Who will win this battle of champs?

[Perm]

Viv Richards is the best batsman I've ever seen.......and I mean SEEN. Those that don't rate him highly are usually those who get their abacus out and decide his stats aren't good enough.

There were other batsman who scored more runs and scored them more consistently. IMO, it's how many you score, not how you score them.

Not trying to take this tread too off-topc though.

 

[bagapath]

There were other batsman who scored more runs and scored them more consistently. IMO, it's how many you score, not how you score them.

Not trying to take this tread too off-topc though.

cant agree with you. would you prefer a boycott over greenidge because he averaged 3 runs more? or kallis over lara coz he averages 4 runs more?

why do you prefer gordon and brian to open and for middle order in these cases? it is about the way they scored their runs.

viv was a very very special player. one of the four top contenders for the second greatest batsman ever along with hobbs, hammond and sobers. of course there a few more geniuses running very close. but he is definitely above them in my books.

i would love to hear you justify your case (numbers over style) though.

 

[pasag]

There were other batsman who scored more runs and scored them more consistently. IMO, it's how many you score, not how you score them.

Not trying to take this tread too off-topc though.

Disagree and I'll keep this brief as well to not take it OT further, but it's not how many you score but the situation in which you score them. According to the output theory, you look at the scorecard at the end of a match and whoever has the most runs and best bowling figures, batted and bowled the best. This is very often not true and anyone who ever watched a game of cricket will know this (not trying to be condescending). Would you rate the knocks of two people in the same innings with the same score equally, one person comes in at 5 wickets down for not very many and scores a hundred to get the score to a respectable total, the next comes in and scores another hundred but the team is already out of pressure and in a comfortable situation? Would you rate those two the same? The output is the same? Hell no. And that's just one example of how output tells you so very little on its own and the statement of 'output is all that matters' is very much a flawed one because 1 run =/ 1 run and 1 wicket =/ 1 wicket.

I don't mean to harp on about this and stop me if you feel I bring it up to much but cricket, like all sports can't be pigeonholed by this stuff and to do that is to do the sport a terrible disservice.

 

[Perm]

Disagree and I'll keep this brief as well to not take it OT further, but it's not how many you score but the situation in which you score them. According to the output theory, you look at the scorecard at the end of a match and whoever has the most runs and best bowling figures, batted and bowled the best. This is very often not true and anyone who ever watched a game of cricket will know this (not trying to be condescending). Would you rate the knocks of two people in the same innings with the same score equally, one person comes in at 5 wickets down for not very many and scores a hundred to get the score to a respectable total, the next comes in and scores another hundred but the team is already out of pressure and in a comfortable situation? Would you rate those two the same? The output is the same? Hell no. And that's just one example of how output tells you so very little on its own and the statement of 'output is all that matters' is very much a flawed one because 1 run =/ 1 run and 1 wicket =/ 1 wicket.

I don't mean to harp on about this and stop me if you feel I bring it up to much but cricket, like all sports can't be pigeonholed by this stuff and to do that is to do the sport a terrible disservice.

Obviously the circumstances dictate the quality of runs scored and that's only logical. You aren't always going to have the same pitch conditions or quality of bowlers, therefore things must be weighed up in your mind and then judged. As you say, 1 run =/ 1 run and 1 wicket =/ 1 wicket, and that's only sensible. I suppose my statement was a bit closed, and I don't rely solely on statistics to make judgements on players as there are a number of other contributing factors.

What it comes down to, IMO, and this is especially true with Sir Vivian Richards, is that people will judge on how good the batsman looks, even if he isn't as effective in scoring runs as another batsman who doesn't have the same reputation. Richards was a legendary batsman, of that I have no doubt, but I don't rate him as highly as some on CW do for the reasons I've outlined here and in the past. Talking about him as the second best Test batsman of all time is ridiculous I feel, as there have been others who have outperformed him in scoring runs, the primary goal of being a Test batsman.

 

[pasag]

Obviously the circumstances dictate the quality of runs scored and that's only logical. You aren't always going to have the same pitch conditions or quality of bowlers, therefore things must be weighed up in your mind and then judged. As you say, 1 run =/ 1 run and 1 wicket =/ 1 wicket, and that's only sensible. I suppose my statement was a bit closed, and I don't rely solely on statistics to make judgements on players as there are a number of other contributing factors.

What it comes down to, IMO, and this is especially true with Sir Vivian Richards, is that people will judge on how good the batsman looks, even if he isn't as effective in scoring runs as another batsman who doesn't have the same reputation. Richards was a legendary batsman, of that I have no doubt, but I don't rate him as highly as some on CW do for the reasons I've outlined here and in the past. Talking about him as the second best Test batsman of all time is ridiculous I feel, as there have been others who have outperformed him in scoring runs, the primary goal of being a Test batsman.

