Deja moo said:
I'm not rubbishing him, not by any stretch of imagination. I'm rubbishing the talk of a great player being talked of as greater than great because he apparently got bored with batting deep into his innings'. I see that quality as a failing rather than a positive.
And you'd be right.
Is anybody really doing that though? From reading the thread, it more seems to me a lament for what might have been, rather than "boredom" being described as a wonderful attribute. I could be wrong, though. For me, his statistical decline is mainly a matter of batting for a long time past his peak rather than boredom, anyway. I don't think it's that unnatural when batsmen play 100+ tests that there's some level of depreciation towards the end, and I'd be surprised if it didn't happen to most players who play that long. I don't think Steve Waugh circa 2004 was anywhere near the Steve Waugh of the 90's. Won't stop me waxing lyrical about what he was like through the best part of his career, though.
One of the aspects of Richards that most boosts his legendary status is facing up to the world's fastest bowlers with no helmet on in an age where they were the norm. In terms of contemporary occupation health and safety standards, it's a nightmare. But there's nothing quite so insane as seeing batsman after batsman facing bumper after bumper with a full helmet and grille, and then Viv hooking and pulling the short stuff with a cap on. It's the stuff that people will talk about decades after the fact, and so it has been.
Also, he was a fantastic fielder in the slips, and at cover. He ran out four top-order Aussie batsmen in the '75 World Cup, and was a precursor to great fielders like Jonty Rhodes and Ricky Ponting who patrolled similar areas with a view to throwing the stumps down. On the downside, I thought he was only an adequate captain, and in addition to this I often felt that his tendency to scream at young players for fielding indiscretions was counter-productive. He likely wasn't half the man-manager that Clive Lloyd was, and his post-retirement career probably bears this out.
Batting-wise I liken him to Gilchrist. Certainly, as many have said, he was the most destructive batsman of his era (and this is not simply a case of elevating excitement level over actual achievement, because he was certainly maintaining a great average while he did so, even if it diminished later in his career). He was more impressive, because of the quality of bowling he was facing, and the fact that conditions were far more bowler-friendly in his era (and because he didn't have as noticable a weakness as Gilchrist does). Of course, Gilly's average is better.
I'd rate Brian Lara comfortably above Viv though, having seen both players. Dunno if that's very controversial or not.
I agree with Deja Moo's comments in terms of average - IMO, once a player averages 50+, they're a great, and all sorts of comparisons can be made in discussing them, many of which
don't have to be statistical. But claiming that he should have averaged 70 or so is something of a strange comment, when you think about it, particularly if you believe the batsman in question's concentration or application was the problem. I'd prefer to say that his average doesn't tell the entire story as to how good he was. With many great players, this is often the case.
