Vivian Richard's last 5 years?

[SaeedAnwar]

How come Viv Richard didn't score any test centuries in the last 5 years of his career?

 

[BoyBrumby]

He actually did.

Last century was in May 1989, finish in August 1991.

 

[Dissector]

Yes he hit four hundreds in 87-89 though none afterwards. He was clearly in decline but not enormously so; he still averaged 40+ in his last five years.

 

[stumpski]

I think he also ended up batting at No. 6, from where it is a little harder to make three figures.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

ok my bad, but he really didn't to well in the last few years

 

[MrIncredible]

He didnt. When ur the sort of player who depends on sharp reflexes as he did (over proper technique) as age catches up to u u lose ur edge hence his downfall.

 

[oitoitoi]

He didnt. When ur the sort of player who depends on sharp reflexes as he did (over proper technique) as age catches up to u u lose ur edge hence his downfall.

AWTA, that's why all the blokes who've scored over 10000 test runs have had immaculate techniques, rather than simply awesome hand eye coordination and reflexes. Gilchrist is a good example, as the reflexes and eyes failed he was pretty much a shadow of the player he was. It's why I don't think Pietersen will quite ever be up there with some of the others, his technique is simply too flawed. Viv was a freak, averaging over 50 batting the way he did, it's just inconceivable how good his eyes and reflexes must have been.

 

[Uppercut]

It's why I don't think Pietersen will quite ever be up there with some of the others, his technique is simply too flawed.

Am interested- what would you say is flawed about KP's technique?

 

[zaremba]

AWTA, that's why all the blokes who've scored over 10000 test runs have had immaculate techniques, rather than simply awesome hand eye coordination and reflexes. Gilchrist is a good example, as the reflexes and eyes failed he was pretty much a shadow of the player he was. It's why I don't think Pietersen will quite ever be up there with some of the others, his technique is simply too flawed. Viv was a freak, averaging over 50 batting the way he did, it's just inconceivable how good his eyes and reflexes must have been.

A weird exception to this was Gooch. He didn't get 10,000 runs but I expect he would have done if he hadn't been banned for going to South Africa. He didn't have what you'd call a flawless technique - "uncomplicated" was the kindest thing you'd say about it - and yet from age 35 until 40 he was at his absolute peak as a batsman.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There are very few flaws in Pietersen's technique. His problem is getting himself out playing premeditated shots like attempting to sweep a short and wide long hop three feet outside off stump.

 

[Uppercut]

Tbh, I think the whole theory's bollocks. Gilchrist didn't get 10000 test runs because he debuted at 28 and batted 7 in a team where he was regularly surplus to requirements. Try telling Sri Lanka his eye had gone when he smacked 150 in the World Cup final in the last year of his career.

It all stinks of confirmation bias to me, Rahul Dravid's batting has seriously fallen apart late in his career, and he's the epitome of technical batting. Could say the same of Mike Hussey, while Sanath Jayasuriya is still taking attacks to pieces at the age of 40.

 

[Uppercut]

There are very few flaws in Pietersen's technique. His problem is getting himself out playing premeditated shots like attempting to sweep a short and wide long hop three feet outside off stump.

Indeed. I was wondering what flaws he was talking about. High backlift maybe? Didn't exactly do Brian Lara any harm though.

 

[oitoitoi]

There are very few flaws in Pietersen's technique. His problem is getting himself out playing premeditated shots like attempting to sweep a short and wide long hop three feet outside off stump.

OK here's what I think is wrong with Pietersen's technique:

- He moves to the front foot too early by stepping forward and planting his front foot, this leads to him playing around his front pad which makes him vulnerable to the swinging ball and quick short pitched bowling. Bopara is similar but his had eye coordination and physical strength can't match Pietersen.
- His off stump awareness is frankly abysmal, his tendency to try and work straight balls to the leg side (through midwicket) makes him vulnerable to full pitched away swinging deliveries, see Jerome Taylor at Jamaica, classic example. For a batsmen who's scored so many runs, he seem's to get bowled out an awful lot, never a good sign.
There's no doubt his ego get him out too, but usually only after he's scored some runs, and that's not really to do with technique.
I think in 4 years or so when the body starts to slow he's going to look a pretty different player.

