Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[grecian]

Dasa, you accused respected posters of condescension and elitism, if that's not rubbishing, I'm not sure what is?

BTW I rate Tendulkar ahead of Richards on his longevity, which is truly remarkable.

 

[Dasa]

Well, terms like "newer stat-fixated generations" are pretty elitist and condescending imo, but agree to disagree on that count then.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Why do you watch cricket then? You should just build up a collection of Wisdens and pass judgment on who's the better player from that.

Anyone who thinks Viv Richards is an over-rated test batsman didn't see him play. There's also a very real chance they have their head up their own arse. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with what statsguru says, but it's a fact.

 

[Teja.]

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

Would be very interested in knowing how you found out Dasa's opinion in the first place.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do you watch cricket then? You should just build up a collection of Wisdens and pass judgment on who's the better player from that.

Well I watch cricket because I enjoy it and it entertains me. I don't do it to evaluate how effective certain batsmen are.

Anyone who thinks Viv Richards is an over-rated test batsman didn't see him play. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with what statsguru says, but it's a fact.

Even assuming this is true and in fact not a massive generalisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that those who watched him play are in the right. There's every chance that Richards might have just looked a little more effective than he actually was, and that those who watched a lot of him are actually biased by that.

 

[Teja.]

Well I watch cricket because I enjoy it and it entertains me. I don't do it to evaluate how effective certain batsmen are.



Even assuming this is true and in fact not a massive generalisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that those who watched him play are in the right. There's every chance that Richards might have just looked a little more effective than he actually was, and that those who watched a lot of him are actually biased by that.

^^ The best woman on the planet tbh.

Oh, AWTA

 

[G.I.Joe]

^^ The best woman on the planet tbh.

Oh, AWTA

 

[Prince EWS]

^^ The best woman on the planet tbh.

Oh, AWTA

I will let her know you said that if you like, but I don't think she actually has quite the cricket interest you'd have hoped for.

 

[grecian]

Even assuming this is true and in fact not a massive generalisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that those who watched him play are in the right. There's every chance that Richards might have just looked a little more effective than he actually was, and that those who watched a lot of him are actually biased by that.

Or they saw not just his batting, but the quality of the pitches, how everyone else was playing on those pitches, what the ball was doing. Then came to the conclusion that the innings he played were of high quality, and worth more then the scorebook says.

You see I see your comments that us older people are all befuddled by Viv's genius just as condescending as us oldies are accused of being.

I'm not going to do the bowlers were better in those day nonsense, but I will say in general the pitches were MUCH worse, sub-continent excepted. Even those pitches were very hard to score on, as they were so slow, but easier to stay in on.

 

[Burgey]

Well I watch cricket because I enjoy it and it entertains me. I don't do it to evaluate how effective certain batsmen are.



Even assuming this is true and in fact not a massive generalisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that those who watched him play are in the right. There's every chance that Richards might have just looked a little more effective than he actually was, and that those who watched a lot of him are actually biased by that.

Bull**** Cribb. You pass comment on how good or otherwise players are like the rest of us do.

See, it's as well isn't it that Lara played on and didn't stop at that point in the 90s when his average dropped below 50, because you'd look at him and say he wasnt a great player. Same with Tendulkar early 2000s or Ponting now - their averages fluctuated and fell. Using the PEWS-Teja method, they're just not effective batsmen or as good as people say and that Kallis (Kallis ffs!) is better than them.

But that's crap. Richards' average suffered cos he went on too long. The man was a great player.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not going to do the bowlers were better in those day nonsense, but I will say in general the pitches were MUCH worse, sub-continent excepted. Even those pitches were very hard to score on, as they were so slow, but easier to stay in on.

Yeah but you see, things like that show up in stats as well. You could look at the global batting average of the time Richards played, notice it was a bit lower than today's and make an adjustment to show how we went compared to his contemporaries and then do the same with whoever you want to compare him to, rather than try to compare apples and oranges.

A proper statistical analysis of a batsman involves a lot more than just looking at his Test average. Personally I find it both arrogant and ignorant to suggest that watching someone play probably about a third of their Test innings will give you a better idea of how effective they were than properly analysing a statistical measure of every innings he ever played and comparing it to his contemporaries. Particularly when you account for the fact that batsmen often appear either more or less effective than they are actually are, and human nature's obvious tendency to rate players more aesthetically pleasing or even those whom one pays more attention to or has more exposure to more highly.

 

[GotSpin]

Sorry, too much logic for CW ^

 

[Prince EWS]

Bull**** Cribb. You pass comment on how good or otherwise players are like the rest of us do.

See, it's as well isn't it that Lara played on and didn't stop at that point in the 90s when his average dropped below 50, because you'd look at him and say he wasnt a great player. Same with Tendulkar early 2000s or Ponting now - their averages fluctuated and fell. Using the PEWS-Teja method, they're just not effective batsmen or as good as people say and that Kallis (Kallis ffs!) is better than them.

But that's crap. Richards' average suffered cos he went on too long. The man was a great player.

