Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
To an extent, Viv Richards is more about impact and impression than raw statistics.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?
- Thread starter Lillian Thomson
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's where you can be mislead though. People will overrate impressive looking players - Shahid Afridi probably being the best example.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
He's not overrated, he's the greatest cricketer of his generation
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
We've had this discussion so many times, but his stats were pretty great for his era, until he played too long, as for short peaks, well they didn't play as many Tests then, so the peaks lasted a fair few years. Out of the pure stats he helped West Indies become the best Test Team in the World as well as the best one-day side, oh and his one-day strike rate with fielding restrictions is incredibly ahead of his contemporaries, and still compares now.
Yet again I admit I'm biased, but this idea his stats are poor compared to dozens of others doesn't really hold up.
And the comparison with Shahid Afridi is insulting, batting-wise anyway, though I rated Afridi as a limited overs all-rounder.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I assumed the Afridi comment was tongue in cheek. I certainly hope it was.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I have massive respect for anyone who plays a ridiculous number of games (say 150 for the big 3, 130 for SL/Pak/NZ AND 120ish in Viv's day). This alone makes a straight average to average comparison moot since averaging 50 over that long is ridiculous to begin with. Plus, there just aren't many ATG batsmen who batted the way Viv did. Average and SR have a bit of a trade-off IMO so 50 @ 70 (or whatever) is again pretty darned special. As OS alluded to above, Viv would've averaged considerably higher if he'd retired after 80 tests and would be rated higher by people looking at Cricinfo profiles alone which doesn't really make sense. Ponting > Chappell too for the reason but that's for another day.
What I don't get, however, is the idea that Viv would've averaged 70 if he wanted to. Well, sure. Tendulkar would've averaged 70 if he didn't debut as a teen and then get bogged down by tennis elbow later in his career. Didn't happen though and sounds like a pretty far-fetched fantasy in hindsight. So he belongs in the pantheon of greats and has attributes that set him apart but so do Lara, Tendulkar etc.
What I don't get, however, is the idea that Viv would've averaged 70 if he wanted to. Well, sure. Tendulkar would've averaged 70 if he didn't debut as a teen and then get bogged down by tennis elbow later in his career. Didn't happen though and sounds like a pretty far-fetched fantasy in hindsight. So he belongs in the pantheon of greats and has attributes that set him apart but so do Lara, Tendulkar etc.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I ca't be arsed reading back through the thread as it will haves richard's witterings, and my BP can't take that, but did anyone say that? I reckon a bit more consideration may get him up to say 56 , but 70 in that era seems silly-talk.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
When Viv was establishing himself he was prepared to bat forever, and in 1976 he nearly did. When established it was part of his make up that he wasn’t always prepared to play himself in when the team was in control anyway. His innings in the 1983 World Cup Final was reckless and costly, but it was how he often played.
I did say in the opening post that he was good enough to average mid 70’s, but that post was partly a bit of a tease. I do think he could have averaged over 60.
I did say in the opening post that he was good enough to average mid 70’s, but that post was partly a bit of a tease. I do think he could have averaged over 60.
Migara
International Coach
Impact and impression will be useful against average sides. If he is playing a ATG XI, the bowlers are not going to get intimidated that easily. Especially the spinners.
Viv lost concentration and threw it away many times, which some people call "boredom", but that shows he was short on an important quality of a legendary batsman. Some call ruthlessness and others call it making hay while there is sun. Bradman was special because when he got in, he scored massively, never let things like boredom set in. So yes, I think Viv is judged well by his average and strike rate.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's enough statistical analysis of his career out there like DoG's rankings which indicate that his stats are more than good enough for him to be ranked very high all time and that his raw averages probably undersell his ability and impact.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Choosing to only respond to the dumbest argument made by his fans isnt very useful.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There is also the context of being in an ATG team and being the captain.
When he first arrived and dominated with the bat in the 70s, Windies weren't an ATG team and he got them there, along with others. Once he got the captaincy in the 80s and the side was so dominant, it is a very natural thing for him to focus more on the team and just winning and relatively less on his own batting accomplishments.
