Kent said:
Damn straight! Ok, 5 last questions then.
But first, I'd like to clear up why I'm going to these lengths on such a trivial issue. To me Richardson is the test player I aspired to be; the guy who shows kids you don't need to have the talents of a Dravid or Gilchrist to make it to the highest level and succeed.
If neo-purists like Richard don't appreciate him, there will be no more. Similar to golf, where the game will be blandly saturated by perfect swings and Tiger-clones rather than the John Dalys or other eccentrics that make it more interesting.
1) What are the aspects of Richardson's skills, technique or character that get him into trouble on poor pitches?
2) After around 6 years as a domestic opener in NZ, why are his stats healthy? Guys like Michael Mason can clearly exploit NZ conditions.
3) To back up your case, all you have are a handful of test innings you're yet to clearly identify. You admit yourself Richardson has rarely played on bowler's wickets at test level, and that in perhaps one of the most bowler-dominated series of the modern era he succeeded. Seeing you go more on performance than impression, why are you comfortable using such a small sample?
4) Most would concede there is an element of luck involved in surviving difficult conditions. Players risk getting a delivery 'with their name on it'. Why are failures unacceptable in Richardson's case, yet not in say Dravid's?
5) Why was Dravid trying to cover drive a yorker from Bond that took middle and off?
Pre) If Richardson wasn't talented, he'd not have the average he has. Maybe he's a flat-track bully, but he's still a better flat-track bully than plenty around today. It does, believe it or not, take skill to score chanceless big scores in Test-cricket, if anything I think it takes more skill to score them at the pace Richardson tends to than that typical to Gilchrist, Laxman etc.
So Richardson is very talented if you ask me - far more so than most players around in the current moment.
1) Richardson has an extreme vulnerability to the in-swinger and in-seamer. Hoggard and Caddick made that pretty clear in 2001\02. Not that any left-hander, no matter how good, will not have trouble with it, but Richardson seemed at times as bad as Wavell Hinds in 2000.
2) Yes, fair enough. I cannot say anything about that; Richardson must have batted well to have had consistent success in a competition played on seamer-friendly wickets so often. All I can go on is Test-cricket.
3) Let's just clear it up beyond all question: the three Tests in New Zealand against England in 2001\02. No, that sort of sample is not ideal at all, but the example of Tests Richardson has played on seamer-friendly wickets, however small, indicates that he has failed more often than he has succeeded. The strength of India's attack in the respective series, also, should be noted, even if it was made to look much better than it really was.
4) True, I have not analysed every dismissal; if Richardson got an RUD, he can't have any blame at all. But nor can someone be credited as Richardson often is for supposedly succeeding in difficult conditions when so few of them have been so.
5) I don't know; all I can think of is the simple fact that good batsmen play poor strokes, Dravid amongst them. I have never raved about Dravid the way some have, but he does seem to be rather good at conquering difficult conditions, for instance his chanceless 150 at Headingley. He is another of the benefactors of the recent tirade of non-seaming wickets around ATM, though he did still average over 50 in the more difficult days.
