• 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.

Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

Swervy

International Captain
ReallyCrazy said:
swervy you were talking about richards' run of scores in a select few test matches that you picked out. He was no doubt going through a good form period during that time. But the fact that his overall record is not that impressive suggests to me that you can find more instances poor run of scores as well. The fact is he was not consistent and thus not as reliable as gavaskar. Look at his record against Pakistan(who perhaps possessed the 2nd best bowling attack after the WI)...his average is an appalling 41.

Yes I agree with you averages only tell half the story (I'd say they tell 70% of the story). But you seem to totally ignore them in this comparison. If the numbers are close, we can ignore them. But Gavaskar has outperformed Richards too much to totally ignore all the numbers as you have done.
i used those scores to indicate the times when Richards reputation was built...there has rarely been anyone who could match that type of run of scores vs the quality of opponent that he had to.

You had to watch King Viv play to understand what he was like, the averages dont do him justice..and as has been mentioned,he probably played a tad too long (although I would still say he easily justified his place in WI team later on)

A match by match comparision is quite interesting for Gavaskar and Richards:

After 10 tests
Richards averaged 31.07
gavaskar averaged 61.12

After 15 tests
Ricards:46.43
gavaskar:54.20

After 20
R:57.87
G:50.97

After 30:
R:58.21
G:49.00

After 40
R:60.48
G:51.73

After 50
R:58.5
G:57.5

After 70:
R:53.6 (1984/85)
G:52.83 (1981/82)

After 100:
R:52.77
G:52.33

After 110:
R: 51.54 (89/90)
G: 51.17 (85/86)

so you can see, if averages are that important to you,Richards for the majority of his career was actually quite a bit higher than Gavskars, its just Richards took a bigger slump towards the end, but Richards will never be judged on how well he played in the early 90's, he will always be judged on how well he played in the 70's and early to mid 80's
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Sanz said:
And If Gavaskar had retired in 1971 he would have averaged higher than Sir Don.
what are you on about?we cant look at stats when a player is past his prime,
if i said kapil dev was a useless bowler because he averaged nearly 30 would you agree with me???
 

biased indian

International Coach
marc71178 said:
Yes, but you cannot use Gavaskar's average overall against the West Indies as an indicator of how brilliant he was against the awesome attack they possessed.
we can remove the averages of warne aganist india then he will become a even greater bowler :D :D
 

Swervy

International Captain
Sanz said:
Whatever the context was, you did use stats to prove your opinion and here on this thread when stats were against your opinion you dismissed it by saying they dont tell the correct story.

And that Akram and Mcgrath were different type of bowler but both opened for their countries whereas Sunny and Viv not only of different type of batsmen but also had different rold, Sunny's role was tougher whereas Viv's role much easier still Sunny did better than Viv and that too consistently.

Let me quote you again from that post :-

"...I might have been the best bowler in the world...but real life doesnt deal with hypotheticals.The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram..."

When you say fact, I think you were talking about STATS, well it's True in case of Sunny Gavaskar, VIV Richards may have been the best batsmen but Sunny was more effective than him as a batsman and that is a FACT.

And please dont deny that your argument was not based on averages - Your First post in that thread looked something like this :-

"....
Tests

McGrath Ave 21.71 rpo 2.5 strike 52.0
Akram Ave 22.38 rpo 2.59 strike 54.6

ODI
McGrath Ave 22.38 rpo 3.89 strike 34.4
Akram Ave 23.52 rpo 3.89 strike 36.2


There is not one of those 6 key stats that Akram has bettered McGrath on...on ODI runrate, he is bang on with McGrath (you must bare in mind that for 8 years before McGrath was playing, Akram was playing in a time when the average runrate was a lot lower than now!!!!!)

So who has been the more effective bowler? "

again context is important...a lot of people were basically saying that McGrath didnt have a right to be mentioned in the same breath as Wasim...all i was trying to say was that it was ridiculous to say that because both bowlers had been roughly equal in there successes.

