Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Evermind]

I have never seen, and never expect to see a greater batsman than Viv Richards, yet his Test Match record doesn't show any hint of supreme greatness. It's the record of a great player of course, but nowhere near what his talent should have produced.

Tests=121 Innings=182 Runs=8540 HS=291 Average=50.23 100's=24 60's=45

.

Not bad! (esp for a man with such a girly name)

 

[steve132]

In the thread on the top 10 batsmen of all time Richards is rated fourth, behind Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers but comfortably ahead of anyone else. In Wisden's cricketers of the century poll he was ranked fifth, behind Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and Warne.

Although there is nothing definitive about either of these polls they and others do give a general idea of where Richards is ranked. His rating is almost exclusively based on his batting, although he was a brilliant fielder and a very successful Test captain. Personally I might rank Headley or Hammond (in addition to Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers) ahead of him as a batsman pure and simple, but probably no one else. That still leaves him among the top 6 of all time.

 

[Richard]

I've no issue with Richards being ranked near the very top "as a cricketer", because his inspirational qualities undoubtedly had a marked impact on the game. It's as a batsman that it annoys me how (plain wrong-headedly IMO) highly he tends to get rated.

 

[Fiery]

I've no issue with Richards being ranked near the very top "as a cricketer", because his inspirational qualities undoubtedly had a marked impact on the game. It's as a batsman that it annoys me how (plain wrong-headedly IMO) highly he tends to get rated.

What is wrong with you Richard? You are too young to have even seen him bat. Do you look in the record books and see that he scored his runs far too quickly for you or something? Rated by his peers as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all-time for the ESPN's Legends of Cricket.

If you can't acknowledge and enjoy his majestic batting then why do you even follow the game?

 

[Richard]

When Richards was playing the pitches in the West Indies were made for rip roaring fast bowlers.

Well... Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica and Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados were. Queen's Park Oval, Port-of-Spain and Bourda, Georgetown, Guyana have always been fairly slow surfaces. And The Recreation Ground, St.John's, Antigua was always, always a ridiculously un-bowler-friendly surface.

 

[Richard]

What is wrong with you Richard? You are too young to have even seen him bat. Do you look in the stats book and see that scored his runs far too quickly for you or something? Rated by his peers as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all-time for the ESPN's Legends of Cricket.

If you can't acknowledge and enjoy his majestic batting then why do you even follow the game?

I'm not blinded by the fact I've seen him bat, maybe.

I've seen someone very like him bat, though, in Adam Gilchrist, and I'm not blinded by that either.

As I said - I've no truck with him being rated very high in a list of cricketers, though 3rd might be 3 or 4 too high and is probably more indicative of most-recent-is-best-remembered than anything. But in a list purely about batting, there's no way he deserves to be in a top-ten.

 

[JBMAC]

I'm not blinded by the fact I've seen him bat, maybe.

I've seen someone very like him bat, though, in Adam Gilchrist, and I'm not blinded by that either.

As I said - I've no truck with him being rated very high in a list of cricketers, though 3rd might be 3 or 4 too high and is probably more indicative of most-recent-is-best-remembered than anything. But in a list purely about batting, there's no way he deserves to be in a top-ten.

What a load of Codswallop.

 

[Richard]

 

[Fiery]

I'm not blinded by the fact I've seen him bat, maybe.

I've seen someone very like him bat, though, in Adam Gilchrist, and I'm not blinded by that either.

As I said - I've no truck with him being rated very high in a list of cricketers, though 3rd might be 3 or 4 too high and is probably more indicative of most-recent-is-best-remembered than anything. But in a list purely about batting, there's no way he deserves to be in a top-ten.

Complete garbage post tbh

 

[Richard]

 

[Fiery]

That all ya got?

 

[Richard]

It's all there is in response to silly posts saying "that's wrong" without giving any remotely decent reasons why.

 

[Fiery]

It's all there is in response to silly posts saying "that's wrong" without giving any remotely decent reasons why.

"(plain wrong-headedly IMO)" were your words.

The main reason is he struck fear into the hearts of bowlers everywhere with his presence and dominance at the crease. Immense talent and brutal power combined with an almost arrogant and aloof self-confidance make for a pretty damn good player. To say he is not one of the top-10 batsman in the game beggars belief and seriously impacts on your credibility Rich.

 

[Richard]

Not as much as saying "scientific testing poppycock" doesn't have any part to play in the discerning of illegal bowling-actions...

Immense talent and brutal power combined with an almost arrogant and aloof self-confidance did indeed make him a pretty damn good player. It didn't make him as good a player as some would have us believe, though, AFAIC.

 

[Fiery]

Not as much as saying "scientific testing poppycock" doesn't

How long you gonna milk that one?

Any testing that comes to the conclusion that all bowlers throw is crap imo

 

[Richard]

So long as you keep saying such-and-such means I can't be taken seriously - or similar.

As I said - it's particularly irritating that you say such a thing, because your own foibles are worse than mine.

 

[Fiery]

your own foibles are worse than mine.

No Richard, just no

 

[Richard]

They are. Nothing so badly impacts upon one's credibility as suggesting scientific testing is "poppycock". And it's irritating that somoene who says that can then make claims about my credibility - often.

 

[Fiery]

They are. Nothing so badly impacts upon one's credibility as suggesting scientific testing is "poppycock". And it's irritating that somoene who says that can then make claims about my credibility - often.

So you're going to use one poorly worded post I made ad nauseam against the litany of sheer crap that comes out of your keyboard? You've never had much credibility with 90% of people on the forum when it comes to your views on cricket anyway, I'm sorry to say. Shame, cause you're a decent bloke I think.

 

[chalky]

Well... Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica and Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados were. Queen's Park Oval, Port-of-Spain and Bourda, Georgetown, Guyana have always been fairly slow surfaces. And The Recreation Ground, St.John's, Antigua was always, always a ridiculously un-bowler-friendly surface.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63783.html

I'm sure the England Batsmen agree that surface was fairly low & slow

From what I remember of the 89/90 series the pitches had a bit of pace in them, certainly much more than the English pitches of time. I certainly don't think they were the bowlers graveyard's they are now throghout the 70's & 80's.