It's not the style here though or the technique () it's the effect he had on matches and what he did to the opposition. Something statistics wont tell you, but everyone that has watched him will. That was his value. Much like Gilchrist. I would have him in the second echelon of batsmen right under Bradman no questions asked. And re: output, would you say AB >= Viv? AB scored more over more matches and at a tad higher average.

 

[Perm]

cant agree with you. would you prefer a boycott over greenidge because he averaged 3 runs more? or kallis over lara coz he averages 4 runs more?

why do you prefer gordon and brian to open and for middle order in these cases? it is about the way they scored their runs.

viv was a very very special player. one of the four top contenders for the second greatest batsman ever along with hobbs, hammond and sobers. of course there a few more geniuses running very close. but he is definitely above them in my books.

i would love to hear you justify your case (numbers over style) though.

It isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be mate, and statistics don't tell the whole story, but they go a long way towards proving my point. In the cases you mentioned, I wouldn't take Kallis over Lara, despite him averaging more, for a number of reasons. Once you figure out a more reflective Test average for each player it cuts down the gap, and then you can judge based on the individual circumstances. Brian Lara was a fine batsman, and while he may not score with quite the same consistency as Jacques Kallis, in his prime he churned out runs against some very good attacks and won matches for his side. I have had the benefit of seeing both batsman play and I think it's safe to say that Brian Lara is the better batsman, and statistics can prove this once you delve a little more closely into it.

I would consider the case of Boycott vs Greenidge a little more closely, but due to my limited knowledge on both batsman I'm not really prepared to make a judgement. You could look straight at the averages and decide that Geoffrey Boycott was the better batsman, but that would be a poor analysis of statistics.

Sir Vivian Richards was a very special batsman, I agree. I wouldn't rank him that highly though, and although I've never really produced a list of my personal top 10 Test batsman of all-time, I'd hazard a guess and say he'd be low down on the list. That is if he featured at all. If I was talking pure averages, which I would never do, then Richards would be the 30th best Test batsman of all-time, which is too low. I do think there can be good cases made for Wally Hammond, Garfield Sobers, Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Greg Chappell, Sachin Tendulkar, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott to all be ranked above him, while others like Graeme Pollock, Eddie Paynter and George Headley all had fairly short Test careers, meaning it is harder to judge them.

 

[Perm]

It's not the style here though or the technique () it's the effect he had on matches and what he did to the opposition. Something statistics wont tell you, but everyone that has watched him will. That was his value. Much like Gilchrist. I would have him in the second echelon of batsmen right under Bradman no questions asked. And re: output, would you say AB >= Viv? AB scored more over more matches and at a tad higher average.

People refer to Adam Gilchrist and Viv Richards as being similar, but I really don't think they are all that comparable. Obviously both are very destructive players who can take the game away from the opponent in a session, but Gilchrist did the job throughout his whole career and his strike rate is reflective of this while Viv Richard's languishes comparatively.

For the second echelon of Test batsman, I'd have the likes of Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Sobers and maybe find place for Graeme Pollock and George Headley. The gap of 0.33 between Richard's average and Border's average isn't enough to say that Border is better, but if you look at four West Indian batsman I think are/were all better than Richards then you will see the difference I am talking about. Headley averages 60, Weekes 58, Sobers 57 and Walcott 56. Big differences in averages, and hence a big difference in how effective they were at scoring runs.

 

[pasag]

Viv=Headley=Sobers, Ws and Lara below.

How does Viv 'languish comparatively' if I may ask, upon what do you base this statement? And how does one compare averages across eras (not that it matters much, I find comparing batsmen using their averages a very flawed way of looking at things as I said earlier)?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Viv Richards is the best batsman I've ever seen, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the most effective Test batsman. He averaged 50 but it should have been nearer 70. His real flaw was that he always wanted to dominate the bowling no matter what the conditions or situation and often without playing himself in, and he gave his wicket away too often in the process. In many ways this is as big a flaw as the batsman who is incapable or unwilling to up the scoring rate when it's necessary.
It would have been interesting to see what happened if he had been playing in a poor side at his peak, it might have forced him to apply himself more.
The 1979 and 1983 World Cup Finals are a good benchmark. In 1979 the West Indies were struggling and he originally dug in and ended up scoring a spectacular hundred. In 1983 the West Indies only needed 180 odd to win and he came in and slogged his way to 40 odd in no time presumably believing that the West Indies were going to win anyway. He got himself out very irresponsibly when if he'd just batted normally they would cruised home, as it was it sparked a collapse.

 

[Perm]

Viv=Headley=Sobers, Ws and Lara below.

How does Viv 'languish comparatively' if I may ask, upon what do you base this statement? And how does one compare averages across eras (not that it matters much, I find comparing batsmen using their averages a very flawed way of looking at things as I said earlier)?