I have never stated that Gavaskar didnt deserve mention up there with the greats, i just think Richards was a better batsman,and indeed the best batsman i have ever seen...its my opinion...i dont beleive there is any bias in there, I am just agreeing with what millions of other people think.

However,one must question whether your opinion is clouded somewhat by your support of India (and i dont blame you if it is).

The thing is,gavaskar never set the international cricket scene alight with his performances (obviously not talking literally here), whereas any discussion about truely great batsmen would always bring up Richards, because what he acheived against the very best bowlers in the world (ok, not the WI's, but there were others in the world as well) in the 70's and 80's was unrivalled,and I am not just talking about the runs he scored..its how he scored them,and what effect he had on world cricket because of it.
 

ReallyCrazy

Banned
so what if viv richards kept playing for 4-5 years past his prime? Every player goes through a "prime" period and not all of them retire right after it. This doesn't mean that you leave out some stats and figures to suit your need. Overall, Gavaskar was a more effective player for his team than Richards was.

If you can leave out the "un-prime" years of a player when looking at his figures, you will also be justified in leaving out their debut series, saying, "oh he was not experienced enough." You can leave out the series he was going through a lean patch by saying, "oh he did not play as well as he could have." The possibilities are endless. Stop distorting the stats to suit your argument.

PS: I have scored a triple ton :D (number of posts ofcourse)
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
tooextracool said:
what are you on about?we cant look at stats when a player is past his prime,
if i said kapil dev was a useless bowler because he averaged nearly 30 would you agree with me???
No offence but 99% of your posts are absolute garbage.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
so you can see, if averages are that important to you,Richards for the majority of his career was actually quite a bit higher than Gavskars, its just Richards took a bigger slump towards the end, but Richards will never be judged on how well he played in the early 90's, he will always be judged on how well he played in the 70's and early to mid 80's
In 70s and good part of 80s Richards average shoot up really high every time he played against weak bowling attacks like India & England. Here is a list of his after each series 70s and mid 80s (I didn't consider anything after 85/86 coz his avg was going down either way)

Avg. after 1st series (against India) - 50.42
Avg. after 2nd series (against Pak) - 37.00
Avg. after 3rd series (against Aus) - 37.90
Avg. after 4th series (against Ind) - 50.07
Avg. after 5th series (against Eng) - 64.14
Avg. after 6th series (against Pak) - 57.88
Avg. after 7th series (against Aus) - 58.58
Avg. after 8th series (against Eng) - 59.36
Avg. after 9th series (against Pak) - 60.48
Avg. after 10th series (against Eng) - 62.01
Avg. after 11th series (against Aus) - 59.11
Avg. after 12th series (against Ind) - 58.03
Avg. after 13th series (against Ind) - 55.49(India bowling better with Kapil)
Avg. after 14th series (against aus) - 55.41
Avg. after 15th series (against Eng) - 54.55
Avg. after 16th series (against Aus) - 53.64
 

tooextracool

International Coach
ReallyCrazy said:
so what if viv richards kept playing for 4-5 years past his prime? Every player goes through a "prime" period and not all of them retire right after it. This doesn't mean that you leave out some stats and figures to suit your need. Overall, Gavaskar was a more effective player for his team than Richards was.

