What made the mid-1980s Indian ODI team so good?

[Bolo.]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29316805/how-far-ahead-average-batsman-era-steven-smith

Yeah yeah, it's crapinfo but it does show Tendulkar was as far ahead of his peers as Smith has been.

Vengsakar and Imran leading that is the.most interesting thing.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

As what? That screams bits and pieces to me.

I think it's because of his son to a certain extent, people are surprised Binny Sr has numbers that are a fair bit better.

But as per usual, why bother actually thinking when you can just be snide instead. Dire.

 

[Red]

oh wow no you're going too far the other way having Viv ahead of him

Viv was literally Langer/Martyn level(in terms of output) for like, 85% of his career. But with a worse century ratio. Basically if Voges stayed in the side for several more years after his Bradman like beginning. And nobody can really claim different eras or something because most of the era's toughest bowlers were on his team.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Viv's level of overratedness is the stuff of legends to me. After 1976 he was only ATVG - I don't even him place him on Sachin/Lara/Sobers level let alone above any of them

i guess his swagger and personality counted for a lot

Judging Viv on "output" is the worst way to use stats with Viv.

He was brutal and others feared him.

“Of all the players in my time, Viv Richards stood out as the greatest. He was a complete genius. Viv was the only batsman who would attack me. No other batsman could attack me when I was at my peak,” the 58-year-old said. “He had amazing reflexes, greater than anyone else. He could destroy any attack, any fast bowler.

It was a gifted ability. He could move into position, so quickly... Just incredible.”

- Imran Khan

And his swagger and his personality did count for a lot, especially for black men in that era. But his swagger and personality in no way account or replace the fact he was a genius batsman. Easily in the top 5 batsmen of all time.

 

[Red]

Okay, I really think there are several batsman who are clearly running away from him based on their stats. Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Lara, Sachin, Sobers, Steve Smith.

And I think there are batsman who go neck-a-neck for him statistically like Dravid who would never in a million years be rated higher than him by anyone

I'm not saying Mark Waugh was as good as him, I definitely rate Viv a lot higher than Junior- I'm just using Mark Waugh as an example of someone who was only 'okay' relatively, and nowhere near the conversation for second greatest bat after Bradman, and then illustrating that for over a decade Viv scored his runs at a similar average. And when your test career is 17 years long a decade is a big ol chunk of it.

I guess my beef is with intangibles mattering as much as they do. They seem too wishy washy

I think when you say "intangibles mattering" you're neglecting that Viv's attributes were "tangible" Very "tangible".

Just because he averaged only 50 means nada. He could destroy an opposition in a session, as the saying goes. There really aren't many guys who can do what he was capable of. He could put the WIs into a test winning position in a very short space of time. Only other guy I've really seen who's been able to do that is Adam Gilchrist.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think when you say "intangibles mattering" you're neglecting that Viv's attributes were "tangible" Very "tangible".

Just because he averaged only 50 means nada. He could destroy an opposition in a session, as the saying goes. There really aren't many guys who can do what he was capable of. He could put the WIs into a test winning position in a very short space of time. Only other guy I've really seen who's been able to do that is Adam Gilchrist.

Sehwag

 

[Red]

Sehwag

Fair enough.

 

[mr_mister]

Plenty of ATG batsman have turned a match in a session. Ponting scored plenty of 50s and 100s at a great strike rate in tests and obviously Lara did too

I dont think Viv did it frequently enough to justify his title as 3rd greatest test batsman of all time, according to Wisden (this list was made in 2002 though). Maybe it seemed like he was doing it every other innings because it was so memorable when he did do it, but he wasn't.

