Viv Richards v Sunil Gavaskar

[archie mac]

Those are good points Richard.

I also feel that there is a tendency, not necessarily wrong, to prefer, in such close cases, the more aggressive, dominating stroke play to the technically perfect, studied stroke play of the old school Test batsman. There was a time when people felt Bradman just couldn't be really that great for he played far too many strokes and scored much too quickly for a batsman of that caliber.

We have come a long way.

The things to admire in the two of them are so different that comparing them becomes that much more difficult.

Gavaskar came from a country with no tradition for great opening batsmen (Merchant played far too little for it to contribute to make it a tradition). Then he came from a country with no fast bowlers of its own and was brought up on a diet of spin and very mediocre pacers of slow medium to medium pace range. Finally he came from a side where batsmen, the top most in the side, were not unknown to refuse to go into bat at their regular position if a fiery bowler was bowling and even throw away their wickets to avoid getting hit. Further he was born in an era where fast bowlers abounded in many nations though not in his own. Thus he was a remarkable batsman in manners other than his obvious phenomenal skills as a batsman and technician.

Richards on the other hand was lucky to be playing in a side that was very strong in batting. In his first five years the Windies batting side was Greenidge, Fredericks, Kallicharan, Rowe, Lloyd and Richards; in the next five years Haynes had replaced Fredericks and Gomes and Bachhus got added even as Rowe was ending his career with Dujon as a batting wicket keeper; finally in his last years Richardson and Logie were great reolacements for Kallicharan and Bachhus.

It was a terrific line up with a great attack and they hardly ever lost a series. In fact, between 1975-76 and 1994-95 (which covers almost the entire of his career, Windies lost just two series, 1-0 to India in 78-79 and 1-0 to Kiwis next year. Thats all. It must have been great to keep pulverising all comers with not a whimper in response. Surely, the dominating style of Richards was more easily put on display in as dominating a side as the one Windies were at that time.

This is not to deny Richards his greatness but just to put other things in perspective and to put on record how easy it is to just express our preference for one player ot the other when it must be such a difficult thing to do objectively.

I agree the 'score line' here is not a true reflection of their contributions to their respective country's cricket, and even of their merits as individuals.

I wonder how Gavaskar would have fared if he was in this batting line up.

1. Gavaskar
2. Greenidge
3. Richards
4. Kallicharan
5. Rowe
6. Lloyd
7. Dujon
8. Marshall
9. Hodling
10. Roberts
11. Garner

Quality post

He may have found with the pressure off that either he played more shots, or he did not bat with as much guts, but I guess we will never know

 

[SJS]

Quality post

He may have found with the pressure off that either he played more shots, or he did not bat with as much guts, but I guess we will never know

Absolutely.

And Richards in an Indian side reading, Gavaskar, Chauhan, Richards, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Mohinder, Kapil, Kirmani, Bedi, Chandrashekhar, Venkat wouldn't have been affected too much I suppose except that he might have been asked to help take the shine off the new ball.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's ironic that a debate about the merits of WSC should ensue in a thread about Gavaskar. It was the absence of Gavaskar, Viswanath, Bedi and Chandra that diluted the World XI which contained inferior cricketers like Bob Woolmer and Haroon Rashid and no quality spinners except Derek Underwood.

 

[Pratters]

Again, I suppose, it all comes down to the fact that it's a shame WSC happened at all. Would've been so much better if Packer had gotten the Test rights he wanted in 1976.

You look at it as a shame. I don't. WSC did a lot of good for cricket.

 

[Richard]

No there was no comparison between the games played on privated grounds by rich people and WSC; ask the players who took part. Read the bios of any of the players that took part and "The Packer Affair" by Henry Blofeld.

I don't wish to ask the players who took part, because they are not in an unbiased position to offer assessment. All they tend to care about is how high the standard was. They do not tend to bother much about who they were playing for. However, anything played exclusively in the interests of Kerry Packer and Channel9 - who were working specifically against the ideals of the First-Class game - has no place being First-Class cricket.

I also think some of the private trips to SA should be given FC status. Not sure if any of them ever were. They were not Test class but certainly FC and played as such.

Which private trips to SA? The ones in the 1880s and 1890s, or the Rebel tours of the 1980s? I've always agreed that they should indeed be First-Class cricket, and none should indeed be Tests. SA were not strong enough to merit Test status in the 19th-century and they were excluded in the '70s and '80s for very good reason, and hence I couldn't give a stuff about how hard the play was played.

 

[Richard]

You look at it as a shame. I don't. WSC did a lot of good for cricket.

It also did a lot of bad, and the good which came of it was either incidental (day\night cricket, coloured clothing etc. are merely luxuries, not remotely essential - cricket would still be cricket without them) or would have happened anyway (drop-in pitches for example).

The only people who really benefited from WSC were Kerry Packer, a few of his associates, and the players of the 1970s whose wage-packets were raised substantially.