If you can leave out the "un-prime" years of a player when looking at his figures, you will also be justified in leaving out their debut series, saying, "oh he was not experienced eniugh." You can leave out the series he was going through a lean patch by saying, "oh he did not play as well as he could have." The possibilities are endless. Stop distorting tje stats to suit your argument.
no theres a point in everyones career when they are no longer good enough, we've seen it with donald,gough,kapil dev and many others. they might have been great players for quite sometime but surely the time comes when you're not good enough. its like michael jordan in basketball, in his last stint he was averaging around 10 points per game compared to his usual 38 odd. gough retired as soon as he thought he wasnt good enough while richards didnt...he played on and he only became very ordinary. fact is gavaskar vs richards in their primes and richards was better even the statistics say so and as much as you want to disregard that, thats what matters.
if richards had retired in 87, we wouldnt be having this argument simply because richards averaged higher than everyone else,and had already done enough to put his name as the best of that generation.....what happened after that doesnt matter.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
what are you on about?we cant look at stats when a player is past his prime,
if i said kapil dev was a useless bowler because he averaged nearly 30 would you agree with me???
FYI - Kapils avg was pretty much same throughout his career. His avg. was always in high 20s (read 26+).

PS :- I have never suggested that Viv Richards was a useless batsmen.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Sanz said:
In 70s and good part of 80s Richards average shoot up really high every time he played against weak bowling attacks like India & England. Here is a list of his after each series 70s and mid 80s (I didn't consider anything after 85/86 coz his avg was going down either way)

Avg. after 1st series (against India) - 50.42
Avg. after 2nd series (against Pak) - 37.00
Avg. after 3rd series (against Aus) - 37.90
Avg. after 4th series (against Ind) - 50.07
Avg. after 5th series (against Eng) - 64.14
Avg. after 6th series (against Pak) - 57.88
Avg. after 7th series (against Aus) - 58.58
Avg. after 8th series (against Eng) - 59.36
Avg. after 9th series (against Pak) - 60.48
Avg. after 10th series (against Eng) - 62.01
Avg. after 11th series (against Aus) - 59.11
Avg. after 12th series (against Ind) - 58.03
Avg. after 13th series (against Ind) - 55.49(India bowling better with Kapil)
Avg. after 14th series (against aus) - 55.41
Avg. after 15th series (against Eng) - 54.55
Avg. after 16th series (against Aus) - 53.64
i dont know exactly what you are trying to get at with this...Englands bowling wasnt particularly weak in the mid 70's or indeed in the early 80's (remember Botham was for a time the most successful bowler in the world,and was ranked number one for a period of time according to back dated PWC rankings). Richards also did well vs a very strong Australian attack, and also vs Pakistan with Imran in full flow as well. I beleive Richards also scored big vs the worlds best bowlers in the Packer series' as well.

So what is your point?
 

biased indian

International Coach
this a comparison of their career match by match standing of PWC ratings which show that both of them were great and almost equal and u can figure out aganist whom they played well and bad from :D :D :p

