Best batsman on poor pitches.

[Richard]

Mark Richardson by a very long way.

Already explained; no, not by a long chalk.
Not even close.

 

[marc71178]

Actually, it's not been explained.

You have pronounced it, but a heck of a lot of people disagree.

 

[Richard]

Because they prefer to resort to the generalisations that Richardson is a blocker and New Zealand produces seaming wickets.
For most of Richardson's Tests, home and away, not much seam or turn has been offered. When it has, Richardson has often failed. Clearly an exception is the India series of 2002\03.

 

[V Reddy]

Dravid and Sehwag from the Indian team for me

 

[Richard]

IMO Tendulkar is better than Sehwag.
I think I can see where you're coming from; Sehwag can hit the bowlers off their stride if it goes his way, and he is capable of playing with restraint (eg Trent Bridge 2002), but his New Zealand Test-series for me proclaimed his limitations when the ball is seaming (not that there weren't others in the same boat).
Laxman I don't think is too bad either. But Ganguly... not quite so sure.

 

[Kent]

Because they prefer to resort to the generalisations that Richardson is a blocker and New Zealand produces seaming wickets.
For most of Richardson's Tests, home and away, not much seam or turn has been offered. When it has, Richardson has often failed. Clearly an exception is the India series of 2002\03.

Richard, on behalf of the Kiwis here I find that pretty insulting. We've provided as many stats and facts as possible to prove you wrong on something that's inherently subjective.

Heck, we've even put our eyes and our proximity to good use in analysing his methods. You don't have the advantage of the hours watching him that we've had, but it's still something I'd like to hear you attempt. Before going into his technical faults, start by telling me what brand of bat he plays.

 

[Eclipse]

Richard, on behalf of the Kiwis here I find that pretty insulting. We've provided as many stats and facts as possible to prove you wrong on something that's inherently subjective.

Heck, we've even put our eyes and our proximity to good use in analysing his methods. You don't have the advantage of the hours watching him that we've had, but it's still something I'd like to hear you attempt. Before going into his technical faults, start by telling me what brand of bat he plays.

He does it all the time.

He think's he know's everything about everyone.

You will soon have to learn to ignor it somowhat even know he is so obviously wrong on many occasions.

 

[Richard]

Richard, on behalf of the Kiwis here I find that pretty insulting. We've provided as many stats and facts as possible to prove you wrong on something that's inherently subjective.

Heck, we've even put our eyes and our proximity to good use in analysing his methods. You don't have the advantage of the hours watching him that we've had, but it's still something I'd like to hear you attempt. Before going into his technical faults, start by telling me what brand of bat he plays.

When I refer to those who prefer to resort to generalisations I am clearly not referring to those who have watched him for hours on end.
I am referring to those who are as ill-informed as I supposedly am.
I can't remember what brand of bat he uses, I never take any notice of anything like that. There are plenty of England players who I couldn't tell you what bats they use. What does that matter? I tend to take notice of more important things.
Regarding stuff to try and prove me wrong, the things I can think of have all been things that I don't place any real value on (eg his average out of the times when NZ have scored less than a certain total, the number of times he's top-scored in a total of <X, etc.). Given that this is subjective as you say, it all comes down to what you value. I simply prefer to look at Richardson's scores, innings-by-innings, and analyse wherever I can the pitch relative to the ability of the bowlers. Plus of course take account of any let-offs.
This summer I will see Richardson again, and will have the chance to look again at his technique, to see if the clear fault is still there. If we get some green seamers (here's hoping) and he scores runs against the moving ball I will be among the first to give him credit - he's corrected a fault.
If we get flat wickets and he scores a bagful against our substandard bowlers, that won't prove anything. Just mention that now to try and stop people I-told-you-so-ing when they told me nothing of the sort.

 

[Beleg]

Inzamam.
Andy Flower.
Steve Waugh.

 

[Richard]

Just a crying shame about Flower's most recent domestic season.

 

[Kent]

This summer I will see Richardson again, and will have the chance to look again at his technique, to see if the clear fault is still there. If we get some green seamers (here's hoping) and he scores runs against the moving ball I will be among the first to give him credit - he's corrected a fault.

Hmm...

So you're going to wait for the 2-3 innings that you see to decide whether he can or ever has been?

No, I think we're reaching a stalemate on this one. Perhaps go to the bog and read Wisdens until spring, then mail your thoughts on Bond, Richardson and co. to one of the Black Caps' hotels. They loved making wallpaper out of all the stuff written last time, before they even had public and media reaction watchdog Scott Styris on the case!

 

[Neil Pickup]

I simply prefer to look at Richardson's scores, innings-by-innings, and analyse wherever I can the pitch relative to the ability of the bowlers.

Sounds like PwC...

 

[Mingster]

Hmm...

So you're going to wait for the 2-3 innings that you see to decide whether he can or ever has been?

No, I think we're reaching a stalemate on this one. Perhaps go to the bog and read Wisdens until spring, then mail your thoughts on Bond, Richardson and co. to one of the Black Caps' hotels. They loved making wallpaper out of all the stuff written last time, before they even had public and media reaction watchdog Scott Styris on the case!

Thanks Kent for standing up to all us Kiwis, against this person who fails to recognise Richardson well deserved batsman.

Richard, you are sounding more and more like PwC. A system that you hate....

 

[Craig]

Dravid and Sehwag from the Indian team for me

Sehwag?

 

[Richard]

Hmm...

So you're going to wait for the 2-3 innings that you see to decide whether he can or ever has been?

Isn't that better than doing what you're accusing me of doing?

 

[Richard]

Sounds like PwC...

Except that I simply cannot believe that this really happens. PwC appears to me to have inconsistencies galore.
Anyway, pitch conditions relative to the ability of the bowlers is subjective. There's no way you can make a stat for it.
Well, you can, but it'll be someone's interpretation of it. "Difficulty of batting, on a scale of 1-10". No way to make anything; you're not even going to get completely universal approval of what's a Jaffa or a RUD.
Personally, though, I think the generalisation appently used in PwC when supposedly calculating "strength of opposition" to take into account is just as skewed.

 

[Richard]

Thanks Kent for standing up to all us Kiwis, against this person who fails to recognise Richardson well deserved batsman.

Richard, you are sounding more and more like PwC. A system that you hate....

As I've explained, nothing like.
You really are starting to sound like you believe I've got a crusade against Kiwis. Mind, there are people from most cricketing countries who have taken it upon themselves to get that impression, too...

 

[marc71178]

Personally, though, I think the generalisation appently used in PwC when supposedly calculating "strength of opposition" to take into account is just as skewed.

But PwC rates each performance against each other and ranks them cocurrently.

 

[Kent]

Isn't that better than doing what you're accusing me of doing?

Richard - I know you like to scoff at general consensus an awful lot of the time, but separating yourself from the norm doesn't always mean you're thinking on a level above the masses.

Perceiving yourself as having the superior judgement means there's really no point in paying attention to anyone's opinion, which is why I called this whole Richardson thing a stalemate. If you constantly get into stalemates though, you have to wonder if it's not always your opponents' ignorance or stubbornness to blame.

 

[Richard]

But PwC rates each performance against each other and ranks them cocurrently.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about what PwC supposedly does.
Is it supposed to compare each performance of one player, the performances of all players in that game, the performances of the opposition players hitherto, what?
Either way, it's not something that's going to be consistent and therefore not worth value IMO.