His test average is the 37th highest of all time, going by a very health 30 inning min criteria to snuff out any flash in the pans. He scored his 24 centuries at one every 5 tests, that's a worse rate than a lot of ATG batsmen. Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Ponting, Pollock, Headley, Kallis, Weekes, Walcott, Sachin, Lara, Smith, Chappell, Sobers, Sanga - all got them more frequently but I can't be bothered finding out his actual ranking there

Now I know you don't care about stats as much as me, but I think it's a discredit to other test batsmen when Viv leapfrogs guys to be held in the top 5 by most cricket fans while not really being able to hang with them in the stats. Maybe if he was held on the level of Gilly or Sehwag I wouldn't mind, but he's definitely held on a level above those guys isnt he. And to me, his style and swagger is a bit of a weak argument to make up for the ground he loses in the stats department - a very nostalgia based one. we all know runs are what matters on the cricket field not how you look getting them otherwise Maxwell would be an ATG

One final point. His test average when you remove 1976 from his career is 45 from the remaining 110 tests. I know those stats are normally considered blasphemy because he still had the 1976, 1976 existed, he got those runs in 1976, but you will not find a single other batsman in the conversation(or close to it) for second best after Bradman who's stock falls so much by just omitting one year from their career. Only someone like Mo-Yo would be hurt so much by one year being removed. You could argue it was an outlier.

 

[harsh.ag]

You can't overlook WSC while evaluating Viv. He proved all that needed to be proved in those games. And, yes, he definitely coasted in the 80s. But he was also captain and his captaincy stint is probably the most dominant of all time.

 

[Engle]

Viv was not just batting - he was making a statement.

 

[mr_mister]

Viv was not just batting - he was making a statement.

this is the kind of wishy washy stuff that bothers me. What was his statement? He found batting so easy and boring he didn't feel like averaging 60, even though he apparently had the ability to?

 

[h_hurricane]

Exactly, this is what Greg Chappell said about Viv. "Richards was the kind of batsman who would have averaged 80 in tests if he wanted but chose not to because he did not need to".

 

[mr_mister]

that is such ****(rhymes with bank) from Chappell haha

Do people actually buy it?

 

[h_hurricane]

Chappell was one of his many peers who felt so. Not saying peer reputation counts for everything, but this is what I feel as well.

Viv was like a leopard who would annihilate you if you put up a fight as an opponent but would be a little more liberal if you surrender meekly.

 

[srbhkshk]

Chappell was one of his many peers who felt so. Not saying peer reputation counts for everything, but this is what I feel as well.

Viv was like a leopard who would annihilate you if you put up a fight as an opponent but would be a little more liberal if you surrender meekly.

He averages 31.5 in the matches WI lost though, fair bit lesser than Lara/Ponting/Sachin.

 

[Red]

this is the kind of wishy washy stuff that bothers me. What was his statement? He found batting so easy and boring he didn't feel like averaging 60, even though he apparently had the ability to?

I don’t mean this in a harsh way, but did you see much of Viv or have you watched much of him batting?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Many contemporaries also rate Wasim Akram as the best bowler around despite having fairly poorer stats than say the top 5, so either contemporaries are all knowing, or complete and utter wankers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He averages 31.5 in the matches WI lost though, fair bit lesser than Lara/Ponting/Sachin.

Yeah this doesn't really gel with the "would annihilate you if you put up a fight" claim

 

[trundler]

There are plenty of cricketers who had the tools to average more but didn't. AB De Villiers is one. As far as I know he's not even in the top handful of batsmen. It's weird how complacency and unwillingness are used as excuses for Viv when they would reveal a temperamental weakness for any other batsman.

 

[harsh.ag]

He averages 31.5 in the matches WI lost though, fair bit lesser than Lara/Ponting/Sachin.

Yeah this doesn't really gel with the "would annihilate you if you put up a fight" claim

The context here is the 80s. In the 70s, he killed it anyway. In the 80s, Windies lost 6 tests. His batting average was 19 in them.

Now, this stat doesn't mean squat, and it's not because of the sample size either. It's the chicken-egg problem. They lost in at least some part because he failed. The reasoning, even if you want to read into it, doesn't make sense. Suppose there was a match they were losing and he scored a century and they won, it's not like that fact would come up in a "average in losing games" stat.

 

[srbhkshk]

What does tools to average more really mean? Like you can take up any ATG batsman and claim that if he really wanted to he could have scored 10 runs more in each of of his innings, that's not how it turned out though.