• 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.

Steven Smith vs Viv Richards

Smith vs Richards


  • Total voters
    24

Patience and Accuracy+Gut

State Vice-Captain
I can accept Smith being above Viv. But highest level of what exactly? Bowling? Because if that's your contention, that's patently false. The highest level of bowling was in the 90s.
As I said objectively. You would think cricket has progressed too like other sports. The more modern game the more you would think the average players are objectively better than they have ever been.
 

Sliferxxxx

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I meant if the average player in a team is better right now than 40 years ago, that means the average standard is also objectively higher than 40 years ago. Ofc no relation between say a ATG but the standard is obviously higher than ever.
You genuinely think the standard of cricket in places like WI, Pakistan and RSA are higher than the 90s? I respectfully disagree. Maybe the 80s.
 

Johan

International Debutant
As I said objectively. You would think cricket has progressed too like other sports. The more modern game the more you would think the average players are objectively better than they have ever been.
physically Yes, skillfully No. People like Inzamam and Rohit show us physically also doesn't matter all that much as cricket's fundamentally a game of skill and I'd argue the skill level is inferior to those who came before, inning building has declined and playing late strokes have also declined, they play early and a lot of times pre decided strokes and get out doing that.
 

sayon basak

International Regular
physically Yes, skillfully No. People like Inzamam and Rohit show us physically also doesn't matter all that much as cricket's fundamentally a game of skill and I'd argue the skill level is inferior to those who came before, inning building has declined and playing late strokes have also declined, they play early and a lot of times pre decided strokes and get out doing that.
:laugh:
 

Coronis

International Coach
This is a very misjudged point. Viv from 77-88 also averaged 50ish, and had his WSC masterclass too. His big dip at the end is part of the case against him
Eh he also has a few years out of form in the early 80’s similar to Smith’s record overr the past 3 years where he was clearly outperformed by multiple teammates but people don’t really acknowledge his mid career dip much.
 

kyear2

International Coach
As I said objectively. You would think cricket has progressed too like other sports. The more modern game the more you would think the average players are objectively better than they have ever been.
I would strenuously disagree...

I would say modern players are stronger and faster, not more skilled.

Tennis, American football, even F1.

In tennis they are faster and have better equipment, football, the linemen are more imposing, not nearly more talented, and still yet to see a better thrower than John Elway. Best running back is still Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. The average F1 driver doesn't exactly install confidence either these days, and the cars are safer and easier to drive.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I actually think as of today Smith has definitely had the better batting career and output but I voted Viv because -

a. Smith's career is not done yet
b. I have made it a point to vote for my favorites in these player comparisons even if I dont necessarily think they had the better output in their skill.
 

Top