Greatest West Indian Batsman

[hang on]

This is the where bowlers opinion comes in and they unanimously speak Richards as the most intimidating they have ever bowled to...

which is different from whether richards actually dominated them - the best bowlers of his era - despite giving them goosebumps.

and what do bowlers say of sobers? mcgrath and warne have a lot to say about being 'dominated' by lara when he was in the mood.

 

[smash84]

This is the where bowlers opinion comes in and they unanimously speak Richards as the most intimidating they have ever bowled to...

Dennis Lillee
Imran Khan
Indian spinners...
Richard Hadlee

Thats a fair number of great bowlers..........

And those are some of the greatest bowlers of all time.

 

[sachin200]

Ah one question to all posters........

What is Viv Richards record against WI bowlers in FC level (in WI) and county. How often have they faced ?
Can somebody please post the records ?

 

[smash84]

One of the videos that Rob posted had Viv smashing Sylvester Clarke all over the park. A lot of times SC tried to bounce him but every time he got smashed to the boundary ferociously

 

[NUFAN]

One of the videos that Rob posted had Viv smashing Sylvester Clarke all over the park. A lot of times SC tried to bounce him but every time he got smashed to the boundary ferociously

Ahhh, the joy of highlights.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ahhh, the joy of highlights.

Surely you're not implying that highlights can be selective and geared towards a purpose? That shakes my belief in the system

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Lara. For me as his career was more built around leading his team through dark times which could be said the same for headley though not proven as much and didn't have those AMAZING knocks that lara did. Seriously 500 in first class and 400 in a test 400!!! even if i'm wrong lara deserves the accolades

 

[Slifer]

which is different from whether richards actually dominated them - the best bowlers of his era - despite giving them goosebumps.

and what do bowlers say of sobers? mcgrath and warne have a lot to say about being 'dominated' by lara when he was in the mood.

I seem to recall Viv dominanting an Oz attack in Oz in 79-80. He also dominated Pakistan in Pakistan in 80-81. Ditto Hadlee at home in 86. At some point or another in his career, Viv got the better of the great bowlers of his time, a feat that maybe only Sobers can claim but not Lara (failed vs WW and Donald/Pollock).

 

[Furball]

Ah one question to all posters........

What is Viv Richards record against WI bowlers in FC level (in WI) and county. How often have they faced ?
Can somebody please post the records ?

IIRC his record against Barbados is rubbish.

 

[Mike5181]

Viv Richards

 

[hang on]

I seem to recall Viv dominanting an Oz attack in Oz in 79-80. He also dominated Pakistan in Pakistan in 80-81. Ditto Hadlee at home in 86. At some point or another in his career, Viv got the better of the great bowlers of his time, a feat that maybe only Sobers can claim but not Lara (failed vs WW and Donald/Pollock).

the original comment that started my slew of comments concerned viv dominating the best bowlers of his time. in 80/81, pakistan did not have anything close to the kind of bowling attack they had later i.e. when imran came into his own.
he did have a good series (well, 2 tests) in 88 against pak in the windies where he averaged close to 70 but that is not a dominant performance. or perhaps my understanding of the word dominate is different from that of others. waugh or ponting or gilchrist dominating the saffers (scoring a lot of runs at a massive average) would be a 'dominating' performance.


against nz

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

1 100 in a series and it is domination?!

might as well say that azharuddin dominated donald and co. because he hit a stupendous 100 or 2 against them in the 90s!

essentially, what i am trying to get at is that most top batsmen have scored a good 100 or so against the best bowlers of their time. but that does not qualify as dominating, at least in my book. for example, tendulkar has scored a couple of decent 100s against mcgrath, but noone in his right mind would say that he dominated him. or his coruscating 100 against donald (think he and azharuddin had an incredible 200 run partnership at about a run a ball) would not lead people to say that he dominated donald.

thus, the same applies to richards.

 

[smash84]

Imran had become a very good bowler from 79 onwards. Cbf checking this but I think he was top tier by 80-81 where you mentioned that Viv played against him.

Also it is important to note that the bowlers found it difficult to dislodge him before he got the better of them. I don't think that Donald would say that regarding Azharuddin over a period of time.

While you mention an average of 70 for Viv what were the averages of other batsmen and the bowling averages?

 

[hang on]

if bowlers found it difficult to dislodge him before he got the better of them, how did he not end up doing better than he did?

even if u do count imran as absolutely top tier in 80-81, was viv's performances against him at that point dominant? was there ever a series in which he really collared the best bowlers of the world in such a manner that he dominated them (not a just an innings or two, which, as i argue, all top level batsmen have done at some point or the other)? yes, he had that uberseries in england in 76.

for example, for dominant performance, (though not against the best bowlers of the world), look here:

Australia in South Africa, 2001-02 Test Series Averages

again, i am not saying that richards wasn't a supreme batsman, possibly the supreme batsman of his era; just saying that the domination criterion is a very vague one with which to anoint him a better batsman than those who have been equally 'dominant'.....sobers or lara. anyone who can score 400 against harmison and co., albeit in antigua, must be dominant too, after all.

 

[smash84]

let us first agree on what dominant is?

What is dominance to you?

 

[hang on]

apologies but i'd have imagined that it was abundantly clear from my explanations and the example that i have provided. evidently not.

for certain, one or two matches out of many in which an aggressive 100 is scored against the best bowlers does not constitute dominance/domination. the reason being that most batsmen have done this at sometime or the other over the course of a longish career. there needs to be a replicatibility element to the 'domination' - either in one series such that it does end up being a humongous series like the gilchrist or ponting example posted above - or in a group of series over a career.

 

[karan316]

I would pick Sir Viv Richards.

 

[Slifer]

the original comment that started my slew of comments concerned viv dominating the best bowlers of his time. in 80/81, pakistan did not have anything close to the kind of bowling attack they had later i.e. when imran came into his own.
he did have a good series (well, 2 tests) in 88 against pak in the windies where he averaged close to 70 but that is not a dominant performance. or perhaps my understanding of the word dominate is different from that of others. waugh or ponting or gilchrist dominating the saffers (scoring a lot of runs at a massive average) would be a 'dominating' performance.


against nz

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

1 100 in a series and it is domination?!

might as well say that azharuddin dominated donald and co. because he hit a stupendous 100 or 2 against them in the 90s!

essentially, what i am trying to get at is that most top batsmen have scored a good 100 or so against the best bowlers of their time. but that does not qualify as dominating, at least in my book. for example, tendulkar has scored a couple of decent 100s against mcgrath, but noone in his right mind would say that he dominated him. or his coruscating 100 against donald (think he and azharuddin had an incredible 200 run partnership at about a run a ball) would not lead people to say that he dominated donald.

thus, the same applies to richards.

The point is Hang on, is that Viv had atleast one series where he did very good (averaging 50+) against every good/great bowler of his time. The same unfortunately cannot be said of Lara. Fact.

 

[kyear2]

I think that this is particularly tough, because all 4 of them are among the 10 Greatest bats of all time, and its really splitting hairs.
My vote for Headley is because he was the pioneer and was the first and he gave the W.I credibility and our first true star.

 

[hang on]

if that is your definition of domination, slifer, fair enough, but then the debate ends right here.

for what it's worth, i think that lara, while he may not have scored 50 plus in at least one series against all the best bowlers, still managed to dominate bowlers of the sort of warne and mcgrath, or murali in a way that richards, arguably, did not.

 

[smash84]

How did Lara fare against Donald, Pollock and the 2 Ws?