Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[honestbharani]

Can think of a Burgey post or two that might be relevant about now.

he only states them when it is about India and when it is obviously untrue..

 

[honestbharani]

Burgey is terrible against spin because he once kept out Dougeh. Discuss.

kept out.. Given his Dougeh love, I would think it is more kept in..

 

[Migara]

But Murali never owned the likes of Lara & Hooper n C'Paul in tests. They all played him very well @ various points in their careers. So no i disagree that Murali would have steamrolled the windies of crica 1991-1996, if he bowled to them @ their peak.

Wrong once again. Lara owned Murali for a single series in SL. Apart from that series Lara's average against SL is less than 40 IIRC. Beside that Murali owned WI, never mind who was playing at which era. Unlike Warne, Murali was always successul against WI.

I watched most of that 2001 series when Lara scored all those runs & i dont recall him getting anything close to dozen let-foffs againts Vaas. Plus even if he did, i hope you are not using that to critique that series performance of his in anyway BTW?

I must have watched a different series then Point is that Lara struggled against Vaas in his best, who is inferior to a Donald, a Akram or a McGrath in their absolute peak. It was mostly the pace bowlers that troubled him. Comparing him to Viv is totally wrong because they are two types of players.

The two early knock when KP was dominant againts Murali intially was microcosim of how King Viv would play spin @ his best. That was the point i was trying make - i never was suggesting KP domiated Murali all career - i know very well the history of KP vs Murali.

It would me a microcsim or what ever you like how even such a attacking batsman was finally reduced to rubble by a great spinner. Give Murali some time to get used to a player and if that player is not a great player of spin, I'll back most of time Murali to nail that player how ever good he is in other departments of th game. And I am quite positive that Viv is not in the class of Sidhu, Sehwag, Lara or Tendulkar when it comes to spin play, partly because I've seen him bat, and partly how well Chandra used to bowl to him.

 

[vcs]

If Lara could dominate Murali, i strongly suspect Richards would have as well, if he played in the 90s/2000s.

They're completely different batsmen. If McGrath had the upper hand over Lara, does that mean he'd do the same against Richards?

 

[Migara]

They're completely different batsmen. If McGrath had the upper hand over Lara, does that mean he'd do the same against Richards?

McGrath was a beast when it came to not getting thrashed. Easily the best bowler against belligerent batsman IMO. Waqar, Donald, Wasim, Lillee esque were legendary in their attacking brand of bowling, but no one was as immune as McGrath when it comes to getting thrashed. I can only recall very few occasions where McGrath got pasted around. Infact I cannot recall more than three occasions in a long career as McGrath's

 

[Teja.]

If Lara could dominate Murali, i strongly suspect Richards would have as well, if he played in the 90s/2000s.

No, They're completely different batsman.

 

[Slifer]

Wrong once again. Lara owned Murali for a single series in SL. Apart from that series Lara's average against SL is less than 40 IIRC. Beside that Murali owned WI, never mind who was playing at which era. Unlike Warne, Murali was always successul against WI.

I must have watched a different series then Point is that Lara struggled against Vaas in his best, who is inferior to a Donald, a Akram or a McGrath in their absolute peak. It was mostly the pace bowlers that troubled him. Comparing him to Viv is totally wrong because they are two types of players.

It would me a microcsim or what ever you like how even such a attacking batsman was finally reduced to rubble by a great spinner. Give Murali some time to get used to a player and if that player is not a great player of spin, I'll back most of time Murali to nail that player how ever good he is in other departments of th game. And I am quite positive that Viv is not in the class of Sidhu, Sehwag, Lara or Tendulkar when it comes to spin play, partly because I've seen him bat, and partly how well Chandra used to bowl to him.

Sigh Lara also dominated in the 2 test return series where he scored 209 in the first test and 80* in the seond to set up a very good 4th innings run chase. Suggest u get ur facts straight b4 posting. U have sumthin against Wi batsmen or what???

 

[Slifer]

I think a fair assesment would be Viv>Srt>Lara vs pace. Lara>=Srt vs spin>Viv.