1 433 vs West Indies at Port-of-Spain 27 vs India at Bangalore
2 491 vs West Indies at Georgetown 460 vs India at Delhi
3 539 vs West Indies at Bridgetown 458 vs India at Kolkata
4 617 vs West Indies at Port-of-Spain 457 vs India at Chennai
5 665 vs England at Lord's 450 vs India at Mumbai
6 687 vs England at Manchester 403 vs Pakistan at Lahore
7 675 vs England at The Oval 384 vs Pakistan at Karachi
8 633 vs England at Delhi 344 vs Australia at Brisbane
9 598 vs England at Kolkata 337 vs Australia at Perth
10 607 vs England at Chennai 385 vs Australia at Melbourne
11 629 vs England at Kanpur 396 vs Australia at Sydney
12 627 vs England at Mumbai 485 vs Australia at Adelaide
13 696 vs England at Manchester 585 vs Australia at Melbourne
14 681 vs England at Lord's 670 vs India at Bridgetown
15 636 vs England at Birmingham 714 vs India at Port-of-Spain
16 600 vs West Indies at Bangalore 770 vs India at Port-of-Spain
17 597 vs West Indies at Mumbai 785 vs India at Kingston
18 656 vs New Zealand at Auckland 856 vs England at Nottingham
19 666 vs New Zealand at Christchurch 874 vs England at Manchester
20 660 vs New Zealand at Wellington 882 vs England at Leeds
21 640 vs West Indies at Bridgetown 913 vs England at The Oval
22 692 vs West Indies at Port-of-Spain 926 vs Pakistan at Bridgetown
23 691 vs West Indies at Port-of-Spain 933 vs Pakistan at Port-of-Spain
24 679 vs West Indies at Kingston 926 vs Pakistan at Georgetown
25 692 vs New Zealand at Mumbai 902 vs Pakistan at Port-of-Spain
26 674 vs New Zealand at Kanpur 872 vs Pakistan at Kingston
27 652 vs New Zealand at Chennai 864 vs Australia at Port-of-Spain
28 678 vs England at Delhi 846 vs Australia at Bridgetown
29 646 vs England at Kolkata 812 vs Australia at Brisbane
30 657 vs England at Chennai 849 vs Australia at Melbourne
31 656 vs England at Bangalore 876 vs Australia at Adelaide
32 704 vs England at Mumbai 876 vs England at Nottingham
33 716 vs Australia at Brisbane 898 vs England at Lord's
34 730 vs Australia at Perth 903 vs England at Manchester
35 764 vs Australia at Melbourne 895 vs England at The Oval
36 764 vs Australia at Sydney 890 vs England at Leeds
37 730 vs Australia at Adelaide 893 vs Pakistan at Lahore
38 747 vs Pakistan at Faisalabad 913 vs Pakistan at Faisalabad
39 745 vs Pakistan at Lahore 904 vs Pakistan at Karachi
40 809 vs Pakistan at Karachi 923 vs Pakistan at Multan
41 856 vs West Indies at Mumbai 916 vs England at Port-of-Spain
42 831 vs West Indies at Bangalore 937 vs England at Bridgetown
43 884 vs West Indies at Kolkata 938 vs England at St John's
44 850 vs West Indies at Chennai 936 vs England at Kingston
45 871 vs West Indies at Delhi 908 vs Australia at Melbourne
46 857 vs West Indies at Kanpur 898 vs Australia at Sydney
47 872 vs England at Birmingham 893 vs Australia at Adelaide
48 877 vs England at Lord's 888 vs India at Kingston
49 886 vs England at Leeds 875 vs India at Port-of-Spain
50 915 vs England at The Oval 878 vs India at Georgetown
51 913 vs Australia at Chennai 882 vs India at Bridgetown
52 902 vs Australia at Bangalore 868 vs India at St John's
53 900 vs Australia at Kanpur 852 vs India at Kanpur
54 909 vs Australia at Delhi 832 vs India at Delhi
55 891 vs Australia at Kolkata 799 vs India at Ahmedabad
56 905 vs Australia at Mumbai 795 vs India at Mumbai
57 906 vs Pakistan at Bangalore 777 vs India at Kolkata
58 891 vs Pakistan at Delhi 766 vs India at Chennai
59 881 vs Pakistan at Mumbai 748 vs Australia at Georgetown
60 874 vs Pakistan at Kanpur 759 vs Australia at Port-of-Spain
61 903 vs Pakistan at Chennai 741 vs Australia at Bridgetown
62 891 vs Pakistan at Kolkata 804 vs Australia at St John's
