Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[Daemon]

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

Then how can you assume that those you accused of over rating him were being biased?

 

[Prince EWS]

Then how can you assume that those you accused of over rating him were being biased?

Because his reputation doesn't quite match up to his output. It comes close, but not quite, even if you take into account the difficulty of run-scoring when he played and the fact that he played on a fair bit past his best.

It's human nature, really. He looked awesome therefore he must've been awesome and anything that suggests otherwise is flawed.
EDIT: In no way am I suggesting he wasn't awesome, FTR.

 

[Ikki]

IIRC Viv also has an SR around 70. Combine that with his high average, and compare respectively with the era he was playing in and it goes some way in showing why he stood out and why he may have been more effective.

 

[GotSpin]

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.

Yeah I agree somewhat.

Just pointing out that a large majority of posters here are perfectly happy to give greater accolades towards Flintoff because of the way he played the game and are willing to oversee the great flaws in his record, but are unwilling to do so for Richards. Not singling anyone out but just a general trend, especially if you look at the Flintoff retirement threads.

 

[Flem274*]

Agree with teh PEWS.

Stats, whilst they get completely overanalysed sometimes (see multiquote warfare) and they are very twistable things, provide a very good picture of a player. Stats are the results.

For example, stats show Martin Crowe wasn't very good at all early in his test career, and they agree with his admittance he wasn't very good. They also show when he got firing he was a world class batsman, averaging 51 during a time where fast bowling was ****ing awesome.

Similarly, they display Bradman is head and shoulders above any other batsman to have played the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

IIRC Viv also has an SR around 70. Combine that with his high average, and compare respectively with the era he was playing in and it goes some way in showing why he stood out and why he may have been more effective.

We've already had a seventy-five page debate over whether or not batting strike rate should be a factor when rating a batsman and I don't intend to have it again, but this is quite possibly a reason I don't rate him quite as highly as others.

 

[Sanz]

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.

So which statistical analysis is/was used in this thread to conclude that Richards was weaker against spin bowling ?

The problem is not with stats, but how people make a certain assumption and then manipulate the stats to prove the assumption that was made before they used the statistics.

A Batting average of 50+ alone would put Richards in the category of the greatest batsmen of all time, but look at the thread, From the first sentence of the post itself the thread initiator had made up his mind that Viv was over-rated.

 

[Bracken]

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.

I disagree, to an extent.

My view is that your quality as a cricketer is primarily defined by your ability to positively influence the result of as many games as possible. Viv did this not only by the weight of his runs, but also by the incredible impact he had upon the mentality of his opposition whenever he strode out.

Viv dominated not only bowling attacks, but captains and fielding sides as well. Even if he didn't score runs, he always (up until the last couple of years of his career) put the opposition on the back foot, which eased the pressure off his team mates and allowed them to thrive. He didn't score the runs off his own bat, but in my view he definitely had a massive hand in them. The effect he had on the game was utterly palpable.

You only have to look at Richie Richardson's decline after Viv retired. The guy went from being considered "the next Viv" to being basically washed up in nanoseconds. I'm sure people will scoff at this, but I firmly believe that the loss of the Viv Effect was the biggest factor in Richardson's tailspin.

Incidentally, the same sort of phenomenon is why I rate Sehwag and Gilchrist so highly. Both have fine records, but it was the idea that they are doing it so easily that scare(d) the bejesus out of oppositions and put their teams on the front foot, even when they didn't produce.

I'm sure I'll get shouted down in a torrent of stats but it was the intangibles that put Viv over the top as being the premier batsman of his generation, and the best I've personally seen. Cricket is played by humans with human frailties, and Viv's attitude and demeanour exploited them to the benefit of his team.

It's not something that you can ever record on Statsguru, but Viv's swagger helped his team win matches.

 

[grecian]

Agree with teh PEWS.

Stats, whilst they get completely overanalysed sometimes (see multiquote warfare) and they are very twistable things, provide a very good picture of a player. Stats are the results.

For example, stats show Martin Crowe wasn't very good at all early in his test career, and they agree with his admittance he wasn't very good. They also show when he got firing he was a world class batsman, averaging 51 during a time where fast bowling was ****ing awesome.

