Steve Smith vs Viv Richards

[vidiq]

I started watching cricket from Summer of 2007 ( india tour of england) and lara retired in march my biggest regret in cricket is i could never watch lara live

I started watching cricket (means test cricket during BGT 2014 ) (white ball since 2012/13 ipl)
But unfortunately i used to watch only Kohli's batting till 2021 Bgt.
So i missed the opportunity to witness prime Smith and i didn't have any idea about him till Ashes 2021

 

[Johan]

Viv so low?
I am not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic

I am quite serious, you can look at my reply to the Govinda fellow for why

 

[vidiq]

Viv so low?
I am not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic

He is sad.

 

[Johan]

He is sad.

? the ****

 

[Johan]

I just revised his career and deemed that it just isn't that impressive, people below him, like Denis Compton and Joe Root have works/series more impressive than anything Viv did, like Compton's heroics against the Invincibles after the second war or Root's 4 hundreds series against a great Indian attack including a Bumrah running rampage, while they're equipped with dukes with seamer friendly conditions and Root had the worst English batting since the second war with him. He's more complete than them, so he is above them overall, but like, not by any good margin, definitely the same tier in every way. If it's any calming, I'd probably do the same with Gavaskar and Lara soon.

^

Smith is clearly well better, Viv was cool and all but can't compete with Smith's volume, output and quality.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I just revised his career and deemed that it just isn't that impressive, people below him, like Denis Compton and Joe Root have works/series more impressive than anything Viv did, like Compton's heroics against the Invincibles after the second war or Root's 4 hundreds series against a great Indian attack including a Bumrah running rampage, while they're equipped with dukes with seamer friendly conditions and Root had the worst English batting since the second war with him. He's more complete than them, so above them, but like, not by any good margin.

@Coronis

 

[DrWolverine]

I am very surprised by Johan’s recent posts on Viv

 

[sayon basak]

I am very surprised by Johan’s recent posts on Viv

Yeah he has changed his mind. We were talking about it some time ago.

 

[Johan]

@Coronis

He doesn't like Compton or Root.

 

[kyear2]

for Reference, I recently promoted Hammond over Viv, and Smith is over Hammond so

Oh wow.

Hammond?

 

[Johan]

Oh wow.

Hammond?

Hammond

 

[kyear2]

I never saw Viv live lol, I'm not a grandpa, my earliest memories are Ambrose and Lara.

Not a grandpa either

 

[kyear2]

Hammond

Ok

Peer rating
Performance vs the best of their day
Being the best of era
Faced higher quality of bowling

I'm genuinely curious as to where Hammond is ahead.

Love Hammond the cricketer and he's worthy of borders of the top 10, but ok.....

 

[Johan]

Ok

Peer rating
Performance vs the best of their day
Being the best of era
Faced higher quality of bowling

I'm genuinely curious as to where Hammond is ahead.

Love Hammond the cricketer and he's worthy of borders of the top 10, but ok.....

Hammond had immense peer rating, was considered top 4 Batsmen in history of the game right during Sobers' peak, placed alongside Hobbs, Grace and Bradman. Master on stickies, before the second world war his output is significantly greater than Viv, like significantly, the average gap is as big as Stewart to Viv, the RPI gap is bigger than one between Gower and Viv, he also has two less hundreds even tho he has 55 less innings, even if you take the early NZ runs out the output gap is just too big.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Sachin, Sobers, Smith, Hammond, Lara, Sunny, Maybe Chappell or Viv but lots of contenders for this. Some of it is still under revision.

Hutton, 3rd best batsman of all time. Hammond 7th.

Anyways an alternative view of history and lore.

Bradman
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Smith
Lara
Hutton
Richards

 

[kyear2]

Hammond had immense peer rating, was considered top 4 Batsmen in history of the game right during Sobers' peak, placed alongside Hobbs, Grace and Bradman. Master on stickies, before the second world war his output is significantly greater than Viv, like significantly, the average gap is as big as Stewart to Viv, the RPI gap is bigger than one between Gower and Viv, he also has two less hundreds even tho he has 55 less innings, even if you take the early NZ runs out the output gap is just too big.

Hammond had immense peer rating, was considered top 4 Batsmen in history of the game right during Sobers' peak, placed alongside Hobbs, Grace and Bradman. Master on stickies, before the second world war his output is significantly greater than Viv, like significantly, the average gap is as big as Stewart to Viv, the RPI gap is bigger than one between Gower and Viv, he also has two less hundreds even tho he has 55 less innings, even if you take the early NZ runs out the output gap is just too big.

Yes Hammond had a tremendous peer rating, has a tremendous peer rating. He was the best batsman for about 2 years before you know who came into the scene. He was also challenged by Headley and surpassed by Hutton at different points.

Vivian was seen as the best batsman in the world from '76 till '90, though realistically that ended around '88.

But we can look at the record vs the best fast men, I mean we could but it's a no contest.

Overall best bowlers, he wasn't exactly at his best vs O'Reilly either.

Vivian overall faced infinitely better bowlers than Hammond did and Hammond **** the bed vs Martindale and Valentine. I give him credit for traveling to the Caribbean, but yeah....

The defining criteria of a no. 3 is how they fare against the fast men.

