Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Top_Cat]

Fantastic. So by specifically disadvantaging themselves, and doing something they know is likely to reduce their performance, they should be praised.

Brilliant.

No, they didn't deliberately disadvantage themselves. Guys like Viv and Lara were picked and batted by captain/selectors at three and so, given it's a place which is more difficult to bat for many reasons, for their success, these factors should be acknowledged as valid in an accurate assessment of them.

 

[Richard]

But Lara and Richards were both at once premier batsmen, and could if they wished have batted anywhere. Same thing with Tendulkar.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I understand it full well, it's incredibly obvious why batting there is more difficult than batting four, five or six (though also replete with its advantages).

No-one should be commended for doing it, however. Someone should bat wherever they want, if that's three, good, if that's six, good. They should be judged equally, not praised for making life more difficult for themselves.

Let's take another trip to Dr Wizard's Laboratory. There are essentially four middle-order spaces available assuming that there are six specialist batsman in the side which is quite common in this era. One of them has to bat at Number 3 - maybe it's by choice, maybe they've been instructed to bat there. Whether they chose that position or not it is still the most difficult place to bat and anyone making runs in that position is therefore more worthy of praise than some who bats in an "easier" position.

 

[Richard]

As the premier batsman, you will have control of where you bat. Before very long in your career, the likes of a Vivian Richards will have the choice of where he bats. Had he wanted the "easier" position of four or five, he could have had it. He chose not to. He evidently wanted to bat at three. Tendulkar preferred four, and he benefited from it. Well, probably.

A person choosing to bat three is (possibly) disadvantaging himself. If he performs less well than he would have at four or five, it's his fault. He has made life more difficult for himself. If someone feels he could have performed better at a different batting position than the one he occupied, it's as much his duty to get the position he wants as it is to practice and improve his game.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As the premier batsman, you will have control of where you bat. Before very long in your career, the likes of a Vivian Richards will have the choice of where he bats. Had he wanted the "easier" position of four or five, he could have had it. He chose not to. He evidently wanted to bat at three. Tendulkar preferred four, and he benefited from it. Well, probably.

A person choosing to bat three is (possibly) disadvantaging himself. If he performs less well than he would have at four or five, it's his fault. He has made life more difficult for himself. If someone feels he could have performed better at a different batting position than the one he occupied, it's as much his duty to get the position he wants as it is to practice and improve his game.

Good thing you put the laughter smiley in there as people might have thought you were serious.

 

[Goughy]

Do I really want to get involved in this again? Oh well here goes. Ill try and keep it short.

Is Richards the second best batsman of alltime? I dont know, I think such things are difficult to judge. However, he is up there in the discussion and was an amazing player.

- He averaged over 50 when few did
- He reached heights of genius even less did
- He batted 3 as he led from the front.
- He dominated, intimidated and didnt allow captains and bowlers execute their plans
- He was the best player on the best team in the world (for all the Marshalls, Holdings etc Richards was the man)
- More than any other batsman he possessed all the intangibles to give his team an advantage
- He was amongst the fastest to reach every major batting landmark.

Richards record is very good. But for those that dont appreciate the psychology of sport or didnt watch him play cant know how good he was. In many sports, intimidation is as successful as ability. Richards combined the 2. He dominated and was aggressive, never taking a backwards step and kept the swagger and sneer that allowed the WI to dominate for so long.

Players that impose themselves on games and deny the opposition initiative and put them on the back foot are worth their weight in gold. These players not only help themselves, but make those around them better players.

Now you have a player that did that and averaged over 50 with the bat and Holy ****, that is an alltime great.

 

[social]

Now you have a player that did that and averaged over 50 with the bat and Holy ****, that is an alltime great.

Agree with everything you've said.

People who just look at stats or highlight reels whilst ignoring the testimony of those that played in his era will simply never get it.

Furthermore, whilst you'd be a brave man to say that Bradman wasnt the greatest ever, there is no way that Richards at his peak would only have averaged 56 against bodyline. That stuff would've been a personal insult to him and when combined with his peerless play of the short stuff, it would've been a case of "fetch that, mon" over and over again

 

[archie mac]

Furthermore, whilst you'd be a brave man to say that Bradman wasnt the greatest ever, there is no way that Richards at his peak would only have averaged 56 against bodyline. That stuff would've been a personal insult to him and when combined with his peerless play of the short stuff, it would've been a case of "fetch that, mon" over and over again

Dawta

Field placings would have made that hard, it should be remembered that Bradman's favourite shot was the pull/hook

 

[Top_Cat]

Dawta

Field placings would have made that hard, it should be remembered that Bradman's favourite shot was the pull/hook

Some would say 'only'.

Seriously, I have read many times that Bradman played the pull anywhere from fine-leg to mid-on, the late-cut and that was about it, the occasional off-drive notwithstanding.

 

[The Sean]

Some would say 'only'.

Seriously, I have read many times that Bradman played the pull anywhere from fine-leg to mid-on, the late-cut and that was about it, the occasional off-drive notwithstanding.

I've watched many, many hours of Bradman footage over the years and that is quite patently not the case.

 

[social]

Dawta

Field placings would have made that hard, it should be remembered that Bradman's favourite shot was the pull/hook

Bradman pulled the ball rather than hooked as the latter did not afford enough control

He wasnt used to a barrage of short-pitched stuff either (remember isolated bouncers were still being booed in the early 50s)

Richards, on the other hand, was at his peak when short-pitched bowling was at its' most prevalent and simply murdered some of the quickest ever bowlers with hook shots

 

[Richard]

Who are these quickest ever bowlers he murdered then?

