Viv Richards vs steve smith

[Coronis]

No, all I admitted is that bowlers are more naturally 'matchwinning' than batsmen.

However, relative to other bats who he was being compared with, Vivs playing style had more impact on matches. However, I rarely if ever call Viv a 'matchwinning' batsman since whatever the bats impact, it isn't as decisive as bowlers. That title is problematic.

This isn't particularly hard to understand, I'm sorry to say. You seem vested in finding the least credible interpretation of my statements.

So how is Viv a better matchwinner than Smith if Smith had a worse bowling attack, worse batting support, but has won a higher percentage of his matches?

 

[subshakerz]

So how is Viv a better matchwinner than Smith if Smith had a worse bowling attack, worse batting support, but has won a higher percentage of his matches?

I would have to look into it but I assume Smith is in a more results oriented era.

Again, I am not using the matchwinner label on bats.

 

[subshakerz]

All I am saying is that Vivs regular style of dominating play would have more match impact than Smiths. Not that he played sufficient 'matchwinning' innings and Smith did not.

 

[Coronis]

I would have to look into it but I assume Smith is in a more results oriented era.

Again, I am not using the matchwinner label on bats.

But you just said he had more of an impact on matches with style. But his teammates outperformed him in wins. And he was in such a strong team. Doesn’t make much sense

 

[Prince EWS]

But you just said he had more of an impact on matches with style. But his teammates outperformed him in wins. And he was in such a strong team. Doesn’t make much sense

Haha I wouldn't bother, in his following post he all but admits he has no actual evidence but just assumes it should be true because of vibes and is therefore happy to assert it anyway.

All I am saying is that Vivs regular style of dominating play would have more match impact than Smiths. Not that he played sufficient 'matchwinning' innings and Smith did not.

"He didn't actually contribute to more wins but he should have in theory because he was alpha with a large penis and reality won't change my mind."

 

[capt_Luffy]

All I am saying is that Vivs regular style of dominating play would have more match impact than Smiths. Not that he played sufficient 'matchwinning' innings and Smith did not.

What kind of ****ery is this ****!!!??? What do you even want to say here??

 

[subshakerz]

But you just said he had more of an impact on matches with style. But his teammates outperformed him in wins. And he was in such a strong team. Doesn’t make much sense

I didn't say 'with style'

And I never brought performance in wins.

 

[ankitj]

Root averages 65 in wins, nice.

Terrible. Downhill skier.

 

[ataraxia]

Root averages 65 in wins, nice.

KW averages 82.5 in wins.

 

[subshakerz]

What kind of ****ery is this ****!!!??? What do you even want to say here??

That 'matchwinning innings' like Lara's 153 or something is different from what I am talking about which is general style of play that impacts games. No need to freakout.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That 'matchwinning innings' like Lara's 153 or something is different from what I am talking about which is general style of play that impacts games. No need to freakout.

Last time I checked every style of play used to impact the game...... Even your Marsh and Harrises

 

[sayon basak]

Last time I checked every style of play used to impact the game...... Even your Marsh and Harrises

Arguing semantics is futile, remember?

 

[subshakerz]

Last time I checked every style of play used to impact the game...... Even your Marsh and Harrises

Um yes. Great we agree then.

 

[pardus]

Viv is such a divisive figure. Most of those who haven't watched him bat live at his peak simply can't stand the hyperbole, while for those of us who were blessed to have watched him bat live, he deserves all that praise and then some.

I know this is going to really burn some people here, Imran writes in his 1992 article on Viv :
"This is why, for me, statistics are meaningless. They can never reflect the true genius of Viv Richards. Had he wanted, he could easily have scored twice as many Test runs as he did."

I don't agree or disagree with Imran on this, but I can totally see where he is coming from.

In early 90s, Sunny Gavaskar was once interviewing Viv and Sunny asked Viv why Viv didn't go for Gavaskar's then test run record when (Sunny felt) Viv had a great opportunity.
For a moment Viv was stumped by Sunny's question and then answered in his hilarious, characterstic way - "That's just not my style maan".

Nevertheless I voted for Smith in this poll. Stats, as long as they are consistently applied, provide certain objectivity. Smith's average of 78 in his best 80 continuous innings is simply phenomenal.

On a different note, as much as I recall, Viv was the first batsman for whom the title "The Master Blaster" was frequently used.
In fact throughout the 80s he was mostly referred to as "the Master Blaster", as the commentator in below video addresses him during his Perth Century in 1988 - "the Master Blaster"

I don't know when this phrase was first used in cricket. Perhaps this phrase was used for other batsmen in earlier eras as well, but throughout the 80s, whenever I read cricket magazines (or in match commentary both on radio as well as TV) Viv was frequently called "The Master Blaster" and it fit perfectly.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Viv is such a divisive figure. Most of those who haven't watched him bat live at his peak simply can't stand the hyperbole, while for those of us who were blessed to have watched him bat live, he deserves all that praise and then some.

I know this is going to really burn some people here, Imran writes in his 1992 article on Viv :
"This is why, for me, statistics are meaningless. They can never reflect the true genius of Viv Richards. Had he wanted, he could easily have scored twice as many Test runs as he did."

I don't agree or disagree with Imran on this, but I can totally see where he is coming from.

In early 90s, Sunny Gavaskar was once interviewing Viv and Sunny asked Viv why Viv didn't go for Gavaskar's then test run record when (Sunny felt) Viv had a great opportunity.
For a moment Viv was stumped by Sunny's question and then answered in his hilarious, characterstic way - "That's just not my style maan".

Nevertheless I voted for Smith in this poll. Stats, as long as they are consistently applied, provide certain objectivity. Smith's average of 78 in his best 80 continuous innings is simply phenomenal.

On a different note, as much as I recall, Viv was the first batsman for whom the title "The Master Blaster" was frequently used.
In fact throughout the 80s he was mostly referred to as "the Master Blaster", as the commentator in below video addresses him during his Perth Century in 1988 - "the Master Blaster"

I don't know when this phrase was first used in cricket. Perhaps this phrase was used for other batsmen in earlier eras as well, but throughout the 80s, whenever I read cricket magazines (or in match commentary both on radio as well as TV) Viv was frequently called "The Master Blaster" and it fit perfectly.

We written viv real master blaster

 

[Johan]

Terrible. Downhill skier.

so should you average high or low in wins

 

[trundler]

I don't buy this "Smith is overrated" chat. You can say he had easy home pitches during his prime but he was still the best batsman in the world away from home and is still top tier if you nerf his average by 10%. Both of these guys are capable of playing ATG knocks and dominating great bowlers so I'll take the guy who's more likely to make it count when he gets in and that's Smith.

 

[ankitj]

so should you average high or low in wins

Lower

 

[Johan]

Low.

so should you average high in losses

 

[ankitj]

so should you average high in losses

Yes