 

[tooextracool]

Wrong once again. Lara owned Murali for a single series in SL. Apart from that series Lara's average against SL is less than 40 IIRC

I seriously hope this is some sort of joke. Even if you exclude his 2001 epic series, he averages 54.25 against Sri Lanka, in fact the last time Lara scored less than 100 runs in a test against SL was all the way back in June of 1997. Now please dont tell me that Murali had the wood on him for 1 test in 1993 and another in 1997.

Quite honestly, Lara is arguably the greatest batsman against spin in the last 20 years and hes been rated by Murali as such anyhow. Saying that he struggled against Murali is akin to saying that Atherton dominated McGrath in his pomp.

I must have watched a different series then Point is that Lara struggled against Vaas in his best, who is inferior to a Donald, a Akram or a McGrath in their absolute peak. It was mostly the pace bowlers that troubled him. Comparing him to Viv is totally wrong because they are two types of players.

Yes Lara was much weaker against pace than spin. This had a lot to do with his high backlift and technique. Even Flintoff was all over him in 2004. Not that it ever mattered to Lara if you thought you had the wood on him though, because the guy was so bloody determined at times that it barely mattered, he'd still somehow go out there and hit 200 odd without blinking

 

[honestbharani]

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.

And a 50 is sometimes much bigger than a 100*...

 

[Teja.]

Quite honestly, Lara is arguably the greatest batsman against spin in the last 20 years

Tbh, Though Lara and Tendulkar are vastly superior to Sehwag and Sidhu as overall batsmen, The latter pair are a good level over the former against spin, IMHO. Just so prodigiously destructive.

 

[honestbharani]

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

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.

lol @ dozen let offs.. I cant even remember one.. And when he was given LBW after his 231 or whatever it was, he was stuck outside the line, FWIW...

 

[honestbharani]

Tbh, Though Lara and Tendulkar are vastly superior to Sehwag and Sidhu as overall batsmen, The latter pair are a good level over the former against spin, IMHO. Just so prodigiously destructive.

Sidhu didn't do anything away from home against spinners... And Sehwag is awesome but I would take Lara over him for being destructive + selective in shot making. And Sachin of the 98 vintage too, while we are at it...

 

[tooextracool]

Tbh, Though Lara and Tendulkar are vastly superior to Sehwag and Sidhu as overall batsmen, The latter pair are a good level over the former against spin, IMHO. Just so prodigiously destructive.

As good as Sidhu was against spin, I quite honestly dont think hes anywhere near the other 3. I think Lara>> Tendulkar against spin, Ive seen many an average spinner cause Tendulkar problems. Sehwag definitely has a case and it could probably go either way for me.

 

[honestbharani]

One thing anyone who has played the game at a decent level would appreciate is that variety matters A LOT in this game.. That is why spinners are around even though it is statistically "proven" that they average more and strike less often... That is why you cannot put together a team of 6 similar batsmen and win a game.. Someone has gotta score quicker and someone has to hold an end up. And that is why a team of 6 Sehwags is just as likely to score the same as 6 Gavaskars... And both teams are just as likely to be bowled out for nothing.. Cricket is NOT played by machines.. Try simming games with all sorts of filters you can use on the stats, whatever makes it REAL in your opinion and compare it with an actual game.. I bet not even one out of the 44 scores would be the same... And that is why the value of a batsman could very conceivably be greater or lesser than what his batting average would tell... Stats are good to tell you the category to which a batsman may belong but between guys in the same ball park (esp. from diff eras) no way is it even 25% reliable...

 

[aussie]

Wrong once again. Lara owned Murali for a single series in SL. Apart from that series Lara's average against SL is less than 40 IIRC. Beside that Murali owned WI, never mind who was playing at which era. Unlike Warne, Murali was always successul against WI.

What?. Lara dominated Murali in every series they played againts each other. 97 in the WI, 01 in SRI & 03 in WI. So i dont know what you are talking about.

