• 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.

Viv Richards vs steve smith

Who had better peak

  • Viv

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Smith

    Votes: 18 60.0%
  • Total voters
    30
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Kirkut said:
This post itself puts Smith ahead of Viv.

The whole narrative around Viv's greatness is built on his ability to single handedly win games with his aggressive batting. And now you admit indirectly that without a great bowling attack Viv's influence would have not been as pronounced as it is today.

Which filters down the batting comparison to run scoring ability and Smith wins.
Click to expand...
No, all I admitted is that bowlers are more naturally 'matchwinning' than batsmen.

However, relative to other bats who he was being compared with, Vivs playing style had more impact on matches. However, I rarely if ever call Viv a 'matchwinning' batsman since whatever the bats impact, it isn't as decisive as bowlers. That title is problematic.

This isn't particularly hard to understand, I'm sorry to say. You seem vested in finding the least credible interpretation of my statements.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
No, all I admitted is that bowlers are more naturally 'matchwinning' than batsmen.

However, relative to other bats who he was being compared with, Vivs playing style had more impact on matches. However, I rarely if ever call Viv a 'matchwinning' batsman since whatever the bats impact, it isn't as decisive as bowlers. That title is problematic.

This isn't particularly hard to understand, I'm sorry to say. You seem vested in finding the least credible interpretation of my statements.
Click to expand...
So how is Viv a better matchwinner than Smith if Smith had a worse bowling attack, worse batting support, but has won a higher percentage of his matches?
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
So how is Viv a better matchwinner than Smith if Smith had a worse bowling attack, worse batting support, but has won a higher percentage of his matches?
Click to expand...
I would have to look into it but I assume Smith is in a more results oriented era.

Again, I am not using the matchwinner label on bats.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
All I am saying is that Vivs regular style of dominating play would have more match impact than Smiths. Not that he played sufficient 'matchwinning' innings and Smith did not.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Coronis said:
But you just said he had more of an impact on matches with style. But his teammates outperformed him in wins. And he was in such a strong team. Doesn’t make much sense
Click to expand...
Haha I wouldn't bother, in his following post he all but admits he has no actual evidence but just assumes it should be true because of vibes and is therefore happy to assert it anyway.

subshakerz said:
All I am saying is that Vivs regular style of dominating play would have more match impact than Smiths. Not that he played sufficient 'matchwinning' innings and Smith did not.
Click to expand...
"He didn't actually contribute to more wins but he should have in theory because he was alpha with a large penis and reality won't change my mind."
 
P

pardus

U19 12th Man
Viv is such a divisive figure. Most of those who haven't watched him bat live at his peak simply can't stand the hyperbole, while for those of us who were blessed to have watched him bat live, he deserves all that praise and then some.

I know this is going to really burn some people here, Imran writes in his 1992 article on Viv :
"This is why, for me, statistics are meaningless. They can never reflect the true genius of Viv Richards. Had he wanted, he could easily have scored twice as many Test runs as he did."

I don't agree or disagree with Imran on this, but I can totally see where he is coming from.

In early 90s, Sunny Gavaskar was once interviewing Viv and Sunny asked Viv why Viv didn't go for Gavaskar's then test run record when (Sunny felt) Viv had a great opportunity.
For a moment Viv was stumped by Sunny's question and then answered in his hilarious, characterstic way - "That's just not my style maan".

Nevertheless I voted for Smith in this poll. Stats, as long as they are consistently applied, provide certain objectivity. Smith's average of 78 in his best 80 continuous innings is simply phenomenal.

On a different note, as much as I recall, Viv was the first batsman for whom the title "The Master Blaster" was frequently used.
In fact throughout the 80s he was mostly referred to as "the Master Blaster", as the commentator in below video addresses him during his Perth Century in 1988 - "the Master Blaster"


I don't know when this phrase was first used in cricket. Perhaps this phrase was used for other batsmen in earlier eras as well, but throughout the 80s, whenever I read cricket magazines (or in match commentary both on radio as well as TV) Viv was frequently called "The Master Blaster" and it fit perfectly.
 
G

govinda indian fan

International 12th Man
pardus said:
Viv is such a divisive figure. Most of those who haven't watched him bat live at his peak simply can't stand the hyperbole, while for those of us who were blessed to have watched him bat live, he deserves all that praise and then some.

I know this is going to really burn some people here, Imran writes in his 1992 article on Viv :
"This is why, for me, statistics are meaningless. They can never reflect the true genius of Viv Richards. Had he wanted, he could easily have scored twice as many Test runs as he did."

I don't agree or disagree with Imran on this, but I can totally see where he is coming from.

In early 90s, Sunny Gavaskar was once interviewing Viv and Sunny asked Viv why Viv didn't go for Gavaskar's then test run record when (Sunny felt) Viv had a great opportunity.
For a moment Viv was stumped by Sunny's question and then answered in his hilarious, characterstic way - "That's just not my style maan".

Nevertheless I voted for Smith in this poll. Stats, as long as they are consistently applied, provide certain objectivity. Smith's average of 78 in his best 80 continuous innings is simply phenomenal.

On a different note, as much as I recall, Viv was the first batsman for whom the title "The Master Blaster" was frequently used.
In fact throughout the 80s he was mostly referred to as "the Master Blaster", as the commentator in below video addresses him during his Perth Century in 1988 - "the Master Blaster"


I don't know when this phrase was first used in cricket. Perhaps this phrase was used for other batsmen in earlier eras as well, but throughout the 80s, whenever I read cricket magazines (or in match commentary both on radio as well as TV) Viv was frequently called "The Master Blaster" and it fit perfectly.
Click to expand...
We written 😍 viv real master blaster
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't buy this "Smith is overrated" chat. You can say he had easy home pitches during his prime but he was still the best batsman in the world away from home and is still top tier if you nerf his average by 10%. Both of these guys are capable of playing ATG knocks and dominating great bowlers so I'll take the guy who's more likely to make it count when he gets in and that's Smith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top