63 887 vs England at Mumbai 783 vs Australia at Kingston
64 858 vs Australia at Sydney 816 vs England at Birmingham
65 823 vs Australia at Adelaide 827 vs England at Lord's
66 824 vs Australia at Melbourne 818 vs England at Leeds
67 795 vs New Zealand at Wellington 796 vs England at Manchester
68 798 vs New Zealand at Christchurch 763 vs England at The Oval
69 773 vs New Zealand at Auckland 747 vs Australia at Perth
70 791 vs England at Mumbai 733 vs Australia at Brisbane
71 840 vs England at Bangalore 712 vs Australia at Adelaide
72 835 vs England at Delhi 747 vs Australia at Melbourne
73 857 vs England at Kolkata 740 vs Australia at Sydney
74 823 vs England at Chennai 771 vs New Zealand at Port-of-Spain
75 821 vs England at Kanpur 769 vs New Zealand at Georgetown
76 813 vs England at Lord's 812 vs New Zealand at Bridgetown
77 792 vs England at Manchester 800 vs New Zealand at Kingston
78 792 vs England at The Oval 790 vs England at Kingston
79 819 vs Sri Lanka at Chennai 783 vs England at Port-of-Spain
80 829 vs Pakistan at Lahore 785 vs England at Bridgetown
81 812 vs Pakistan at Karachi 808 vs England at Port-of-Spain
82 840 vs Pakistan at Faisalabad 836 vs England at St John's
83 832 vs Pakistan at Hyderabad 811 vs Pakistan at Faisalabad
84 815 vs Pakistan at Lahore 825 vs Pakistan at Lahore
85 798 vs Pakistan at Karachi 834 vs Pakistan at Karachi
86 767 vs West Indies at Kingston 823 vs New Zealand at Wellington
87 742 vs West Indies at P-of-Spain 807 vs New Zealand at Auckland
88 787 vs West Indies at Georgetown 787 vs New Zealand at Christchurch
89 754 vs West Indies at Bridgetown 818 vs India at Delhi
90 722 vs West Indies at St John's 812 vs India at Mumbai
91 744 vs Pakistan at Bangalore 809 vs India at Kolkata
92 726 vs Pakistan at Jullundur 793 vs India at Chennai
93 733 vs Pakistan at Nagpur 834 vs Pakistan at Port-of-Spain
94 698 vs West Indies at Kanpur 846 vs Pakistan at Bridgetown
95 713 vs West Indies at Delhi 848 vs England at Nottingham
96 730 vs West Indies at Ahmedabad 838 vs England at Lord's
97 699 vs West Indies at Mumbai 833 vs England at Manchester
98 678 vs West Indies at Kolkata 819 vs England at Leeds
99 752 vs West Indies at Chennai 797 vs England at The Oval
100 744 vs Pakistan at Lahore 806 vs Australia at Brisbane
101 735 vs Pakistan at Faisalabad 826 vs Australia at Perth
102 707 vs England at Mumbai 813 vs Australia at Melbourne
103 695 vs England at Delhi 774 vs Australia at Sydney
104 681 vs England at Kolkata 790 vs Australia at Adelaide
105 651 vs England at Chennai 771 vs India at Georgetown
106 637 vs England at Kanpur 751 vs India at Bridgetown
107 625 vs Sri Lanka at Colombo 723 vs India at Port-of-Spain
108 620 vs Sri Lanka at Colombo 763 vs India at Kingston
109 631 vs Sri Lanka at Kandy 748 vs England at Kingston
110 669 vs Australia at Adelaide 731 vs England at Bridgetown
111 641 vs Australia at Melbourne 713 vs England at St John's
112 670 vs Australia at Sydney 689 vs Australia at Kingston
113 657 vs England at Lord's 686 vs Australia at Georgetown
114 639 vs England at Leeds 670 vs Australia at Port-of-Spain
115 635 vs England at Birmingham 665 vs Australia at Bridgetown
116 633 vs Australia at Chennai 632 vs Australia at St John's
117 619 vs Australia at Delhi 636 vs England at Leeds
118 630 vs Australia at Mumbai 640 vs England at Lord's
119 650 vs Sri Lanka at Kanpur 651 vs England at Nottingham
120 657 vs Sri Lanka at Nagpur 667 vs England at Birmingham
121 642 vs Sri Lanka at Cuttack 657 vs England at The Oval
122 660 vs Pakistan at Chennai
123 630 vs Pakistan at Jaipur
124 638 vs Pakistan at Ahmedabad
125 674 vs Pakistan at Bangalore
 

