Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[Ikki]

What you do IKKI is pathetic, you create filters, cherry pick the stats that server your agenda.

As for the answer to who was better, I don't care what the stats say, SRT will be never the player VIV was. For me SRT isn't even the best Indian batsman. But If you are going to use stats to say that SRT and Yousuf Yohana are better than Viv then go ahead make a fool of yourself.

It's good that I got this response, now I have proof of you being a hypocrite.

The irony about your post is the first part conflicts with the second. I rate Viv ahead of SRT yet I would use similar points of reference I had done in the Lillee thread to argue Viv's case. Yet in that case I would get no cries from you; when it is an Aussie then you have to bring your agenda of the day.

If you are going to make the point in a Lillee thread, and in other threads, to point to stats (pretty facile ones) to say X has no case to be better than Y statistically then at least have the wherewithal to be honest here and say the same of Sachin over Viv.

The only way you can argue Viv's case is if you take stats in context or elaborate on their records picking out aspects with which you may value over others. Do that though, and you become "me". What a dilemma you have.

 

[Furball]

Take it elsewhere please. This is dire reading.

 

[robelinda]

Yeah slater really deserves a whole lot more credit, he really play bloody well in the 90's, the original Sehwag.

 

[Sanz]

It's good that I got this response, now I have proof of you being a hypocrite.

You are the biggest hypocrite and most biased person on this forum and by quite a distance. It is not a surprise that you will accuse me since I end up calling you out every time you are creating filters and setting up your own criteria to suit your nationalistic agenda.

The irony about your post is the first part conflicts with the second. I rate Viv ahead of SRT yet I would use similar points of reference I had done in the Lillee thread to argue Viv's case. Yet in that case I would get no cries from you; when it is an Aussie then you have to bring your agenda of the day.

Imran/Lillee belonged to the same era, Richards/SRT don't. It is not even a valid comparison. Any person with an iota of integrity would have noticed the difference but again that can not be you because you have none of it. You make up stuff, you even change figures in addition to creating selective filters.

I do not look at the prism of nationality, I don't care which country Lillee belongs to. I rate him highly perhaps equal to Imran if not more regardless of his stats. I thought that much was clear. I ridicule you for changing Imran's stats, in order to make him look bad and make Lillee's stats good when you don't really need to. The only way you know to prove X is better than Y by pulling the Y down by distortion of facts. And the X is usually an Aussie.

If you are going to make the point in a Lillee thread, and in other threads, to point to stats (pretty facile ones) to say X has no case to be better than Y statistically then at least have the wherewithal to be honest here and say the same of Sachin over Viv.

How do you know what is Tendulkar's final career average ? It is not even a comparison at this point, since Tendulkar's career is not over yet notwithstanding the fact that they both played in completely different era. And for the short period of time their careers coincided, Richards still did better statistically.

The only way you can argue Viv's case is if you take stats in context or elaborate on their records picking out aspects with which you may value over others. Do that though, and you become "me". What a dilemma you have.

I don't need stats or any filter to know that VIV was the better batsman. I feel sorry for you that you know only one way to appreciate the game which is distorting the statsguru.

 

[hang on]

You are the biggest hypocrite and most biased person on this forum and by quite a distance. It is not a surprise that you will accuse me since I end up calling you out every time you are creating filters and setting up your own criteria to suit your nationalistic agenda.



Imran/Lillee belonged to the same era, Richards/SRT don't. It is not even a valid comparison. Any person with an iota of integrity would have noticed the difference but again that can not be you because you have none of it. You make up stuff, you even change figures in addition to creating selective filters.

I do not look at the prism of nationality, I don't care which country Lillee belongs to. I rate him highly perhaps equal to Imran if not more regardless of his stats. I thought that much was clear. I ridicule you for changing Imran's stats, in order to make him look bad and make Lillee's stats good when you don't really need to. The only way you know to prove X is better than Y by pulling the Y down by distortion of facts. And the X is usually an Aussie.



How do you know what is Tendulkar's final career average ? It is not even a comparison at this point, since Tendulkar's career is not over yet notwithstanding the fact that they both played in completely different era. And for the short period of time their careers coincided, Richards still did better statistically.