The biggest myth about stats-based analysis is that it's 100% based around one's career average. It's a very frustrating generalisation that people just can't get passed.

Again, stats will show if a player goes on too long. Stats will show if a player is picked too early. Stats will show if a player played in a batsman- or bowling-friendly era. It's not nearly as simple as looking at the career average and making a judgement based on that; that's just as flawed as trying to base your opinion on watching a batsman bat for a session.

 

[Teja.]

All I can say is "You-just-had-to-see-him-play" is not the best Pro-Viv argument at all. His stats are as impressive as they can get, as it is and I don't think a 2-3 difference in average counts for anything at all.

However, It is very reasonable IMHO, to criticize any player from Bradman to Tendulkar to Richards without being accused of any malicious fanboy agenda or being a stats-junkie.

FTR, I do think Viv Richards is overrated slightly, but so is Warne and Tendulkar. Does not mean they are not fantastic cricketers.

 

[Teja.]

The biggest myth about stats-based analysis is that it's 100% based around one's career average. It's a very frustrating generalisation that people just can't get passed.

Again, stats will show if a player goes on too long. Stats will show if a player is picked too early. Stats will show if a player played in a batsman- or bowling-friendly era. It's not nearly as simple as looking at the career average and making a judgement based on that; that's just as flawed as trying to base your opinion on watching a batsman bat for a session.

Yeah, tried for five minutes to put this point across in a reasonable form and failed.

AWTA. PEWS in full flow today.

 

[GotSpin]

Do find it amusing how the same logic for Richards was similarly applied to the Flintoff overrated thread of a week ago and not many had a problem rating him based upon watching him play rather just statistical analysis

 

[grecian]

Yeah but you see, things like that show up in stats as well. You could look at the global batting average of the time Richards played, notice it was a bit lower than today's and make an adjustment to show how we went compared to his contemporaries and then do the same with whoever you want to compare him to, rather than try to compare apples and oranges.

A proper statistical of a batsman involves a lot more than just looking at his Test average. Personally I find it both arrogant and ignorant to suggest that watching someone play probably about a third of their Test innings will give you a better idea of how effective they were than properly analysing a statistical measure of every innings he ever played and comparing it to his contemporaries. Particularly when you account for the fact that batsmen often appear either more or less effective than they are actually are, and human nature's obvious tendency to rate players more aesthetically pleasing or even those whom one pays more attention to or has more exposure to more highly.

Yes, but statistics on analysis, all depends on what your looking for. Viv was averaging much higher then his contemporaries, until the end of his career, and in the end, how can you do these in-depth analysis, when only players in their own teams play on the same pitches, and only he comes in at the same position. He was clearly ahead of his teammates, for instance, and they weren't bad players. Haynes, Greenidge, Lloyd, Kallicharan.

So I don't believe you can do a "proper" analysis compared with someone like Chappel or Gavaskar Or Javed I'm afraid, when they played on vastly different pitches. Why is that ignorant or arrogant? The belief that there is a "proper statistical analysis" could be though, IMO.

So you have to go with your imperfect eyes, for a lot of it, and read from contemporaries and cricket writers.

Again for me its:

Bradman
Tendulkar
Hobbs
Richards

Yet those bottom three are SO close, IMHO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Do find it amusing how the same logic for Richards was similarly applied to the Flintoff overrated thread of a week ago and not many had a problem rating him based upon watching him play rather just statistical analysis

I do think it's human nature to trust what we perceive when we watch rather than the data presented relating to, you know, what actually happened. We instinctively try to find reasons to disprove the data to match our existing perceptions and ideas rather questioning those perceptions and trying to think of reasons they themselves might be tainted.

More people have seen Flintoff on this forum than Richards and, ergo, less people are going to have problems rating him based on what he appeared to be doing rather than what actually happened. It proves little other than the fact that people are biased by what they see and that what they don't holds comparatively little significance.

FWIW I believe that both Richards and Flintoff, over the course of their whole careers, appeared to be fractionally better than they actually were. This isn't to say that they weren't great cricketers, but I do think the reputations of both players fractionally exceed their actual output.

 

[Daemon]

I do think it's human nature to trust what we perceive when we watch rather than the data presented relating to, you know, what actually happened. We instinctively try to find reasons to disprove the data to match our existing perceptions and ideas rather questioning those perceptions and trying to think of reasons they themselves might be tainted.

More people have seen Flintoff on this forum than Richards and, ergo, less people are going to have problems rating him based on what he appeared to be doing rather than what actually happened. It proves little other than the fact that people are biased by what they see and that what they don't holds comparatively little significance.

FWIW I believe that both Richards and Flintoff, over the course of their whole careers, appeared to be fractionally better than they actually were. This isn't to say that they weren't great cricketers, but I do think the reputations of both players fractionally exceed their actual output.

Does this mean if anyone watches a player, they immediately are biased for or against that player?

 

[Prince EWS]

Does this mean if anyone watches a player, they immediately are biased for or against that player?

No. It does open the opportunity for it, however.