• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Steve Smith vs Viv Richards

Who is the better test batsman?

  • Total voters
    70
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Viv was my favourite batsman growing up (alongside AB), even though by the time I was watching him he was past his very best. His 76-81 peak was so extraordinarily good that it essentially locked him in as "the best batsman in the world" for the rest of the decade, even though he wasn't for most of it (I think he probably was a contender again around 86-88 on and off).

I think it's OK to mention that his output, particularly after that peak, doesn't necessarily match some ther greats. From the Sabina Park Test in April 1981 through to his retirement at the Oval in August 1991 - so, the last decade/two-thirds of his Test career - Viv played 78 Tests and averaged 42. That's...fine.

He was still capable of some extraordinary innings and had a number of excellent series, but even I as a fanboy always wished his output post-'81 was a notch higher than it was.

It didn't stop him being the most exciting and electrifying to watch, though.
 
Johan

Johan

Cricketer Of The Year
The Sean said:
Viv was my favourite batsman growing up (alongside AB), even though by the time I was watching him he was past his very best. His 76-81 peak was so extraordinarily good that it essentially locked him in as "the best batsman in the world" for the rest of the decade, even though he wasn't for most of it (I think he probably was a contender again around 86-88 on and off).

I think it's OK to mention that his output, particularly after that peak, doesn't necessarily match some ther greats. From the Sabina Park Test in April 1981 through to his retirement at the Oval in August 1991 - so, the last decade/two-thirds of his Test career - Viv played 78 Tests and averaged 42. That's...fine.

He was still capable of some extraordinary innings and had a number of excellent series, but even I as a fanboy always wished his output post-'81 was a notch higher than it was.

It didn't stop him being the most exciting and electrifying to watch, though.
Click to expand...
Agree with the sentiment of this statement overall, there are basically two highly influential legendary Batters whom I recently deemed lacking in the output for a top 5 or even top 8 placement over the English quaret, Smith or Sobers, and Viv is one of those two Batsmen, it should be obvious who the other one is.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Could you at least not have had Hammond over him? I can understand Smith.

It seems every time we debate it's over English cricketers lol. Hobbs, Barnes, Trueman, Root and now Hammond.
Click to expand...
People don't drastically change opinions over night, but they're his opinions and that all fair.

It's just official that the forum has basically devolved into tribalism and retreated into our individual silos. Like everyone does it a little, and there's the young guys that no one takes seriously, but then there's the hyper partisan guys like @Migara and @capt_Luffy, like I don't even include Smali because it's just for one dude and hatred of your's truly. But it's apparently spreading.

I rate batsmen (bowlers as well by extension) by a combination of aspects, legacy and peer rating during their day, who they did it against and in what conditions, transcendent abilities and skill set, and what was their x factor, what separates them. Like with Sutcliffe you've heard me say that not only did he bat in the flattest of eras, had benefits of the rules of the day, opened with the GOAT, but still plodded along and struck in the low '30's. And that kinda reflects in his contemporary peer rating.

Think the top 8 for me are inarguable, the guys for whom a viable argument can be made to be the best after Bradman. The guys who defined eras, was the best in the world for extended periods, you can literally travel the history of the game through them and their runs as the greatest. They all had something, Bradman and his average, Tendulkar his technique and longevity from teenager to 40's, Viv, GOAT vs pacers, greatest peak and s/r changed the game, Lara's highs are unmatched as was his genius, his innings are peerless, and of course Sobers and Hobbs. To round out there's Hutton who I have been the biggest fan of through a couple of books, he first came to my attention through "a history of WI cricket" or the "No. 1's", but his journey from breaking the world record vs Tiger to his war time injury to taking on Lindwall and Miller and Ramadhin and Valentine. Yeah, the s/r reveal dented him a tad for me, but he was brilliant in the toughest of eras. But 3rd? Hammond 6th?

I'll be the eternal optimist and take it for what it likely is. Just trying to prove a point, if everyone else is doing it, I'll show how absurd it looks.or come after mine, and I'll come after yours.
 
Last edited:
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
It's just official that the forum has basically devolved into tribalism and retreated into our individual silos. Like everyone does it a little, and there's the young guys that no one takes seriously, but then there's the hyper partisan guys like @Migara and @capt_Luffy, like I don't even include Smali because it's just for one dude and hatred of your's truly. But it's apparently spreading.
Click to expand...
To be fair even you are accused of a pro WI bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top