I don't need stats or any filter to know that VIV was the better batsman. I feel sorry for you that you know only one way to appreciate the game which is distorting the statsguru.

really? it's certainly not such a stretch to say that tendulkar was a better odi batsman.

and, in tests, i would say that it is the opposite way around.

 

[honestbharani]

really? it's certainly not such a stretch to say that tendulkar was a better odi batsman.

and, in tests, i would say that it is the opposite way around.

Nah.. Viv's SR and average for his era is just astounding. You can argue Sachin is better but IIRC, it was a pretty resounding win for Viv in a poll on that here at CW sometime back.

 

[hang on]

Nah.. Viv's SR and average for his era is just astounding. You can argue Sachin is better but IIRC, it was a pretty resounding win for Viv in a poll on that here at CW sometime back.

assuming era adjustments are that important. longevity, 100s scored per innings and other factors could be used to argue the opposite. and, with all due respect to my learned cohorts on here, a resounding win in a cricketweb poll is not the be all and end all in cricketing wisdom!

btw, i do consider viv to be the better odi batsman. and tendulkar the better test batsman. but both by just a smidgeon.

 

[Cruxdude]

assuming era adjustments are that important. longevity, 100s scored per innings and other factors could be used to argue the opposite. and, with all due respect to my learned cohorts on here, a resounding win in a cricketweb poll is not the be all and end all in cricketing wisdom!

btw, i do consider viv to be the better odi batsman. and tendulkar the better test batsman. but both by just a smidgeon.

AWTA

z

 

[smash84]

dwta

 

[Ikki]

You are the biggest hypocrite and most biased person on this forum and by quite a distance. It is not a surprise that you will accuse me since I end up calling you out every time you are creating filters and setting up your own criteria to suit your nationalistic agenda.

Whatever, you say. It's good that I use those same "filters" everywhere. Like here, Viv v Sachin. Like you'll have to do. So you'll be just as bad as me aye?

Imran/Lillee belonged to the same era, Richards/SRT don't. It is not even a valid comparison. Any person with an iota of integrity would have noticed the difference but again that can not be you because you have none of it. You make up stuff, you even change figures in addition to creating selective filters.

I do not look at the prism of nationality, I don't care which country Lillee belongs to. I rate him highly perhaps equal to Imran if not more regardless of his stats. I thought that much was clear. I ridicule you for changing Imran's stats, in order to make him look bad and make Lillee's stats good when you don't really need to. The only way you know to prove X is better than Y by pulling the Y down by distortion of facts. And the X is usually an Aussie.

You look through the prism of ... and decide who you wanna **** on when and the why changes. Whether SRT or Viv are in the same era is irrelevant. You'll have to look at Viv's stats in context and you can't rely on facile reading of the stats otherwise Tendulkar will come ahead and how. It means you have to create "filters"

How do you know what is Tendulkar's final career average ? It is not even a comparison at this point, since Tendulkar's career is not over yet notwithstanding the fact that they both played in completely different era. And for the short period of time their careers coincided, Richards still did better statistically.

Tendulkar will have to have one mother of a drop off to fall below Viv's average, and that isn't going to happen. Furthermore, are you now looking at a period where their careers both coincided? That is "filtering" dear Sanz. And in this instance, its a disingenuous one considering Tendulkar was a teen at the beginning of his career.

I don't need stats or any filter to know that VIV was the better batsman. I feel sorry for you that you know only one way to appreciate the game which is distorting the statsguru.

Besides the fact that you even used it in the above, you'll need to further elaborate on why Viv was so good. The stats read plainly as they are now, with no context, show Sachin to be superior.

This must suck for you; either we're both hypocrites or you were backassward in your claim against me.

 

[Ikki]

Nah.. Viv's SR and average for his era is just astounding. You can argue Sachin is better but IIRC, it was a pretty resounding win for Viv in a poll on that here at CW sometime back.

Guess what, that is "filtering". So, a no-no according to Sanz. You can't look at figures in context .

 

[hang on]

Tendulkar will have to have one mother of a drop off to fall below Viv's average, and that isn't going to happen. Furthermore, are you now looking at a period where their careers both coincided? That is "filtering" dear Sanz. And in this instance, its a disingenuous one considering Tendulkar was a teen at the beginning of his career.

apologies for getting involved in your spat, but surely sanz is referring to odis here (because tendulkar's odi average is less than richard's to begin with)?

because it would be rather silly for anyone to claim unequivocally that richards was the better test batsman (statistically or otherwise).

