 is comparable.

That is the very reason I believe that Viv's average of 50 looks like 53 - 54 in today's context. But, thinking he would average 65+ today is borderline madness or wishful thinking. That's why I said Viv's rating is given b his stats. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Teja recovers ground from his Border snafu. Well spoken

 

[shivfan]

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).

FYI, I personally rate Viv over Lara too....

Lara was fantastic to watch, but there was something special about watching Viv bat. Only those who've actually seen Viv bat (thankfully, there are quite a few on this MB!) can understand what we mean when we say that.

 

[shivfan]

AWTA. More correctly, it would be how much he scored in comparison to his peers during his time. A batsman averaging 45 in an era where the batting average is 28 is comparable to one averaging 50 in an era where the batting average is 32 is comparable.

That is the very reason I believe that Viv's average of 50 looks like 53 - 54 in today's context. But, thinking he would average 65+ today is borderline madness or wishful thinking. That's why I said Viv's rating is given b his stats. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's something you need to remember when you consider Viv's stats....

Personal achievements were not as important to him as team victories. That is where he differed from Lara. Michael Holding has pointed out several times that Viv would've achieved more than a couple 300s if he hadn't got bored at the crease. He would bat the WI into a winning position, get bored, and then go for quick runs, hitting entertaining shots, boundaries and sixes, and then get out. But at that stage, the WI were already in a winning position.

That's why I prefered a Viv to a Lara any day....

I'm not even going to bother getting into a pointless Richards-Tendulkar debate.

 

[Migara]

There's something you need to remember when you consider Viv's stats....

Personal achievements were not as important to him as team victories. That is where he differed from Lara. Michael Holding has pointed out several times that Viv would've achieved more than a couple 300s if he hadn't got bored at the crease. He would bat the WI into a winning position, get bored, and then go for quick runs, hitting entertaining shots, boundaries and sixes, and then get out. But at that stage, the WI were already in a winning position.

That's why I prefered a Viv to a Lara any day....

I'm not even going to bother getting into a pointless Richards-Tendulkar debate.

That obviously is a weakness. Viv was in a team what ever there batsmen got, bowlers went out and defended that. So I can argue that he has taken it for granted and played in the cavalier fashion. I could argue that if he was in a lesser team he would have got the pressure in to his head and got out cheaply die to rash shots.

 

[smash84]

That obviously is a weakness. Viv was in a team what ever there batsmen got, bowlers went out and defended that. So I can argue that he has taken it for granted and played in the cavalier fashion. I could argue that if he was in a lesser team he would have got the pressure in to his head and got out cheaply die to rash shots.

LOL.......Migara you can sure argue well............

 

[smash84]

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

I never had a go at you pal. I thought rating Imran over Sobers and having a thread about it was genuinely funny.

 

[GotSpin]

I never had a go at you pal. I thought rating Imran over Sobers and having a thread about it was genuinely funny.

ohhhh. sorry then. misinterpreted your post...internet no good for those things

 

[archie mac]

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.

If you didn't watch him bat and you are not using stats what are you basing your opinion on It can certainly not be contemporary opinion or the reading of cricket literature, as they all rate Viv as one of the greats

Only using stats is floored, and I don't think wasting time explaining why should be needed

 

[archie mac]

Well said that man

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

Thanks mate, I am certainly not posting as much because I am not enjoying the forum, it is just a time thing. And it case my previous post be misconstrued I should say I have a lot of respect for the knowledge and opinions of Dasa

 

[grecian]

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.

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.

So let me get this right, it's okay for you to rubbish people over a perceived elitism/condescension yet utterly wrong for others to rubbish stat-led-dogma.

Interesting doubler-standard, and a wonderful attempt to take the moral high-ground.

 

[Dasa]

If you didn't watch him bat and you are not using stats what are you basing your opinion on It can certainly not be contemporary opinion or the reading of cricket literature, as they all rate Viv as one of the greats

Only using stats is floored, and I don't think wasting time explaining why should be needed

Well, I haven't given my opinion on Viv Richards in this thread so I'm not sure of what you're getting at with your first point. For the record, yeah, I didn't see much of him play but from what I've seen and heard, he is one of a number of batsmen who could be called 'the best after Bradman'.

As for the stats thing - who in this thread is only stats to form their opinion? I reckon you ask the people who bring up statistics, they'll still have other factors that colour their view. At any rate, I stand by my view that it doesn't matter so much if someone uses only stats to form their view. It's one method of many, and imo it's not any worse than solely using contemporary accounts, for example, to form a view. Ideally, people would use logic and look at both but if they don't, I really don't care.

So let me get this right, it's okay for you to rubbish people over a perceived elitism/condescension yet utterly wrong for others to rubbish stat-led-dogma.

Interesting doubler-standard, and a wonderful attempt to take the moral high-ground.

Strange post tbh, I didn't think anything I said was worthy of the snarky response.

Anyway, a couple of things. I don't think I was rubbishing anyone...yeah sure, I was being critical because it's something I personally find annoying but I don't think that constitutes rubbishing.

Secondly, it's one thing to rubbish 'stat-led-dogma' but I haven't seen much of this dogma in this thread. The posts that I singled out made reference to a mythical stat junkie generation that I really don't think exists in any great number.

 

[Teja.]

Thanks for the love, fellas.