Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[JBH001]

It's a bit of a myth that reverse swing was invented by the Pakistani duo of Akram and Younis. If you read Malcolm Marshall's autobiography, you will see he used it very well. If you read Shaun Pollock's autobiography, you will see him saying that Marshall taught him how to do it when they were playing county cricket in England.

It was Sarfraz who taught reverse swing to Imran who taught it to Akram and Younis. (Imran, in his autobio, talks about Sarfraz swinging the old ball around against Clive Lloyd's WI team in a way that can only be reverse swing.) Please note that I am not making any claims as to who first invented it. But in the Pakistani context, Akram and Younis merely improved and made spectacular use of something that they were taught by their predecessors.

 

[robelinda]

Sarfraz was reverse swinging it in the 70's and showed it to Geoff Lawson on the 1979 tour. Sarfraz destroyed Australia with killer reverse swing in the 1976/77 test, from memory.

EDIT- it was the 1979 MCG test, http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63235.html

 

[vic_orthdox]

I disagree, to an extent.

My view is that your quality as a cricketer is primarily defined by your ability to positively influence the result of as many games as possible. Viv did this not only by the weight of his runs, but also by the incredible impact he had upon the mentality of his opposition whenever he strode out.

Viv dominated not only bowling attacks, but captains and fielding sides as well. Even if he didn't score runs, he always (up until the last couple of years of his career) put the opposition on the back foot, which eased the pressure off his team mates and allowed them to thrive. He didn't score the runs off his own bat, but in my view he definitely had a massive hand in them. The effect he had on the game was utterly palpable.

You only have to look at Richie Richardson's decline after Viv retired. The guy went from being considered "the next Viv" to being basically washed up in nanoseconds. I'm sure people will scoff at this, but I firmly believe that the loss of the Viv Effect was the biggest factor in Richardson's tailspin.

Incidentally, the same sort of phenomenon is why I rate Sehwag and Gilchrist so highly. Both have fine records, but it was the idea that they are doing it so easily that scare(d) the bejesus out of oppositions and put their teams on the front foot, even when they didn't produce.

I'm sure I'll get shouted down in a torrent of stats but it was the intangibles that put Viv over the top as being the premier batsman of his generation, and the best I've personally seen. Cricket is played by humans with human frailties, and Viv's attitude and demeanour exploited them to the benefit of his team.

It's not something that you can ever record on Statsguru, but Viv's swagger helped his team win matches.

Completely agree with this. Was starting to type something out till I saw this post, which sums up my position perfectly.

 

[shivfan]

I disagree, to an extent.

My view is that your quality as a cricketer is primarily defined by your ability to positively influence the result of as many games as possible. Viv did this not only by the weight of his runs, but also by the incredible impact he had upon the mentality of his opposition whenever he strode out.

Viv dominated not only bowling attacks, but captains and fielding sides as well. Even if he didn't score runs, he always (up until the last couple of years of his career) put the opposition on the back foot, which eased the pressure off his team mates and allowed them to thrive. He didn't score the runs off his own bat, but in my view he definitely had a massive hand in them. The effect he had on the game was utterly palpable.

You only have to look at Richie Richardson's decline after Viv retired. The guy went from being considered "the next Viv" to being basically washed up in nanoseconds. I'm sure people will scoff at this, but I firmly believe that the loss of the Viv Effect was the biggest factor in Richardson's tailspin.

Incidentally, the same sort of phenomenon is why I rate Sehwag and Gilchrist so highly. Both have fine records, but it was the idea that they are doing it so easily that scare(d) the bejesus out of oppositions and put their teams on the front foot, even when they didn't produce.

I'm sure I'll get shouted down in a torrent of stats but it was the intangibles that put Viv over the top as being the premier batsman of his generation, and the best I've personally seen. Cricket is played by humans with human frailties, and Viv's attitude and demeanour exploited them to the benefit of his team.

It's not something that you can ever record on Statsguru, but Viv's swagger helped his team win matches.

Well said....

Carl Hooper is another player who produced his best under Viv's leadership, because he just couldn't face the Antiguan if he got out at a crucial moment to a stupid shot!

Sadly, when Viv retired, Hooper went into terminal decine.

 

[shivfan]

That obviously is a weakness. Viv was in a team what ever there batsmen got, bowlers went out and defended that. So I can argue that he has taken it for granted and played in the cavalier fashion. I could argue that if he was in a lesser team he would have got the pressure in to his head and got out cheaply die to rash shots.

That's only a weakness if your rash shots get your team into a losing position. Did you even read my post?

Viv had a tendency to get out to poor shots only after he'd played himself into a winning position. There would be no Viv extending the West Indies innings just so that he could break Hayden's record for the highest individual Test score....

If Viv was in a lesser team, he would be a lot more circumspect in his shot-playing. He captained a weaker team than Lloyd, but if you pay attention to the stats you love so much, you will see that Richards never lost a series as Test captain. How many captains led their teams in that many Tests, and never lost a series? None, as far as I can see....

And it's a bit of myth to claim that the bowlers carried the batsmen. Richardson had two of the world's greatest pacers in Ambrose and Walsh, and they lost matches because the batting was poor. The batting played an important part in the WI winning streak. It's called a 'team' for a reason.

 

[robelinda]

Carl Hooper was useless under anyones captaincy, he only came good when he finally got the captaincy in what 2001?? Under Richie and Viv he averaged under 30 with the bat from memory, I think he scored 2 or 3 tons under Viv over 5 years, and was a very soft player.