Zaremba, I think in the last 5 years of Gooch's career he isn't unlike the current Strauss, his technique wasn't perfect but he was very very organised, he knew exactly which shots he was capable of playing to certain deliveries in particular conditions. He had a complete understanding of himself as a batsmen and played within his limitations, not the fun approach to batting but totally sensible and professional. I think Gooch would have got to 10,000 runs had he not gone to South Africa but I believe he would have been the only one to average less than 50, which in itself is quite revealing.

 

[Richard]

Tbh, I think the whole theory's bollocks. Gilchrist didn't get 10000 test runs because he debuted at 28 and batted 7 in a team where he was regularly surplus to requirements. Try telling Sri Lanka his eye had gone when he smacked 150 in the World Cup final in the last year of his career.

It all stinks of confirmation bias to me, Rahul Dravid's batting has seriously fallen apart late in his career, and he's the epitome of technical batting. Could say the same of Mike Hussey, while Sanath Jayasuriya is still taking attacks to pieces at the age of 40.

Less sure about Hussey TBH. Don't debate the wider point you're making, but Hussey hasn't fallen apart, his Test career has just been a continuation of what he'd made a career of pre-Test debut - lengthy bouts of merciless scoring and lengthy bouts of inertia.

As for Viv Richards, most players would struggle to be as good between 37 and 39 as they were earlier, and it's not all that surprising that between 1989 against India and 1991 in England he was merely a reasonable lower-middle-order Test batsman, rather than the one-of-the-best-ever-seen he'd been before.

BTW I see dass\deira\dubai194\Mard\vastu shastra is back.

 

[Uppercut]

He gets onto the front foot early? Not what I'd call a technical flaw. Would you say the same of Ricky Ponting, out of interest?

KP doesn't play across his front pad. He brings the bat down straight and plays to midwicket. Has got out lbw 20 times in 179 international innings. But it's the reference to a vulnerability to short-pitched bowling that I find most puzzling.

 

[Uppercut]

Less sure about Hussey TBH. Don't debate the wider point you're making, but Hussey hasn't fallen apart, his Test career has just been a continuation of what he'd made a career of pre-Test debut - lengthy bouts of merciless scoring and lengthy bouts of inertia.

As for Viv Richards, most players would struggle to be as good between 37 and 39 as they were earlier, and it's not all that surprising that between 1989 against India and 1991 in England he was merely a reasonable lower-middle-order Test batsman, rather than the one-of-the-best-ever-seen he'd been before.

BTW I see dass\deira\dubai194\Mard\vastu shastra is back.

Besides the point though, either way, technique has nothing to do with it.

I think what people forget sometimes is that techniques are never perfect, and they're constantly being tinkered with. KP's method of batting now is working very well for him, but if his eyes were ever to start to go making this method unsuccessful, he would have to adjust accordingly. He's already made countless adjustments to his game- some will have been picked up on, others will have gone completely unnoticed.

How well you adjust and change your game according to changes in how people are bowling at you, how your body (or hand-eye co-ordination) is holding up or how you are getting out is a massive part of how good a test player you are. To say KP will never be a top-class batsman because the technique he uses at the moment won't serve him well when his hand-eye co-ord deserts him is just absurd- firstly because if it doesn't, he'll probably change it, and secondly because his hand-eye co-ord might never leave him. We'll only know at the end of his career how well he coped with aging.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah but look at who made the post and who Pietersen plays for

 

[BoyBrumby]

- His off stump awareness is frankly abysmal, his tendency to try and work straight balls to the leg side (through midwicket) makes him vulnerable to full pitched away swinging deliveries, see Jerome Taylor at Jamaica, classic example. For a batsmen who's scored so many runs, he seem's to get bowled out an awful lot, never a good sign.

Tres bollo.

If Pietersen had a problem knowing where his off stump was he'd be out bowled or LBW a lot more often than he is. He works balls thru leg because he naturally favours the on-side and has very strong wrists.

As it is tho bowled & LBW counts for only 30.1% of his dismissals, which stacks up pretty bloody favourably against the men reputed to have the best techniques of this generation, Tendulkar (37.2%), Kallis (38.8%) & Dravid (33.5%).

 

[Migara]

Am interested- what would you say is flawed about KP's technique?

There is / was a clear deficiency against the incutter, which was exploited by Asif, then by Maharoof. After that I have not seen anyone who's trying it against Pietersen. One reason they may be unable to bowl sharp incutters, or otherwise Pietersen had made the necessary adjustments so it's not useful any more. But love to see the exchange second time around Asif vs Pietersen

 

[marc71178]

How exactly does a bowler who's never dismissed him count as exposing a flaw?