Viv Richards Vs Warne

[kyear2]

So?

Probably deserves a second look

 

[Slifer]

Most people voting for Viv probably hate bowlers tbh, only reasonable explanation for not valuing an Australian leggie who took 708 wickets at 25.42 and was along with McGrath the biggest reasons as to why Australia were dominant during their careers. Ridiculous tbh, even with his weaknesses against certain teams and health issues he's basically a lock in ATG XIs far more than Viv.

I generally rate bowlers over batsmen but Viv is one of the few I over rate and I don't care. Why? Because without him, WI of his time would've been far worse off. Viv was the batting difference in the two toughest away series wins of his era: Australia in 79-80 and Pak 80. Had he not been injured and missed the 1980 tour to NZ , WI may well have drawn or even won that series. Warne is an atg for sure and just as charismatic I just favor Viv.

 

[Coronis]

I generally rate bowlers over batsmen but Viv is one of the few I over rate and I don't care. Why? Because without him, WI of his time would've been far worse off. Viv was the batting difference in the two toughest away series wins of his era: Australia in 79-80 and Pak 80. Had he not been injured and missed the 1980 tour to NZ , WI may well have drawn or even won that series. Warne is an atg for sure and just as charismatic I just favor Viv.

Nah Viv sucked ass in NZ.

 

[trundler]

I generally rate bowlers over batsmen but Viv is West Indian

Yeah we know

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yeah we know

Nah he’s given valid reasons, no question of bias.

 

[Slifer]

Nah Viv sucked ass in NZ.

He played one series there later in his career. I'm backing peak Viv in 1980 ie the same man who demolished Lillee and co and Imran and co all away.

 

[BazBall21]

I fancy Viv v great bowlers more than I fancy Warne v great players of spin. And Viv has the longevity and the cultural impact etc to rule out Warne's broader greatness (goat leg spinner and volume of wickets etc) from being defining imo.

I always lent to Warne in this comparison because bowlers have that edge in value, but the more I've thought about this recently, the more I've drifted to the side of the big Antiguan.

 

[kyear2]

I fancy Viv v great bowlers more than I fancy Warne v great players of spin. And Viv has the longevity and the cultural impact etc to rule out Warne's broader greatness (goat leg spinner and volume of wickets etc) from being defining imo.

I always lent to Warne in this comparison because bowlers have that edge in value, but the more I've thought about this recently, the more I've drifted to the side of the big Antiguan.

May have been a point earlier, but Viv was at his best vs the best, the opposite was true for Warne.

 

[Coronis]

I fancy Viv v great bowlers more than I fancy Warne v great players of spin. And Viv has the longevity and the cultural impact etc to rule out Warne's broader greatness (goat leg spinner and volume of wickets etc) from being defining imo.

I always lent to Warne in this comparison because bowlers have that edge in value, but the more I've thought about this recently, the more I've drifted to the side of the big Antiguan.

One knock on Warney is his lack of cultural impact.

 

[howitzer]

Nah Viv sucked ass in NZ.

Everyone knows Kiwi ass is the best ass.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah Viv sucked ass in NZ.

Yeah but how did he go with the bat?