Plus i dont even think you understand the intial point i made about Warne's record vs still good windies teams IN 94/95 & 96/97. If you where aware of how the windies fared in the 90s, after the legends left after the 91 tour to ENG. They still remained fairly strong between 1991-1996/97 - after the 96/97 tour to AUS that they hit rock bottom. WHich is why you can't compare the windies team Murali bowled to in 97 to ones Warne encountered in 94/95 & 96/97.

I must have watched a different series then Point is that Lara struggled against Vaas in his best, who is inferior to a Donald, a Akram or a McGrath in their absolute peak. It was mostly the pace bowlers that troubled him. Comparing him to Viv is totally wrong because they are two types of players.

As i said i saw the majority of that series & i saw no evidence of Vaas troubling Lara. Even if as you claim they may have been a few clothes decision that Vaas had vs Lara that wasn't given - fact is Lara dominated Vaas just as much as he dominted Murali during that series

It would me a microcsim or what ever you like how even such a attacking batsman was finally reduced to rubble by a great spinner. Give Murali some time to get used to a player and if that player is not a great player of spin, I'll back most of time Murali to nail that player how ever good he is in other departments of th game. And I am quite positive that Viv is not in the class of Sidhu, Sehwag, Lara or Tendulkar when it comes to spin play, partly because I've seen him bat, and partly how well Chandra used to bowl to him.

Big stretch to say Sidhu & Sehwag being better players of spin than Richards. The most i would Sehwag is another modern example of how Viv played spin in his day, just like KP vs Murali intially & Warne during the 05 Ashes.

You keep talking about Chandra troubling Richards in 1974 when Richards was still not recognised as a great as yet. But you forget Richards in his breakout year as a test batsman in 1976 totally got the better of Chandra & his legendary spin buddies. How can a man who averaged 92 againts the greatest spin combination in test history not be great player of spin???.

Plus you also you had his batting vs PAK in 80/81 vs Qadir & Iqbal Qasim.

Get that myth out of your head that he was not a great player of spin. The only reason people dont talk about his record vs spin with great regard is because for the majority of his career, top spinners didn't exist after the Indian spin quartet retired early in his career.

No, They're completely different batsman.

If you believe the myth that Richards was not equally great vs spin as he was vs pace - you would say this. Richards would dominated Murali in a different way than Lara did @ his peak. But thats not to suggest Murali may not have won a few battles too.

They're completely different batsmen. If McGrath had the upper hand over Lara, does that mean he'd do the same against Richards?

See above.

While id say if their is any fast bolwler at his peak who could potentially kept Viv quiet - was McGrath. That would have been fascinating viewing.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

AWTA.. but there is a lot of idiocy sprouted out in this thread and I am sure you can see that too..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Output is not just runs...

 

[vcs]

Richards would dominated Murali in a different way than Lara did @ his peak. But thats not to suggest Murali may not have won a few battles too.

There's very little to base this on and one could easily say the opposite i.e. Murali would have dominated Viv like he did KP, with Viv winning a few battles. Basically, we'll never know either way.

 

[archie mac]

Although i fully agree understand the frustration that any erdudite (i say erdudite like yourself, since some older posters can show bias towards their eras) older poster would feel by any useless attempt of people who weren't lucky to see him bat live trying to critiques Sir Viv's record based on stats - especially poor statistical analysis of this thread.

I dont think we can look @ Trumper in the same light TBF. Its much easier to make such an assesment with Richards vs Tendy given how similar the style & cricket is from the 70s until now. You can argue cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:

- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 60 years now. So i'd say comparing players across era's in the last 60 years can be easily done. I can see no difference between comparing from the 1950s to 90s in terms of standard of cricket.

You can't compare post-war (1900-1939) to (1950s-1990s). Given for example uncovered wickets where present & lack of much quality pace attacks for batsmen. This is i why i would never accept the argument/defense for players like Trumper that "you just had to see him played" to know he was great because of his average - the style of cricket present them is too different from what has been present over the last 60 overs. Pretty much all post war (1900-1939) batsmen except Bradman, Hammod & Headley for me are questionable because of this.

Some very good points, although I was not comparing Trumper to anyone, more trying to suggest contemporaries of trumper comparing him to the next generation of batsman