Sobers>Headley>Weekes & Walcott>Richards>Lara. IMO.

I know it's a simplistic way of looking at things, but just go and use cricinfo to find every century they've scored and have a look at the strike rates. The so called 'demolition jobs' that Richards did on opposition attacks were done with a strike rate of about 75, whereas Gilchrist regularly scored at faster than a run a ball. Since we don't have career strike rates, then I couldn't think of a better way to compare their impact statistically.

To compare averages across eras, which I wasn't really going to do fully, I usually take into consideration the attacks that each batsman faced. However, unless the likes of Headley, Weekes, Walcott and Sobers were facing terrible bowlers, then they can be quite easily be called better Test batsman than Richards because their output was greater.

 

[bagapath]

People refer to Adam Gilchrist and Viv Richards as being similar, but I really don't think they are all that comparable. Obviously both are very destructive players who can take the game away from the opponent in a session, but Gilchrist did the job throughout his whole career and his strike rate is reflective of this while Viv Richard's languishes comparatively.

For the second echelon of Test batsman, I'd have the likes of Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Sobers and maybe find place for Graeme Pollock and George Headley. The gap of 0.33 between Richard's average and Border's average isn't enough to say that Border is better, but if you look at four West Indian batsman I think are/were all better than Richards then you will see the difference I am talking about. Headley averages 60, Weekes 58, Sobers 57 and Walcott 56. Big differences in averages, and hence a big difference in how effective they were at scoring runs.

gilly averages 48 with a strike rate of 82, in 90 matches, albeit batting lower in the order where hitting out is a more sensible option. richards averaged 50 over 121 matches at a strike rate of 67 at the top of the order, when the bowlers were fresher and consolidation more important than quick accumulation. for some part he also played in uncovered wickets. and always batted without helmet. so his intimidation as a batsman was never lesser than anyone's in the history of the game.

if gilly plays for 121 matches his average is likely to drop further, to the lower 40s assuming he tries to maintain the same strike rate. viv's comparative record is superior to gilly's. in fact after 90 test matches he was averaging 53 with 21 centuries.

as for headley, weeks and walcott they had relatively shorter careers compared to viv's, headley in fact played a mere 22 tests. if you look at the cumulative batting average of richards his average remained in the high fifties for the same number of tests these champions had played. for example it was above 55 until his 65th test by when he had scored 17 centuries, (the same as gilly after 90 tests).

now look at this.

viv averaged 64 after 22 matches - more than headley's
viv averaged 62 after 44 tests - more than walcott's

You see the link given below and compare it with the players in your list. viv will keep moving upwards with only the don stopping him from reaching the top.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

 

[pasag]

However, unless the likes of Headley, Weekes, Walcott and Sobers were facing terrible bowlers, then they can be quite easily be called better Test batsman than Richards because their output was greater.

And as I said before, general output doesn't have that much substance in the grand scheme of things (when we get to this level of discussion I mean). I have no problems with you saying that any of the above are better batsmen than Viv. I do find it odd that for the reasons I listed above in my first post on the subject, you would say that the better player is the one with the greater average. That for me is missing the point and one of the reasons I've come to loathe how stats are used around here. But anyways, to be argued again another time.

To take this even more OT, since we've been talking about Headley recently I went back to James' chapter on him and thought I'd quote this line I liked:

He was as quick a bat as any. Bowlers, seeing the ball practically on his pad, appealed against him for lbw, only to grind their teeth as the bat came down and put the ball away to the fine-leg boundary.

 

[Dasa]

Viv=Headley=Sobers, Ws and Lara below.

I'm quite interested in your reasons for having Lara (and the Ws for that matter) below the trio of Viv, Sobers and Headley. I can't help but feel that Lara is becoming a bit underrated in recent times. Whether that's because he hasn't been gone for long and memories will grow fonder as time goes on or whether looking retrospectively at his career it seems as if it isn't as good as one might have thought, I don't know. Find it interesting though. It does seem to me that sometimes there's a trend of recently retired players being forgotten for a period, although I don't think you're doing that.

 

[pasag]

I'm quite interested in your reasons for having Lara (and the Ws for that matter) below the trio of Viv, Sobers and Headley. I can't help but feel that Lara is becoming a bit underrated in recent times. Whether that's because he hasn't been gone for long and memories will grow fonder as time goes on or whether looking retrospectively at his career it seems as if it isn't as good as one might have thought, I don't know. Find it interesting though. It does seem to me that sometimes there's a trend of recently retired players being forgotten for a period, although I don't think you're doing that.