Of the men who held the title of world's best and defined eras. Viv was the best ever batsman vs elite fast bowling, not sure who exactly even comes close.

Hobbs
Bradman
Hutton
Sobers
Richards
Richards
Tendulkar / Lara
Smith

Those are the elites of the game.

 

[Johan]

Yes Hammond had a tremendous peer rating, has a tremendous peer rating. He was the best batsman for about 2 years before you know who came into the scene. He was also challenged by Headley and surpassed by Hutton at different points.

Vivian was seen as the best batsman in the world from '76 till '90, though realistically that ended around '88.

But we can look at the record vs the best fast men, I mean we could but it's a no contest.

Overall best bowlers, he wasn't exactly at his best vs O'Reilly either.

Vivian overall faced infinitely better bowlers than Hammond did and Hammond **** the bed vs Martindale and Valentine. I give him credit for traveling to the Caribbean, but yeah....

The defining criteria of a no. 3 is how they fare against the fast men.

Of the men who held the title of world's best and defined eras. Viv was the best ever batsman vs elite fast bowling, not sure who exactly even comes close.

Hobbs
Bradman
Hutton
Sobers
Richards
Richards
Tendulkar / Lara
Smith

Those are the elites of the game.

Hammond averages 50 against O Reilly with 4 hundreds and that's the only ATG bowler he got to face really, if you count Grimmett (I wouldn't) then he averages 53 against him with 6 hundreds.

Regardless, the only true arguably elite pace man of the time was Harold Larwood, who was viewed as superior to both Lindwall and Trueman in the 1950s all the way to the 1970s and was, by all accounts, an excellent paceman and Hammond averages 46 against him, after 1927 so around when he was picked for International Cricket, he also dominated Larwood with a 50+ average and multiple hundreds, many of them alongside Larwood's bodyline patner and a very good bowler in his own right, Bill Voce.

Hammond had his weaknesses, I think he had more weaknesses than IVA Richards of course but he was also a master at capitalising, once he got going...he didn't really stop, this is shown by 9 of his hundreds being scores above 150, him having by far the best double ton rate in history of the sport barring Donald Bradman and so forth.

another thing that makes me think he'd have been fine against pace other than Larwood was, Denis Compton was viewed unanimously and universally as a less skillful batsman than Walter Reginald Hammond and Compton still averaged 50+ against the Invincibles lineup and the following 50s Australian lineup which are up there as some of the best lineups ever concieved, now unless everyone was wrong in regards to Hammond being superior to Compton easily, Hammond should be able to replicate what Compton did at the very least.

remember, even in the victory tests when Hammond was truly and completely pass it, He still smacked around Keith Miller, and in the final Ashes where he was an arthritis ridden old man who was out of shape, Lindwall and Miller still never got him, Lindwall got him once, he was still capable of surviving the spells even when he was so, so far from what he once was.

All in all, I think it's definitely a debateable matter, I just think Hammond's output is more impressive, and that he would've done fine against pace considering how his inferiors did, but if one has Richards higher, I do not mind or anything.

 

[subshakerz]

for Reference, I recently promoted Hammond over Viv, and Smith is over Hammond so

That is so utterly disappointing.

Looks like my Viv defense may be a solo fight now. Or with @kyear2

 

[subshakerz]

Hammond averages 50 against O Reilly with 4 hundreds and that's the only ATG bowler he got to face really, if you count Grimmett (I wouldn't) then he averages 53 against him with 6 hundreds.

Regardless, the only true arguably elite pace man of the time was Harold Larwood, who was viewed as superior to both Lindwall and Trueman in the 1950s all the way to the 1970s and was, by all accounts, an excellent paceman and Hammond averages 46 against him, after 1927 so around when he was picked for International Cricket, he also dominated Larwood with a 50+ average and multiple hundreds, many of them alongside Larwood's bodyline patner and a very good bowler in his own right, Bill Voce.

Hammond had his weaknesses, I think he had more weaknesses than IVA Richards of course but he was also a master at capitalising, once he got going...he didn't really stop, this is shown by 9 of his hundreds being scores above 150, him having by far the best double ton rate in history of the sport barring Donald Bradman and so forth.

another thing that makes me think he'd have been fine against pace other than Larwood was, Denis Compton was viewed unanimously and universally as a less skillful batsman than Walter Reginald Hammond and Compton still averaged 50+ against the Invincibles lineup and the following 50s Australian lineup which are up there as some of the best lineups ever concieved, now unless everyone was wrong in regards to Hammond being superior to Compton easily, Hammond should be able to replicate what Compton did at the very least.

remember, even in the victory tests when Hammond was truly and completely pass it, He still smacked around Keith Miller, and in the final Ashes where he was an arthritis ridden old man who was out of shape, Lindwall and Miller still never got him, Lindwall got him once, he was still capable of surviving the spells even when he was so, so far from what he once was.

All in all, I think it's definitely a debateable matter, I just think Hammond's output is more impressive, and that he would've done fine against pace considering how his inferiors did, but if one has Richards higher, I do not mind or anything.

Ok but what weaknesses do you see in Viv now that you didn't before? I think you have been swayed by the low average thing.

 

[Johan]

That is so utterly disappointing.

Looks like my Viv defense may be a solo fight now. Or with @kyear2