Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[Teja.]

I wonder how STR would have went without a helmet? I don't remember him being hit in the head too often. As opposed to JL who may well have been killed if he played in the 70s

IMHO,

What must be kept in mind is that these batsmen' technique revolved around the assumption that they are always wearing a helmet. If they had to grow up playing without helmets, they obviously would have developed a completely different attitude towards the short ball. You just cannot directly take a current player who got hit a few times on the head and say he would have been murdered if he played in the 70s.

 

[Prince EWS]

IMHO,

What must be kept in mind is that these batsmen' technique revolved around the assumption that they are always wearing a helmet. If they had to grow up playing without helmets, they obviously would have developed a completely different attitude towards the short ball. You just cannot directly take a current player who got hit a few times on the head and say he would have been murdered if he played in the 70s.

Yeah it's completely irrelevant when rating a player IMO. A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it's completely irrelevant when rating a player IMO. A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

How's that any different to different pitches in different eras though? I think you're right but it's invariably said so-and-so wouldn't cope in X or Y era when pitches were worse to bat on.

 

[robelinda]

Here's another point- even the WI with their 4 man attack didnt bowl lots an lots and lots of bouncers, they werent stupid. They didnt want to kill people, as ruthless as they were they still got a hell of a lot of wickets with good length balls or pitched up balls to batsmen only half forward. Some of the dismissals against aussie batsmen look plain awful, guys desperate for a scoring shot that they flash at anything the slightest bit loose and nick it. Its not like every batsmen was out hooking or fending off their face. Allan Border for instance was hardly ever dismissed off a short ball, Malcolm Marshall in particular got through his defence often enough with good length balls. Its a bit of an internet myth how scary the WI bowlers were, they were awesome but they werent all menace, they were mostly smart bowlers who knew how to work out batsmen and set them up with well targetted short balls, rather that a crazy barrage, though obviously at some point early on they went a bit over the top and laws were introduced to stop the craziness. If the pitch wasnt quick and bouncy, say a typical English pitch, they bowled like a well oiled machine and got nicks etc, rather that a bunch of crazy guys bouncing everyone willy nilly.

 

[Prince EWS]

How's that any different to different pitches in different eras though? I think you're right but it's invariably said so-and-so wouldn't cope in X or Y era when pitches were worse to bat on.

Yeah, but I don't subscribe to that crap either. It's just an extrapolation of my stance on that issue really. Obviously if run-scoring is easier as a whole in your era then you'll be expected to score more than those in other eras to be rated the same, as averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 30 is more impressive than averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 45. However, I reckon it's a load of crap when people try to pick apart players' techniques and guess how they'd go in other eras based on that (for example, saying Kallis > Sehwag because Kallis would've scored more in the 80s even though Sehwag scores more now while they're playing under largely the same conditions). Sehwag's job isn't to look like he'd score runs in other eras; it's to score runs in the conditions he's presented with. Same goes for all players.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, but I don't subscribe to that crap either. It's just an extrapolation of my stance on that issue really. Obviously if run-scoring is easier as a whole in your era then you'll be expected to score more than those in other eras to be rated the same, as averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 30 is more impressive than averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 45. However, I reckon it's a load of crap when people try to pick apart players' techniques and guess how they'd go in other eras based on that (for example, saying Kallis > Sehwag because Kallis would've scored more in the 80s even though Sehwag scores more now while they're playing under largely the same conditions). Sehwag's job isn't to look like he'd score runs in other eras; it's to score runs in the conditions he's presented with. Same goes for all players.

You're a legend, man. Was starting a thread on this.

 

[vcs]

Here's another point- even the WI with their 4 man attack didnt bowl lots an lots and lots of bouncers, they werent stupid. They didnt want to kill people, as ruthless as they were they still got a hell of a lot of wickets with good length balls or pitched up balls to batsmen only half forward. Some of the dismissals against aussie batsmen look plain awful, guys desperate for a scoring shot that they flash at anything the slightest bit loose and nick it. Its not like every batsmen was out hooking or fending off their face. Allan Border for instance was hardly ever dismissed off a short ball, Malcolm Marshall in particular got through his defence often enough with good length balls. Its a bit of an internet myth how scary the WI bowlers were, they were awesome but they werent all menace, they were mostly smart bowlers who knew how to work out batsmen and set them up with well targetted short balls, rather that a crazy barrage, though obviously at some point early on they went a bit over the top and laws were introduced to stop the craziness. If the pitch wasnt quick and bouncy, say a typical English pitch, they bowled like a well oiled machine and got nicks etc, rather that a bunch of crazy guys bouncing everyone willy nilly.

Yeah, good point. Lloyd's comments after the West Indian barrage to Brian Close :

"Our fellows got carried away. They knew they had only eighty minutes that night to make an impression and they went flat out, sacrificing accuracy for speed. They knew afterwards they had bowled badly."

Wisden - England v West Indies

 

[robelinda]

Hah. Brain Close was hilarious, just standing their not playing shots and almost walking into short balls and copping them. Odd indeed!

 

[vcs]

Hah. Brain Close was hilarious, just standing their not playing shots and almost walking into short balls and copping them. Odd indeed!

Starts at around 5:15 on this video. Spine-chilling stuff.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You're relatively new to this forum so I'll give you a pass, but there was a time when Cricket Chat was overrun with Sachin v threads. Almost every thread contained references to Sachin by his fans. So yes, these has been a backlash against this.