Similarly, they display Bradman is head and shoulders above any other batsman to have played the game.

So you agree with Pews, lovely, but can you please tell me which is the "proper" way of looking at stats and then prove why that way is superior?

Pews hasn't so maybe someone agreeing with Pews can?

 

[Sanz]

Because his reputation doesn't quite match up to his output. It comes close, but not quite, even if you take into account the difficulty of run-scoring when he played and the fact that he played on a fair bit past his best.

And how do you measure that the reputation doesn't match up to his output ?

I really have not seen any analysis suggesting that Viv's reputation doesn't match his output. It would be nice to see some statistical facts suggesting such a hypothesis.

 

[Slifer]

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.

Reasonable statement that. Well said

 

[smash84]

It's not something that you can ever record on Statsguru, but Viv's swagger helped his team win matches.

Well said.......I agree with you on this. Great players have this great effect of lifting everybody around them so that everybody plays at a higher level than they usually do.

Viv did that for the Windies. Shane Warne to some extent did that for the Australians. Imran's leadership on the field did just that for Pakistan. Sehwag does that for India.

Stats really don't capture the intangibles.

 

[grecian]

And how do you measure that the reputation doesn't match up to his output ?

I really have not seen any analysis suggesting that Viv's reputation doesn't match his output. It would be nice to see some statistical facts suggesting such a hypothesis.

indeed another statistical point which seems pointless, how do we gauge his reputation in a statistic, then how do we decide whether it's right or wrong, it's a tangled web.......

 

[Burgey]

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.

Look mate, we're not comparing him to Graeme Wood here. The issue is whether he's overrated. Well overrated compared with whom? Because implicit in saying someone is overrated is saying someone else not rated as highly is better.

 

[shankar]

Viv Richards was a great batsman. Hence he must be overrated. You can't be a great batsman if you can't even get people to overrate you.

 

[robelinda]

Viv was a bit hot and cold against us in tests, I was never THAT worried he might go crazy in the last 7 or so years of his career, but in odi's he was so dangerous all the times, hitting fast bowlers down the ground for six, no ground was big enough. Made a mockery of the size of Perth or Melbourne. The best thing about Viv was the absolute command of his strokes, he just didnt run, he just monstered fours, smashed it so hard. So great to watch, that backfoot drive down the ground was awesome. He certainly was less patient as his career closed, I recall the 84/85 and 88/89 tours to Australia he didnt look at all comfortable- Steve Waugh even roughed him up. Made that 200 in 1984 but either side of that knock was all at sea, same in 88/89 with the 146 at Perth- he was just on holidays during that innings, balls flying everywhere and dropped catches. the highlights look good but he was so airy fairy, unlike say in 79/80 at the Gabba when he was just in total command. I would never say too much bad about Viv, he was a champion. I think his ego was such that he just couldnt be an accumulator of runs, but he sure couldve scored more runs it seemed if he toned it down a little, but thats the beauty of Viv, you just had to watch when he batted, like Sehwag now.

 

[archie mac]

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.


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.

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

Was not suggesting I knew Dasa's opinion, was referring in general to the people he was writing about Clear now?

 

[Flem274*]

So you agree with Pews, lovely, but can you please tell me which is the "proper" way of looking at stats and then prove why that way is superior?

Pews hasn't so maybe someone agreeing with Pews can?

No need for the snarkiness...

What do you want to do with a piece of string? How to use stats depends on the question you want to answer. There's literally a million ways to use them. it's up to the user to choose the appropriate method.

Using stats is superior simply because it's far less arbitrary and prone to bias. They are very very very far from perfect and are often twisted, but I think they're still better than watching someone and then deciding who is better.

People doing that is partly the reason why why we have a long line of "talents" who never did remotely anything in FC cricket and failed massively in tests because they were elevated too early or simply flattered to deceive *cough* Daniel Flynn *cough*. That's one reason I think it's silly not to take statistics into account.

Stats aren't perfect, and they aren't the be all end all, but they're still very good if used without bias.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd like to make it clear I think Richards was a great batsman.

The stats prove it.

 

[Teja.]

Was not suggesting I knew Dasa's opinion, was referring in general to the people he was writing about Clear now?

Thanks.