 

[Richard]

Do I really want to get involved in this again? Oh well here goes. Ill try and keep it short.

Is Richards the second best batsman of alltime? I dont know, I think such things are difficult to judge. However, he is up there in the discussion and was an amazing player.

- He averaged over 50 when few did
- He reached heights of genius even less did
- He batted 3 as he led from the front.
- He dominated, intimidated and didnt allow captains and bowlers execute their plans
- He was the best player on the best team in the world (for all the Marshalls, Holdings etc Richards was the man)
- More than any other batsman he possessed all the intangibles to give his team an advantage
- He was amongst the fastest to reach every major batting landmark.

Richards record is very good. But for those that dont appreciate the psychology of sport or didnt watch him play cant know how good he was. In many sports, intimidation is as successful as ability. Richards combined the 2. He dominated and was aggressive, never taking a backwards step and kept the swagger and sneer that allowed the WI to dominate for so long.

Players that impose themselves on games and deny the opposition initiative and put them on the back foot are worth their weight in gold. These players not only help themselves, but make those around them better players.

Now you have a player that did that and averaged over 50 with the bat and Holy ****, that is an alltime great.

This is the thing I always question.

Richards, for the overwhelming part of his career, did not average 50. He averaged in the 80s and 90s for 15 then 10 Tests at isolated early stages of his career. But for most of it, he averaged 42.

Only for a brief time was Richards truly a phenomenon. The intimidatory factor, beyond question, it was there throughout. But the performance factor, was not.

 

[Swervy]

This is the thing I always question.

Richards, for the overwhelming part of his career, did not average 50. He averaged in the 80s and 90s for 15 then 10 Tests at isolated early stages of his career. But for most of it, he averaged 42.

Only for a brief time was Richards truly a phenomenon. The intimidatory factor, beyond question, it was there throughout. But the performance factor, was not.

this is just stupid really...^^

you can also say that for the first 10 years of his test career (the first half in terms of tests played) he averaged 55, which back then was phenomenal...or for the first 66 tests of his career he averaged 56...

or that away from WI, he averaged over 53 over his whole career

Richard, you can twist the stats as much as you want. To say he was a player who averaged 42 for most of his career is just plain daft, you can do that type of thing for most players and then come up with the conclusion they were not so great batsmen

 

[Richard]

this is just stupid really...^^

you can also say that for the first 10 years of his test career (the first half in terms of tests played) he averaged 55, which back then was phenomenal...or for the first 66 tests of his career he averaged 56...

or that away from WI, he averaged over 53 over his whole career

Richard, you can twist the stats as much as you want.

Yes, and some of these twists are meaningful, others meaningless. I find different important patterns to those you appear to. Ergo, you have a different opinion of Richards' calibre to what I do.

To say he was a player who averaged 42 for most of his career is just plain daft, you can do that type of thing for most players and then come up with the conclusion they were not so great batsmen

No, you can't actually - as I said earlier this thread, doing a similar thing to Tendulkar makes not-that-much difference.

Richards was a player who lived off those two short periods of sensationalness, which have clouded many judgements and made many people believe a merely very good "greater whole" was 2nd-best-ever material.

 

[archie mac]

Bradman pulled the ball rather than hooked as the latter did not afford enough control

He wasnt used to a barrage of short-pitched stuff either (remember isolated bouncers were still being booed in the early 50s)

Richards, on the other hand, was at his peak when short-pitched bowling was at its' most prevalent and simply murdered some of the quickest ever bowlers with hook shots

I know he could hook with the best of them, but the field placings as allowed during Bodyline would have sorted out even the 'King'

 

[Migara]

What if a Warne or a Murali back then? I am seriously positive that Viv would not have dominated both of them. Having seen how the West Indian greats got strugglingagainst spin of these two (bar Lara and Hooper), I could not think of Viv in a different way.

 

[Matt79]

Either would have been a great battle to watch. You'd think they would often get him, but only after Viv had taken either of them for 20-50 runs. He used aggression to take control of a contest, so you know that at least he wouldn't let them tie him done and dictate to him.

 

[Richard]

Think the way Murali particularly has tended to end-up having the last word often enough and equally often enough ending-up totally outing the most outlandishly aggressive play (Lara was never of that ilk, he was always controlled in every way, bar one occasion in 2003 where he knew he was taking a gamble on inducing panic, and fortunately for him it came-off). See his battles with Pietersen in 2006 for the ultimate example of that, but there are other small-scale ones.

Warne too has more times than I can possibly remember ended-up getting the better of someone who's tried to take to him.

Going the all-out-attack route against spinners of that calibre isn't something that will often work.

 

[Migara]

Either would have been a great battle to watch. You'd think they would often get him, but only after Viv had taken either of them for 20-50 runs. He used aggression to take control of a contest, so you know that at least he wouldn't let them tie him done and dictate to him.

I would think Warne will bowl better to him, because he's amaster of playing games with batsman's confidence. He might get hammered in first few occasions, but day by day he'll tighten up until batsman fails.

Murali is totally different, he as an aura around himself as Viv, about sheer brilliance and meeting fire with fire. Either he'll be in-effective (saying that scoring off him also much difficult than other) or he'll just shell shock him with un-pickable deliveries, live Viv did to other bowlers.

But I admit, Bradman, Viv, Hutton, Hobbs, Sobers and Ponsford against McGrath, Akram, Warne and Murali. I'd pay six months' salary to watch that!