 

[Pratters]

It also did a lot of bad, and the good which came of it was either incidental (day\night cricket, coloured clothing etc. are merely luxuries, not remotely essential - cricket would still be cricket without them) or would have happened anyway (drop-in pitches for example).

The only people who really benefited from WSC were Kerry Packer, a few of his associates, and the players of the 1970s whose wage-packets were raised substantially.

It didn't do incidental benefit. It was no coincidence that player wages were dire before WSC and jumped up since then. It has benefitted all players and not just the players who took part in WSC way back then.

Cricket wouldn't have been what it is without the one day game, day night cricket and all the money it brought for the last 30 years or so. Test cricket cannot survive on it's own or at least it won't be half as popular among the masses. You need money which was brought by the ODI cricket revolution back then and which is being brought by T20 now.

 

[Sanz]

You look at it as a shame. I don't. WSC did a lot of good for cricket.

Yeah and I don't know why any form of Cricket should be looked upon as some sort of shame when all the players were doing was playing cricket and also trying to have the best for themselves and their families.

 

[Richard]

It didn't do incidental benefit. It was no coincidence that player wages were dire before WSC and jumped up since then. It has benefitted all players and not just the players who took part in WSC way back then.

Player wages would've risen at some point WSC or no WSC. They have done so in all other sports, only few of which have had to endure a WSC-esque moment. The players at the time benefited where otherwise they wouldn't have, but players of a subsequent age are not gaining what they enjoy now because of WSC, they are doing it because that's the way sport has gone. TV in general has driven this, not Channel9.

Wages jumped up immediately post-WSC which meant the benefits started being enjoyed starting instantly with those who were involved at the time benefiting. Otherwise they would have risen for other reasons, and a different generation would've been those who enjoyed the first round.

Cricket wouldn't have been what it is without the one day game, day night cricket and all the money it brought for the last 30 years or so. Test cricket cannot survive on it's own or at least it won't be half as popular among the masses. You need money which was brought by the ODI cricket revolution back then and which is being brought by T20 now.

The limited-overs one-day game had been around for 14 years before WSC. A few ignoramuses do indeed believe Packer invented one-day cricket, but I'm well aware you're not one such. Nor did WSC cause the explosion of ODI popularity - as is well-known, India's 1983 World Cup victory did that, and if it hadn't something else would have. ODI cricket was something which always had the potential - the only question was what would be the catalyst, and it happened to be India in 1983.

Day\night cricket does make cricket more interesting, but not that much more - it'd still be every bit as watchable without as it is with.

 

[Richard]

Yeah and I don't know why any form of Cricket should be looked upon as some sort of shame when all the players were doing was playing cricket and also trying to have the best for themselves and their families.

Packer is the one who is dislikeable and "looked upon as some sort of shame". Precious few people, who know what is known in hindsight, have demonised the players. They were pilloried at the time in some quarters, but those who did so generally didn't have the full story of just how much financial gain they stood to make by signing for Packer. Since that's come out, no-one has really begrudged them it. I certainly don't. Though I do admire those who put financial considerations to one side and decided to remain loyal to the game, because that was an admirable thing to do.

 

[Pratters]

Player wages would've risen at some point WSC or no WSC. They have done so in all other sports, only few of which have had to endure a WSC-esque moment. The players at the time benefited where otherwise they wouldn't have, but players of a subsequent age are not gaining what they enjoy now because of WSC, they are doing it because that's the way sport has gone. TV in general has driven this, not Channel9.

Wages jumped up immediately post-WSC which meant the benefits started being enjoyed starting instantly with those who were involved at the time benefiting. Otherwise they would have risen for other reasons, and a different generation would've been those who enjoyed the first round.

You need a catalyst and WSC was that catalyst for wages. Players were being paid very poorly. WSC, Dalmiya are all who did good for cricket by bringing money into the game.

The limited-overs one-day game had been around for 14 years before WSC. A few ignoramuses do indeed believe Packer invented one-day cricket, but I'm well aware you're not one such. Nor did WSC cause the explosion of ODI popularity - as is well-known, India's 1983 World Cup victory did that, and if it hadn't something else would have. ODI cricket was something which always had the potential - the only question was what would be the catalyst, and it happened to be India in 1983.

Day\night cricket does make cricket more interesting, but not that much more - it'd still be every bit as watchable without as it is with.

The 1983 World Cup increased passion for the sport in India, not rest of the world. Interest in Australia and England for tests would always be there but WSC made cricket more popular with its tournaments.

 

[Richard]

You need a catalyst and WSC was that catalyst for wages. Players were being paid very poorly. WSC, Dalmiya are all who did good for cricket by bringing money into the game.

