Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[archie mac]

I was reading through the pages, but i think on page 14 an argument broke out and so i just skipped to the end. I wanted to say 1 thing about Viv Richards.

Imagine if he was using some of the bats that these guys use today. How many 6's would he have hit? I think Gilchrist took him over not long ago. Now consider even if Richards was using a 3lbs railway sleeper....the bat would of been nothing even close to what Gilchrist would of been using in his career.

Personally, i wish we could give him some good eyes back and some reflexes, and he could boost the West Indian batting. Imagine him and Lara going off at the same time?

Yes the new bats would have helped Viv, but I seem to remember that he had a pretty good stick in his day, with commentators often saying it was the best balanced blade in the game

 

[steve132]

This discussion reminds me of similar controversies concerning Lillee and Sobers. To those of us who saw these players what is most frustrating is not that their status is being challenged purely on the basis of statistics, but rather that statistics are being used in the crudest possible form - usually by looking ONLY at a player's batting or bowling average. Other indicators - such as the LG cricket ratings - are completely ignored. So are the views of hundreds of cricketers and journalists who watched these players for much of their careers.

 

[bagapath]

i saw a lot of viv richards from 1983 (when television coverage came to my part of the world ) to 1991 (when viv retired).

it is not just the stats, which are very impressive, but the impact he had on the result of the matches that make me choose him over anybody else even today as the best batter i have seen in 25 years of cricket watching.

for the younger members of the forum, all i can say is he was as special as gilly or warne. now, you know sangakkara and flower average more than gilly and can also keep wickets. you also know mcgill and kumble average more wickets per test than warne. and murali concedes less runs per wicket. still, most cricket fans nominate gilly and warne as their choices in their dream teams. likewise, viv richards walks into the middle order of everyone's team simply because of his unmatched ability to change any game. hitting across, over the bowler's head, sweeping behind square, cutting through a packed off side field, hooking without a helmet, shepherding the tail to keep piling runs for the team, setting up big totals in double quick time, hitting the best bowler of the opposition out of the attack... he did it all... again and again...

oh.. please.. dont compare him with afridi. afridi is a great entertainer but he is a walking wicket. richards was a truly attacking player in an era of fantastic fast bowlers. he was quicker than lara and tendulkar. pietersen is a better comparison. but again, let pietersen end up with an average of 60 after 120 tests (considering this is a batsman friendly age) then i will put him on par with viv.

richards' technical correctness and amazing control of emotions kept him as the leading batsman of the world from 1976 to 1988. that is long enough to be bestowed greatness. true.. chappell, miandad and border averged more (that too marginally) in the middle order and gavaskar scored more from his opening slot; but richards turned around so many matches and dented so many bowlers' confidence and paved the way for his team's success that he had to be the best of his era. an absolute master..

 

[archie mac]

This discussion reminds me of similar controversies concerning Lillee and Sobers. To those of us who saw these players what is most frustrating is not that their status is being challenged purely on the basis of statistics, but rather that statistics are being used in the crudest possible form - usually by looking ONLY at a player's batting or bowling average. Other indicators - such as the LG cricket ratings - are completely ignored. So are the views of hundreds of cricketers and journalists who watched these players for much of their careers.

i saw a lot of viv richards from 1983 (when television coverage came to my part of the world ) to 1991 (when viv retired).

it is not just the stats, which are very impressive, but the impact he had on the result of the matches that make me choose him over anybody else even today as the best batter i have seen in 25 years of cricket watching.

for the younger members of the forum, all i can say is he was as special as gilly or warne. now, you know sangakkara and flower average more than gilly and can also keep wickets. you also know mcgill and kumble average more wickets per test than warne. and murali concedes less runs per wicket. still, most cricket fans nominate gilly and warne as their choices in their dream teams. likewise, viv richards walks into the middle order of everyone's team simply because of his unmatched ability to change any game. hitting across, over the bowler's head, sweeping behind square, cutting through a packed off side field, hooking without a helmet, shepherding the tail to keep piling runs for the team, setting up big totals in double quick time, hitting the best bowler of the opposition out of the attack... he did it all... again and again...

oh.. please.. dont compare him with afridi. afridi is a great entertainer but he is a walking wicket. richards was a truly attacking player in an era of fantastic fast bowlers. he was quicker than lara and tendulkar. pietersen is a better comparison. but again, let pietersen end up with an average of 60 after 120 tests (considering this is a batsman friendly age) then i will put him on par with viv.

richards' technical correctness and amazing control of emotions kept him as the leading batsman of the world from 1976 to 1988. that is long enough to be bestowed greatness. true.. chappell, miandad and border averged more (that too marginally) in the middle order and gavaskar scored more from his opening slot; but richards turned around so many matches and dented so many bowlers' confidence and paved the way for his team's success that he had to be the best of his era. an absolute master..