Ponting is different because he got the captaincy before he had established himself as an ATG dominant batsman, so he focused a lot more on his batting accomplishments.
nzfan
International Vice-Captain
Trial blazer is what you call him. Too good for fast bowlers, way too good against spinners, smashed around the then best bowlers all over the park. Still remember one instance, Devon Malcolm knocked him over couple of games and in an interview said he may have wood on Sir Viv. Obviously Sir Viv had heard about the statement and the next game of Devon's first over he took him for like 20 runs with couple of sixes.... This in test cricket.
Cavalier, awesome to watch, had supreme confidence and presence like no other player. He was like 50 years ahead of the game when he played. The numbers don't do justice to the fear he created in the bowlers.
The best of the bowlers if that era was hit around and likely was the idol of every possible batters then.
Cavalier, awesome to watch, had supreme confidence and presence like no other player. He was like 50 years ahead of the game when he played. The numbers don't do justice to the fear he created in the bowlers.
The best of the bowlers if that era was hit around and likely was the idol of every possible batters then.
Migara
International Coach
Viv took on the bowlers who were boasting, who had egos as big as houses. Lillee, Thompson, Hogg, Pascoe, Botham and Malcolm were some of the examples. The ones who didn't get their ego in the way of tactics like Hadlee, Kapil, Chandra and Imran were much more successful than above bowlers against Viv. (And yes, Viv didn't play spinners close to the quality of what Lara or Tendulkar played.). WI pacemen of Viv's time were not as ego driven as Lillee or Thompson, so likely they might have had better outcomes against Viv in domestic matches. That is why I love to see Viv against McGrath and Asif, as well as Shoaib for different reasons.
I am interested regardless of the debate of whether his impact was beyond pure statistics and runs what are we judging talent on?
It seems harsh to suggest he's overrated and that the pure stats show the full picture, but then suggest he didn't make full use of his 'talent' which is just as intangible, if not more so, than the idea of Viv being better then his batting average.
The idea of talent is a weird one, often dressed as a compliment but commonly not one. It seems to often assume players develop at similar rates/at times - we seem to speak of talent about young cricketers but not as they develop so much even though the definition seems to fit just as much - cricketers don't just rock up and perform at a high level so even those 'with a natural aptitude or skill' for the game had to hone it to get into age-group cricket, domestic cricket just as they do when they perform on the highest level.
Talent is often used as a tool to pressurise stylish players - to use aesthetics to judge a players 'potential' but then disregard it when it comes to judging a player's ability automatically favours high-achieving less stylish players as players who made the 'most of their talent' which seems unfair as every boundary no matter how beautiful or ugly is worth the same to player's individual records.
It seems harsh to suggest he's overrated and that the pure stats show the full picture, but then suggest he didn't make full use of his 'talent' which is just as intangible, if not more so, than the idea of Viv being better then his batting average.
The idea of talent is a weird one, often dressed as a compliment but commonly not one. It seems to often assume players develop at similar rates/at times - we seem to speak of talent about young cricketers but not as they develop so much even though the definition seems to fit just as much - cricketers don't just rock up and perform at a high level so even those 'with a natural aptitude or skill' for the game had to hone it to get into age-group cricket, domestic cricket just as they do when they perform on the highest level.
Talent is often used as a tool to pressurise stylish players - to use aesthetics to judge a players 'potential' but then disregard it when it comes to judging a player's ability automatically favours high-achieving less stylish players as players who made the 'most of their talent' which seems unfair as every boundary no matter how beautiful or ugly is worth the same to player's individual records.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
And that's basically the argument. It's natural and it's fine to believe that the guys who made an impact on your younger years are better than almost whoever followed. Well, within reason, anyway. It's kind of a sporting version of Nick Hornby's list of girl friends in High Fidelity. That's when our emotional ties were up for grabs, so Richards > then anyone who followed.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's literally 90% of what his say. Viv fans are almost as obnoxious as Tendulkar fanbois. I find it hard to believe he was a level above Tendulkar, Lara and Smith as it's made out. I'm not even saying he wasn't a top-tier ATG.