What a load of ****.

 

[G.I.Joe]

he would have hooked a lot more. helmets have taken away that shot from the art of batting as a protective as well as a run scoring stroke against fast bowlers on bouncy tracks. he would have done well, averaged around 48, I guess (against richards' 50). Had Richards, OTOH, played in the current batter friendly era, he would also have averaged about 48 (against sachin's 56) simply because he would be bored of less challenging bowlers and thrown his wicket away more easily more often. richards, overrated? i was trying to avoid this thread all these days. can't take it anymore!!!

Nah bagapath, you see, he'd have stood there like a crash test dummy getting his head pounded.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah bagapath, you see, he'd have stood there like a crash test dummy getting his head pounded.

Fair to say that there are probably some blokes more willing to pull and hook with the knowledge that they have a helmet on, as they have to get their head in line with the ball, or step across the line of it to get inside.

 

[GotSpin]

What a load of ****.

How is it.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're a legend, man. Was starting a thread on this.

I already did.

I started off typing it up as a post in a Sehwag discussion thread in response to claims he would've been dire in an another era, essentially just to point out that it was not only guesswork but irrelevant, but I ended up posting such a full-blown rant/theory that I made it into a new thread.

The same applies to, for example, bowlers from 1910 on uncovered wickets. Their job was to do well on what they were given, comparative to their contemporaries, not bowl in a way that'd make them still useful 100 years down the track. That is why I will always include Barnes and Lohmann in my all-time XI - sure they played in an era where bowling average expectations were higher, but not as high as what they achieved. They were so far ahead of the average player that it wasn't funny - further apart from the pack than any bowler has ever been since.

 

[honestbharani]

I already did.

I started off typing it up as a post in a Sehwag discussion thread in response to claims he would've been dire in an another era, essentially just to point out that it was not only guesswork but irrelevant, but I ended up posting such a full-blown rant/theory that I made it into a new thread.

The same applies to, for example, bowlers from 1910 on uncovered wickets. Their job was to do well on what they were given, comparative to their contemporaries, not bowl in a way that'd make them still useful 100 years down the track. That is why I will always include Barnes and Lohmann in my all-time XI - sure they played in an era where bowling average expectations were higher, but not as high as what they achieved. They were so far ahead of the average player that it wasn't funny - further apart from the pack than any bowler has ever been since.

worth saying twice, tbh, PEWS...

 

[weldone]

Yeah, but I don't subscribe to that crap either. It's just an extrapolation of my stance on that issue really. Obviously if run-scoring is easier as a whole in your era then you'll be expected to score more than those in other eras to be rated the same, as averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 30 is more impressive than averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 45. However, I reckon it's a load of crap when people try to pick apart players' techniques and guess how they'd go in other eras based on that (for example, saying Kallis > Sehwag because Kallis would've scored more in the 80s even though Sehwag scores more now while they're playing under largely the same conditions). Sehwag's job isn't to look like he'd score runs in other eras; it's to score runs in the conditions he's presented with. Same goes for all players.

I agree.

 

[JBMAC]

Fair to say that there are probably some blokes more willing to pull and hook with the knowledge that they have a helmet on, as they have to get their head in line with the ball, or step across the line of it to get inside.

How do you think we played without helmets? Your point has NO validation

 

[bagapath]

Nah bagapath, you see, he'd have stood there like a crash test dummy getting his head pounded.

I say he would have been forced to play at the short pitched balls more, as opposed to ducking and weaving, GI Joe. Either I don't get your sarcasm or you don't get my point.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, but I don't subscribe to that crap either. It's just an extrapolation of my stance on that issue really. Obviously if run-scoring is easier as a whole in your era then you'll be expected to score more than those in other eras to be rated the same, as averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 30 is more impressive than averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 45. However, I reckon it's a load of crap when people try to pick apart players' techniques and guess how they'd go in other eras based on that (for example, saying Kallis > Sehwag because Kallis would've scored more in the 80s even though Sehwag scores more now while they're playing under largely the same conditions). Sehwag's job isn't to look like he'd score runs in other eras; it's to score runs in the conditions he's presented with. Same goes for all players.

I believed with had this debate with you before & this is the usual weak defense that is given to defend modern day FTBs. I wont argue with this, since their is no middle-ground is the argument before, just strong ideological gridlock.

Although an educated assumption, you can judge whether batsman X of this FTB era would have been able to average Y (whether higher or lower) in the 90s. Based on the few on 90s like scenario's (difficult batting conditions vs top quality pacers) that batsman X would have encountered in this just 2000s era.

If batsman X does well in those 90s like scenario just has well as the amount runs he would smoke of the majority of flat decks & joke attacks that he would have faced in this 2000s. That is very fair guide IMO to how well batsman X would have done average wise in a past difficult batting era's vs quality pace attacks (50s - 80s as well as the 90s).

 

[G.I.Joe]

How is it.

Because the threads were based of an extremely singular and outstanding achievement in the history of the game, and they spawned their parody threads which were well received too. Matter done and dusted. If you're coming in EIGHT ****ing months after the event and using it as some sort of justification for any deliberate anti-Tendulkar sentiments here, that's a load of bollocks, if not entirely pathetic.