Swervy

International Captain
tooextracool said:
no theres a point in everyones career when they are no longer good enough, we've seen it with donald,gough,kapil dev and many others. they might have been great players for quite sometime but surely the time comes when you're not good enough. its like michael jordan in basketball, in his last stint he was averaging around 10 points per game compared to his usual 38 odd. gough retired as soon as he thought he wasnt good enough while richards didnt...he played on and he only became very ordinary. fact is gavaskar vs richards in their primes and richards was better even the statistics say so and as much as you want to disregard that, thats what matters.
if richards had retired in 87, we wouldnt be having this argument simply because richards averaged higher than everyone else,and had already done enough to put his name as the best of that generation.....what happened after that doesnt matter.

its a fair point to make...Ricahrds will always be judged on how prolific he was in his hey day, which was from 1975 to around 1985...thats when he fullfilled his potential. the fact that Richards still averaged over 50 whilst played nigh on 50 tests well below his best is a testiment to how good he was.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
tooextracool said:
if richards had retired in 87, we wouldnt be having this argument simply because richards averaged higher than everyone else,and had already done enough to put his name as the best of that generation.....what happened after that doesnt matter.
Even if Richards had averaged more it wouldn't have meant he was any better. As I have said countless times Richards had less pressure on him, did not have to face the West Indies but did poorly against the best attacks available to him (Pakistan and New Zealand). Number 3 batsmen generally average more than openers because they are not exposed to the new ball but Gavaskar still did better against most countries even if you only take his career up to 87, which is basically editing the facts to suit your point like you did with Warne.

We wouldn't be having this argument if Richards had maybe averaged high 50s which he did only for a short time.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
No offence but 99% of your posts are absolute garbage.
and i think you've already proven to everyone that you dont watch cricket....you just look at the stats. since its so easy to make opinions, just by looking at my stats, my maid(who doesnt watch any cricket either) can also decide who the better players are!
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
tooextracool said:
and i think you've already proven to everyone that you dont watch cricket....you just look at the stats. since its so easy to make opinions, just by looking at my stats, my maid(who doesnt watch any cricket either) can also decide who the better players are!
you don't have any idea.
 

Swervy

International Captain
a massive zebra said:
Even if Richards had averaged more it wouldn't have meant he was any better. As I have said countless times Richards had less pressure on him, did not have to face the West Indies but did poorly against the best attacks available to him (Pakistan and New Zealand). Number 3 batsmen generally average more than openers because they are not exposed to the new ball but Gavaskar still did better against most countries even if you only take his career up to 87, which is basically editing the facts to suit your point like you did with Warne.

We wouldn't be having this argument if Richards had maybe averaged high 50s which he did only for a short time.
if you say about 5 or 6 years is a short space of time to be averaging high 50's low 60's
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
However,one must question whether your opinion is clouded somewhat by your support of India (and i dont blame you if it is).
It is you whose opinion is clouded by your support for Australia, you think that Mcgrath is better than Akram (despite the poll in Akram's favor 23-9), You think Warnie is the greatest leg spinner after world war 2 etc etc. It is you who mocks Kapil after I said that he inspired Indians, perhaps It is your hatred or bias against India (which many Aussies have developed after australia failed at the Final frontier)which is stopping you from acknowledging what a Great Batsman Sunny was.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Sanz said:
You think Warnie is the greatest leg spinner after world war 2
Who has been better since the war then? Only Kumble, Chandresekhar, Gupte and Benaud come to mind as outstanding but Warne is better than all of them.
 

biased indian

International Coach
Sanz said:
It is you whose opinion is clouded by your support for Australia, you think that Mcgrath is better than Akram (despite the poll in Akram's favor 23-9), You think Warnie is the greatest leg spinner after world war 2 etc etc. It is you who mocks Kapil after I said that he inspired Indians, perhaps It is your hatred or bias against India (which many Aussies have developed after australia failed at the Final frontier)which is stopping you from acknowledging what a Great Batsman Sunny was.
that was tooooooo good man :cool: :cool:
 

Top