I don't dispute this. All I dispute is that without WSC, money wouldn't have come into the game and players would still have wages now akin to those of 1975, which seems to be believed by some people. And it just isn't true. Had WSC not been a cataylst, something else would have been. Even though WSC was a big boon to player wages, it's still nowhere close to the biggest cricket has seen. The top players of today earn tens, sometimes hundreds, of times more than they did immediately post-WSC. And that's not just because of inflation, it's because as time has gone on more and more money has come in. This would have happened WSC or no WSC - WSC was merely one of the most noted stages in the process. But the process would have happened without it.

The 1983 World Cup increased passion for the sport in India, not rest of the world. Interest in Australia and England for tests would always be there but WSC made cricket more popular with its tournaments.

WSC certainly didn't make ODIs any more popular in England - here, they've always been viewed the same, as an unfashionable younger brother which is rarely taken too seriously by the Test enthusiasts... yet always, pre- and post-WSC, England's home ODIs have drawn full houses.

As far as Australia is concerned, I honestly can't comment. But neither England nor Australia have played a particularly significant part in the explosion of ODI popularity - almost all of that can be traced to the subcontinent. That's why I say India's 1983 World Cup victory was the moment where ODIs took-off.

 

[Pratters]

You don't think color clothing and day night cricket helped increase the popularity of cricket?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Packer didn't invent ODI's but he was responsible for most of the gimmicks such as the white ball, the coloured clothing as well as floodlights - and he also introduced some new rules which still exist like fielding restrictions.

WSC was also entirely responsible for England players getting an instant wage rise from £200 per Test to £1,000.

 

[Richard]

You don't think color clothing and day night cricket helped increase the popularity of cricket?

Not really, no. Neither have altered the game at all, they've merely changed some of the cosmetics of it. 10 years after Packer most ODIs were still being played in white clothing with a red ball.

 

[Pratters]

Not really, no. Neither have altered the game at all, they've merely changed some of the cosmetics of it. 10 years after Packer most ODIs were still being played in white clothing with a red ball.

but Packer introduced day night cricket, colored clothing, the glitz, the fielding restrcitions and what not. He revolutionised one day cricket and crowds came in because of him. If one dayers were still being played in whites ten years post Packer, they sure aren't now and Packer is indirectly responsible for it. Packer revolutionised cricket and did a lot of good for the game. The money came in because of him. You treat the WSC as an outcast when the whole cricketing community embraced it. They embraced it for a reason. WSC was a necessary evil. One day cricket and cricket as a whole benefited because of Packer and it is no coincidence. Packer never wanted to create WSC. It was when he was denied hosting cricket on his channel that he had no other option. He was a smart businessman who knew that players were not getting good wages at the time and capitalised on cricket. He didn't harm cricket though. There is a difference. He created competitive matches which were entertaining and fierce.

 

[Richard]

but Packer introduced day night cricket, colored clothing, the glitz, the fielding restrcitions and what not. He revolutionised one day cricket and crowds came in because of him.

He didn't, and they didn't. OD cricket had always been popular in England (and I presume elsewhere, though it hadn't been played much elsewhere at the time). Packer made use of the popularity of OD cricket, he didn't create it. As Gideon Haigh said "Packer didn't make cricket popular; he coveted it because it was popular".

If one dayers were still being played in whites ten years post Packer, they sure aren't now and Packer is indirectly responsible for it.

But they aren't. You just can't credit someone for something that happened over a decade after his intervention.

Packer revolutionised cricket and did a lot of good for the game. The money came in because of him. You treat the WSC as an outcast when the whole cricketing community embraced it. They embraced it for a reason.

They didn't, not close to. Even plenty of players turned-down the offers to take part. They did so for a reason. It was turning your back on the real game then as it is now. WSC was an outcast - its first season saw near universal neglect from the public. Sometimes it even played up its own image as a pirate competition.

WSC was a necessary evil. One day cricket and cricket as a whole benefited because of Packer and it is no coincidence.

The point is they would have benefited in the same way without Packer. It wasn't a neccessary evil at all. The benefits would've come regardless, without the drawbacks.

Packer never wanted to create WSC. It was when he was denied hosting cricket on his channel that he had no other option. He was a smart businessman who knew that players were not getting good wages at the time and capitalised on cricket. He didn't harm cricket though. There is a difference. He created competitive matches which were entertaining and fierce.

He did harm cricket, because those same players would have been playing Test cricket had he not signed them up. He took away what would have been two of the best years of Test cricket and instead the players were playing in matches which had nothing at stake whatsoever apart from Kerry Packer's own trophies.

WSC was of such a high standard not because of anything Packer did, but because of the fact there were lots of high-class players around at the time, especially in West Indies and Australia. Packer was pretty lucky in his timing, getting as he did some of the best cricketers the game has seen.

 

[Pratters]

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this Rich. Else it will be an endless quote war.

 

[Richard]

Okeydoke. Hope you take some of my points on-board though.