 

[Athlai]

Hooper under Viv:
1075 @ 26.21
2 100s

 

[robelinda]

Thats about right! I was trying to do the math, but I fail at math.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hooper under Viv:
1075 @ 26.21
2 100s

 

[Athlai]

 

[G.I.Joe]

Post #244

 

[smash84]

It was Sarfraz who taught reverse swing to Imran who taught it to Akram and Younis. (Imran, in his autobio, talks about Sarfraz swinging the old ball around against Clive Lloyd's WI team in a way that can only be reverse swing.) Please note that I am not making any claims as to who first invented it. But in the Pakistani context, Akram and Younis merely improved and made spectacular use of something that they were taught by their predecessors.

True. As great as Malcolm Marshall was, I don't ever recall reading about him as one of the pioneers of reverse swing. When was Marshall using reverse swing?

 

[vic_orthdox]

To be fair, he may well have been. It's just that they had bowled the opposition out before the ball was scuffed up enough for reverse!

 

[smash84]

To be fair, he may well have been. It's just that they had bowled the opposition out before the ball was scuffed up enough for reverse!

What does that mean? He was doing it in the nets?

 

[Black_Warrior]

 

[aussie]

And you may be able to remember how Murali took apart THAT batting line up in to pieces during his dirst tour to West Indies. He averaged around 20 in that tour, and that was a young Murali. Would have steamrolled WI of mid 90s if Murali bowled to them in their peak

Windies had already started to go into decline after they lost in AUS 96/97. That why i specifically when the WI where still a good team between the two series vs AUS that Warne faced.

But Murali never owned the likes of Lara & Hooper n C'Paul in tests. They all played him very well @ various points in their careers. So no i disagree that Murali would have steamrolled the windies of crica 1991-1996, if he bowled to them @ their peak.

Lara was known to be better against spin than pace. He has taken apart good spinners more than often he has taken apart good pace bowlers. (Even in the series that he scored 600 odd runs he had nearly had a dozen of let offs against Vaas due to poor umpiring - and that series was the one Vaas at his best, who's not the world's best fast bowler). KP was did dominate Murali for two knocks and that was the end of it. After that Murali was all over KP every single time they met. Actually in their last meetings KP was a sorry sight against Murali.

To speculate that a batsman like Viv would dominate Murali / Warne is one thing, but using lame examples is another.

I watched most of that 2001 series when Lara scored all those runs & i dont recall him getting anything close to dozen let-foffs againts Vaas. Plus even if he did, i hope you are not using that to critique that series performance of his in anyway BTW?

The two early knock when KP was dominant againts Murali intially was microcosim of how King Viv would play spin @ his best. That was the point i was trying make - i never was suggesting KP domiated Murali all career - i know very well the history of KP vs Murali.

 

[aussie]

Those who watched Viv have no doubt he was the best

I imagine the frustration I feel when others come along with stats to prove that such and such was a better batsman than Richards, is the same as those who had the pleasure of watching Trumper felt when others would hold his average up and say such and such has better figures.

I bet they said to those who disparaged Trumper what I say to those who disparage Viv

"if you just would have watched him bat, we would not be having this debate"

Although i fully agree understand the frustration that any erdudite (i say erdudite like yourself, since some older posters can show bias towards their eras) older poster would feel by any useless attempt of people who weren't lucky to see him bat live trying to critiques Sir Viv's record based on stats - especially poor statistical analysis of this thread.

I dont think we can look @ Trumper in the same light TBF. Its much easier to make such an assesment with Richards vs Tendy given how similar the style & cricket is from the 70s until now. You can argue cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:

- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 60 years now. So i'd say comparing players across era's in the last 60 years can be easily done. I can see no difference between comparing from the 1950s to 90s in terms of standard of cricket.

You can't compare post-war (1900-1939) to (1950s-1990s). Given for example uncovered wickets where present & lack of much quality pace attacks for batsmen. This is i why i would never accept the argument/defense for players like Trumper that "you just had to see him played" to know he was great because of his average - the style of cricket present them is too different from what has been present over the last 60 overs. Pretty much all post war (1900-1939) batsmen except Bradman, Hammod & Headley for me are questionable because of this.

 

[Teja.]

While It is a stretch to assume Viv will struggle against Murali in a hypothetical scenario, It is an even bigger stretch to assume Viv will dominate Murali like KP did for an extremely short period, IMHO. If anything, It'd be a battle to watch, with no clear winners.

 

[honestbharani]

I think players who are fantastic at one format tend to become a little overrated in the other at times.

Not here though. Viv's the ****ing man.

AWTA.. You can only imagine what he would do to the bowlers of today with all the protection you get these days.. I would die to watch a Sehwag/Richards partnership with both at their peaks... Seriously... Good luck bowlers.. Richards is the perfect example of how you can become a BIG fan even if you have never seen the guy play.. just by watching whatever videos you can get of him and by reading about him.. Best in the world

 

[aussie]

While It is a stretch to assume Viv will struggle against Murali in a hypothetical scenario, It is an even bigger stretch to assume Viv will dominate Murali like KP did for an extremely short period, IMHO. If anything, It'd be a battle to watch, with no clear winners.

If Lara could dominate Murali, i strongly suspect Richards would have as well, if he played in the 90s/2000s.