I don't think people underrate him these days if anything I feel Lara's stature has grown in recent times with Tendulkar not looking invincible (funny how that works). McGrath and Warne have both seem to have grown abit as well since retirement, but I see what you're saying re: guys like Inzi and Martyn. And it's not really that I underrate him, its more that I think those three are the creme of the crop and a touch above. The best of the best so to speak and whilst Lara is an all time great I don't think he fits into the best of the all time greats category, if you get what I'm saying.

Btw OT but are you going to be there Boxing Day?

 

[Dasa]

I don't think people underrate him these days if anything I feel Lara's stature has grown in recent times with Tendulkar not looking invincible (funny how that works). McGrath and Warne have both seem to have grown abit as well since retirement, but I see what you're saying re: guys like Inzi and Martyn. And it's not really that I underrate him, its more that I think those three are the creme of the crop and a touch above. The best of the best so to speak and whilst Lara is an all time great I don't think he fits into the best of the all time greats category, if you get what I'm saying.

Yeah, I understand what you mean.

Btw OT but are you going to be there Boxing Day?

I should be there on Boxing Day and probably a couple of other days. I haven't got tickets yet though. I might come down to Junction Oval as well to see Victoria vs India.

 

[pasag]

I should be there on Boxing Day and probably a couple of other days. I haven't got tickets yet though. I might come down to Junction Oval as well to see Victoria vs India.

Myself, Altoz and Jono were discussing the possibility of a meet-up during lunch or something.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah, I'm interested in a meet-up.

 

[welshplato]

Sorry to continue the OT theme, but I'm a little surprised at some of the names that people consider to be above Richards in any all time list - combined with the discussion of the value of batting averages in deciding positions on such a list.
At a wild guess, I would say that no one on this thread has seen Hobbs or Headley, and that very few have seen Hammond, Walcott or Weekes - thus making their views soley based on the available statistics. Enough has already been said about the inadequacies of judging a player on that basis. Surely we can only make any sort of judgement of players we have actually seen play.
In the end there is no objective way of deciding who is the best batsman, it has to come down to subjective opinion. Who quickens the pulse when he walks out to bat, whose innings sticks in the memory, whose shots make you gasp in admiration, who do you simply love to watch.
Of course, if I said Chris Tavare was the best batsman, you'd either think I was mad or that I didn't understand the game. There has to be some decent objective evidence for an opinion. I think Bagapath's imaginative use of the stats is a good example - but that's because, as I've said, Viv is the man for me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Of course, if I said Chris Tavare was the best batsman, you'd either think I was mad or that I didn't understand the game. There has to be some decent objective evidence for an opinion. I think Bagapath's imaginative use of the stats is a good example - but that's because, as I've said, Viv is the man for me.

On his day in County Cricket Chris Tavare was very entertaining to watch and could play most shots in the book, he rarely did it in Test Cricket and I still use his 14 in 3 hours against Sri Lanka in 1984 as cure for insomnia.

 

[Perm]

gilly averages 48 with a strike rate of 82, in 90 matches, albeit batting lower in the order where hitting out is a more sensible option. richards averaged 50 over 121 matches at a strike rate of 67 at the top of the order, when the bowlers were fresher and consolidation more important than quick accumulation. for some part he also played in uncovered wickets. and always batted without helmet. so his intimidation as a batsman was never lesser than anyone's in the history of the game.

I'd like to know where you got Richard's strike rate from because both www.cricinfo.com and www.howstat.com have no strike rate listed for him, due to the number of balls he faced in few of his innings not being accurate recorded. Until you do this, and have a solid basis for this claim, then I can't really argue this particular point.

if gilly plays for 121 matches his average is likely to drop further, to the lower 40s assuming he tries to maintain the same strike rate. viv's comparative record is superior to gilly's. in fact after 90 test matches he was averaging 53 with 21 centuries.

We can only judge a player on what they acheived in their career, not what might be.

as for headley, weeks and walcott they had relatively shorter careers compared to viv's, headley in fact played a mere 22 tests. if you look at the cumulative batting average of richards his average remained in the high fifties for the same number of tests these champions had played. for example it was above 55 until his 65th test by when he had scored 17 centuries, (the same as gilly after 90 tests).

now look at this.

viv averaged 64 after 22 matches - more than headley's
viv averaged 62 after 44 tests - more than walcott's

As I said before, I'm judging players on what they acheived in their entire careers, not at selective times. Who knows, if Headley had played more matches his average might have dropped dramatically, or it may have stayed close to 60. It's all speculation though, my judgements take into consideration a batsman's whole career.

[QUOTEnow look at this.

viv averaged 64 after 22 matches - more than headley's
viv averaged 62 after 44 tests - more than walcott's]You see the link given below and compare it with the players in your list. viv will keep moving upwards with only the don stopping him from reaching the top.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype[/QUOTE]

Sir Viv Richards will never have a legitimate claim of being the second best Test batsman, as others have performed better in scoring runs, whilst not being as destructive.