 

[Burgey]

When the thread, whatever it's original topic, becomes more about the reasons behind any individual poster preferring one player over another rather than about the actual players themselves, it's probably run its course.

Just saying.

 

[Ikki]

apologies for getting involved in your spat, but surely sanz is referring to odis here (because tendulkar's odi average is less than richard's to begin with)?

because it would be rather silly for anyone to claim unequivocally that richards was the better test batsman (statistically or otherwise).

He was responding to intcricket who was talking about Tests.

I think it is silly to unequivocally rate any true ATG over another unless it is Bradman (or Gilchrist, possibly); although I can understand that there might be a slight consensus on one over another. The point dear Sanz keeps bringing up re my "filtering" is that he considers that cherry-picking, an attempt of dishonesty to keep one over another. When I am clearly showing how he himself engages in "filtering".

TBH, it is a shame that "filtering" - or looking at players' records with more care - has actually garnered a pejorative meaning. I am just showing Sanz either he is a hypocrite and we're both dastardly "filterers" or that neither of us are.

 

[Spark]

When the thread, whatever it's original topic, becomes more about the reasons behind any individual poster preferring one player over another rather than about the actual players themselves, it's probably run its course.

Just saying.

Yeah, possibly. Let's give it one more go but otherwise this one's going in the bin. Topic, recall, is "is Viv overrated as a Test batsman?". Not whether people filter stats exessively or whatever.

 

[ret]

Again, haven't gone through the whole thread but ,in my book (and am sure in many others' book), Sir Viv Richards is one of the greatest batsmen to have walked on this planet, period

As someone once said, stats are like a mini skirt that reveals all but hides the essential

 

[Godard]

Removing Viv’s 1976 stats and showing him to be inferior to other ATGs is one of the most annoying takes I have seen.

He didn’t regularly average 45 throughout the rest of his career. 77-88: Av 50@ super high SR, in really tough era for batting. His slump(one of the worst for an ATG) dragged his post 76 output down. Plus played WSC for a decent period in his peak(1281@58), so inclusion of that would help post 76 stats and overall also. Viv also nearly scored one fifth of his runs in one year, so removing that is to judge him is quite ridiculous. His short terms peaks are some of the best ever(best after Bradman in my opinion), and the long term peak while being good and far from Sobers and Tendulkar level. Viv should be seen as a batsmen averaging 50 in total and nothing else. Not someone who was Damien Martyn apart from 1976, nor someone who could have averaged 52 or 53 outside his peak, because both his slump and peak are integral parts of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Removing Viv’s 1976 stats and showing him to be inferior to other ATGs is one of the most annoying takes I have seen.

He didn’t regularly average 45 throughout the rest of his career. 77-88: Av 50@ super high SR, in really tough era for batting. His slump(one of the worst for an ATG) dragged his post 76 output down. Plus played WSC for a decent period in his peak(1281@58), so inclusion of that would help post 76 stats and overall also. Viv also nearly scored one fifth of his runs in one year, so removing that is to judge him is quite ridiculous. His short terms peaks are some of the best ever(best after Bradman in my opinion), and the long term peak while being good and far from Sobers and Tendulkar level. Viv should be seen as a batsmen averaging 50 in total and nothing else. Not someone who was Damien Martyn apart from 1976, nor someone who could have averaged 52 or 53 outside his peak, because both his slump and peak are integral parts of his career.

Somebody posted the averages of most bats in the modern period without Zimbabwe/Bangladesh and Viv compares well to all of those.

 

[Slifer]

Somebody posted the averages of most bats in the modern period without Zimbabwe/Bangladesh and Viv compares well to all of those.

I'm curious to know how Lara and Sachin are affected. Why? Because Lara hardly played Zim/Bang (if I recall correctly) while Sachin played them more I think...

 

[Coronis]

I'm curious to know how Lara and Sachin are affected. Why? Because Lara hardly played Zim/Bang (if I recall correctly) while Sachin played them more I think...

For the record,

Tendulkar 14183 runs @ 51.01, 43 tons (-16 matches)
Lara 11558 runs @ 52.53, 32 tons (-4 matches)