DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
Pretty much everyone in Top 15 in batting or bowling are separated by a close margin.
-
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.
Viv Richards vs Sunil Gavaskar
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn’t. But Viv’s peer acclaim and huge popularity is due to his style of play.
He was special because he was playing a style of batting at a time when no other specialist batsman could play.
If he was playing the same way today, he would still be a great batsman but not necessarily that unique.
Johan
State Vice-Captain
Michael Holding for Viv Richards
Why Michael Holding believes Viv Richards is the best batsman he has ever seen
The West Indian fast bowler picked Richards because he never looked intimidated.
amp-scroll-in.cdn.ampproject.org
lots of conflicted opinions too.
Johan
State Vice-Captain
put any of the aggressive players of today back in 70s and 80s and they might not even have a career.
Viv's arguably the greatest visting Batsmen (post WW2) in both Australia and England, it's not because he played fast, simply because when it came to playing pace, I genuinely don't think there is an equal to Viv Richards bar Don Bradman, but Viv's ability to smash apart ATG pacers constantly is not something we've ever seen replicated and might never see replicated.
kyear2
International Coach
It's what he could do that no one else could.
kyear2
International Coach
And this.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
I have actually started to rate Gavasker pretty highly lately. Would go with Viv but it’s really close.
Viv’s contemporary rating has got to be affected
with how he played the game compared to that of Gavasker.
Viv’s contemporary rating has got to be affected
with how he played the game compared to that of Gavasker.
Last edited:
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
[I actually wrote this months ago but did not post it as getting entangled in this forum (or forums in general) is a bit like getting sucked into a black hole!]
Richards has 63 wins in his 121 tests and I was curious about how much he had contributed to those wins batting-wise compared to his fellow WI greats Greenidge, Richardson and Lloyd.
I found out that just one of his 63 test wins did not involve any of the other three greats:
As you can see, Richards scored 18 runs in that test match (a victory over England in 1988 by 10 wickets) for an average of 18.
Richards shared 56 of the other 62 test wins with Gordon Greenidge. In these shared wins, Greenidge scored 23.5% more runs than Richards, had a 10.1% higher average and scored more centuries (14 vs. 11):
Greenidge's runs were obviously extremely important as he was an opener, seeing off the new ball and laying the foundation for the innings.
Richards shared 31 of those other 62 test wins with Richie Richardson. In these shared wins, Richardson scored 29.0% more runs than Richards, had an 11.8% higher average and scored more centuries (9 vs. 6):
Richards shared 36 of those other 62 test wins with Clive Lloyd. In these shared wins, Lloyd scored 6.3% more runs than Richards, had a 10.9% higher average and scored more centuries (8 vs. 7):
Very approximately, Lloyd overlapped the first half of Richards' career, Richardson, the second half, and Greenidge, the entirety.
I was quite surprised by these results. According to various metrics (total runs, average, centuries), Richards appears to have played second (or third or fourth) fiddle in test wins to three other WI batsmen, and that's not counting the WI bowlers whose contributions to test wins could put him even further in the shade. Does this undermine Richards' reputation as a matchwinner in test cricket at all? I know he was an exciting batsmen who scored very quickly but does this make up for the other deficits? I mean, isn't output also very important? I don't have a stake in this emotionally as I worship only Hadlee.
Richards has 63 wins in his 121 tests and I was curious about how much he had contributed to those wins batting-wise compared to his fellow WI greats Greenidge, Richardson and Lloyd.
I found out that just one of his 63 test wins did not involve any of the other three greats:
As you can see, Richards scored 18 runs in that test match (a victory over England in 1988 by 10 wickets) for an average of 18.
Richards shared 56 of the other 62 test wins with Gordon Greenidge. In these shared wins, Greenidge scored 23.5% more runs than Richards, had a 10.1% higher average and scored more centuries (14 vs. 11):
Greenidge's runs were obviously extremely important as he was an opener, seeing off the new ball and laying the foundation for the innings.
Richards shared 31 of those other 62 test wins with Richie Richardson. In these shared wins, Richardson scored 29.0% more runs than Richards, had an 11.8% higher average and scored more centuries (9 vs. 6):
Richards shared 36 of those other 62 test wins with Clive Lloyd. In these shared wins, Lloyd scored 6.3% more runs than Richards, had a 10.9% higher average and scored more centuries (8 vs. 7):
Very approximately, Lloyd overlapped the first half of Richards' career, Richardson, the second half, and Greenidge, the entirety.
I was quite surprised by these results. According to various metrics (total runs, average, centuries), Richards appears to have played second (or third or fourth) fiddle in test wins to three other WI batsmen, and that's not counting the WI bowlers whose contributions to test wins could put him even further in the shade. Does this undermine Richards' reputation as a matchwinner in test cricket at all? I know he was an exciting batsmen who scored very quickly but does this make up for the other deficits? I mean, isn't output also very important? I don't have a stake in this emotionally as I worship only Hadlee.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Probs Sobers and Akram for Gavaskar. Akram I am confident rated Crowe ahead of Lara and Tendulkar, and rated Gavaskar as the best he played against.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Didn’t Akram recently say Thorpe was the best left hander he bowled to?
lol. Cricket like any other sport only has increasing standards. Viv was a god but Steve Smith would have done just as well if not better
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
I remember Akram clearly rating Crowe as the best ahead of Sachin, Richards and Lara.
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
Put Richards in the 1970s Indian team and he would have not been allowed to play his natural game and he would have crumbled from that.
Johan
State Vice-Captain
lol? why won't he be allowed to play his natural game while averaging 50
Johan
State Vice-Captain
very similar players and of similar quality, think Viv gets the nod against pace though as he played with no protective Gear and has had a worse decline than Viv.
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
Sunil Gavaskar was the difference between a loss and a draw. Viv never had to face the pressure because he played for the GOAT cricket team.
Imran once said if they can get Gavaskar out in the first session, India would lose within 3 days.
Johan
State Vice-Captain
1. Viv has played plenty of high pressure quality knocks.
2. people like Viv thrive under presssure, they don't crumble to it, that's one of the merits of having an ego and a strong sense of self
3. Gavaskar himself was a part of a pretty good batting lineup for most of his career. Vengsarkar, Vishwanath, Amarnath being the big examples, at the end of his career also Mohammad Azharrudin and Ravi Shastri and ofcourse Kapil Dev, he wasn't supportless, its insulting to people like Veng and Amarnath to suggest he was.
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
That’s why I said 1970s Gavaskar.
In 1970s he only had Vishwanath who was good but highly inconsistent. Similar to Lara having only Chanderpaul in the second half of his career.
Amarnath & Vengsarkar became regulars only from late 1970s. Kapil made his debut in 1977 or 1979.
In 1970s he only had Vishwanath who was good but highly inconsistent. Similar to Lara having only Chanderpaul in the second half of his career.
Amarnath & Vengsarkar became regulars only from late 1970s. Kapil made his debut in 1977 or 1979.
DrWolverine
U19 Debutant
If you get out, team will collapse.
Viv never had to face that pressure.
Not saying he can’t. But with his style, it is tough.