Could not agree more with both posts, but you can not tell them

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Could not agree more with both posts, but you can not tell them

Calm down Archie my good man. The "them" to which you refer is a small small small group, in fact the figures would probably be similar to comparing normal people with those from the Flat Earth Society. Anyone can analyze a few figures into oblivion and if that's they're thing that's their priviledge, and as Sean has already shown you easily draw opposite conclusions to fit your point of view.

 

[archie mac]

Calm down Archie my good man. The "them" to which you refer is a small small small group, in fact the figures would probably be similar to comparing normal people with those from the Flat Earth Society. Anyone can analyze a few figures into oblivion and if that's they're thing that's their priviledge, and as Sean has already shown you easily draw opposite conclusions to fit your point of view.

True, but I worry that someone might actually believe them

 

[Lillian Thomson]

True, but I worry that someone might actually believe them

Their loss.

 

[Richard]

This discussion reminds me of similar controversies concerning Lillee and Sobers. To those of us who saw these players what is most frustrating is not that their status is being challenged purely on the basis of statistics, but rather that statistics are being used in the crudest possible form - usually by looking ONLY at a player's batting or bowling average. Other indicators - such as the LG cricket ratings - are completely ignored. So are the views of hundreds of cricketers and journalists who watched these players for much of their careers.

They're not being used in crudest form, though - that's just what I, at least, always say, the more "overall" an average becomes, the less it generally tells you.

However, the simple truth of the matter is that you completely ignore stats - as some occasionally attempt to do - and you cannot fully understand the game of cricket. Numbers are an irrevocable part of it.

 

[Goughy]

haha, thread dead for a week and then *BAM*.

 

[Richard]

Well I'm sure threads have gone longer than a week without posts before.

 

[Goughy]

Well I'm sure threads have gone longer than a week without posts before.

Im sure there are. However, this thread is tired and the arguments circular and repetetive. It had pretty much run its course.

Yet one of the first things you do after coming back from your ban is try to rekindle a dead thread with more of the same.

 

[Richard]

Kev, how is 5 days "dead"?

I'd have made that post before now, obviously. I'm doing no more than what would have been done days ago.

If you feel that was an unneccessary post, say so - please, though, don't say it should have been left because of a delay of 5 days. I happen not to feel it was unneccessary - that poster made a remark, I disagreed with it. I feel posting that would add more to the discussion than not posting it would do, even if there might have been a post 150 posts ago saying something fairly similar.

 

[Furball]

These sorts of peaks are different things (in all cases bar Waqar's - his is absolutely comparable). Tendulkar basically had one virtually non-stop peak between 1990 and 2002. Lara had a couple lasting 40-odd Test-matches.

This is different to having two peaks of 10 or 15 Test-matches that drag an average of 41 up to 53.

Interesting you should say that.

Take out Kallis' peaks and his average does exactly the same.

 

[SJS]

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

He should have had another 10 centuries and he was good enough to average in the mid 70's.
He should have broken all records(apart from the Dons 99.94 average) but didn't. There are players with much less ability yet better records. Maybe with so many great players around him he didn't always concentrate like he should, maybe his distain for all bowlers lead to his early dismissal on occasions.
Whatever the reasons, history will remember Viv as a great batsmen, but only those that saw him will remember him as the Greatest.

I have often thought that he was the greatest right handed batsman I ever saw - one does tend to vacillate with the passage of time. But the difference between him and anyone else I might consider for that would be so minor as to be purely subjective as all such comparisons must always be.

You cant measure great players solely on their stats - least of all those amongst them who played with utter disregard for the same - at least much less of a 'glance' at the scoreboard than some others. So stats dont come into it. Not when you talk of Viv Richards.

Viv Richards is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and that should be enough to please any of his fans. Rest is to please ourselves.

 

[Ikki]

Hate when people bring this up, its as if they don't watch cricket (no offense to you of course yo). When looking at Warne's record vs WI in the 90's his series in 99 should be overlooked given he was injured & wasn't anywhere near his best, but at his best vs in 95 & 96/97 he did very well.

Going back to the point though Warne vs Richards i think Viv might come out victories deep down but if Warne got a turning pitch i'd back him to win.

That's true. Warne only ever had ONE poor series against the WIndies and that was in his injury/horribly-out-of-it stage. He also has 2 series in the WIndies where one is very good and the other is this said series.

 

[Richard]

Interesting you should say that.

Take out Kallis' peaks and his average does exactly the same.

Demonstrate?

 

[Ikki]

What I find disturbing is that a few of the vocal Richards detractors have the audacity to talk about numbers where the difference is so slight and yet recoil when talking about the vast differences in Sobers' record.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Demonstrate?

I think poor old ginger is confusing taking out peak periods with taking out all his highest scores.

 

[Richard]

I know what he was talking about - I simply want him to show me the exact numbers in question.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Take out his peak performance - ie, three figure scores, and he'll probably only average about 35.