Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by sachin200

Sir Ian Botham: Tendulkar was the greatest player I played against

Questions :-
[Comment From Chris Chris : ]
Apart from your mate viv who was the greatest player you played with and against

Sir Ian Botham:
Tendulkar was the greatest player I played against

I would really be Surprised If Botham ever said that Tendulkar was the greatest he played against. Botham, from what I remember, not only played against Viv but also with him @ Somerset.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Slifer

On a side note y was ur thread closed? I always believe whats good for the goose should be good for the gander. Now the Sachin fans see how it feels to have there hero disparaged. I for one was never about getting into ne debates as to Viv vs SRT. Personally if I had to pick an all time Xii facing an all time attack Viv would be my second or third choise (only after Bradman and maybe G Chappell ) of the batsmen Ive seen.

To be fair that thread being closed helped him as his argument had been found out,so much so that he started making more Untruthful statements about Donald's opinion and Curtly Ambrose's ability,spinners being easy to bash among other things which were also found out.

After which he made a silly post.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Burgey

But you can't ban those threads, really, can you?

Anyway, fwiw, if it's ok to have a thread that says Viv Richards is an over rated test batsman, then it's equally ok to question other players' records, including Tendulkar's.

AFAIC Tendlkar is stand out one of the best batsmen to have played cricket. So is Richards, so is Lara, so is Greg Chappell. I'd have each of them ahead of Ponting, Waugh, Dravid, Miandad, Kallis, Boycott and Gavaskar.

And in saying that I'm not slagging those players one bit. They're great players too. But in my opinion (and that's all it is) the Tendulkars, Laras, Vivs and GCs have a little bit more. It's hard to explain, its almost intangible (especially in the case of Ponting who gets murdered on here). But it's how I see it.

Agreed.. And honestly, even between those 4 (Viv, Greg, Lara and Sachin) I am sure it is almost as close as in what mood you are on the particular day.. There is just as much evidence that one of them is better than the other 3 for each of them... And we have seen it all here in CW.. Does it really matter if one is marginally better than the other.. For me, all 4 are just as likely to do well as the other against any bowling attack in the world and that's that...

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Got_Spin

Let the bias come out I say. Not enough

lol.. AB is awesome.. IN fact, even in all time world XI, if we were picking players based on styles suited for each position, he would WALK in at #5 AFAIC..

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Cevno

To be fair that thread being closed helped him as his argument had been found out,so much so that he started making more Untruthful statements about Donald's opinion and Curtly Ambrose's ability,spinners being easy to bash among other things which were also found out.

After which he made a silly post.

I honestly don't think anything was found out... But that thread was getting hostile from both sides and had a fair few "stretching the facts" posts from both sides and was rightfully closed for that reason...

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

lol.. AB is awesome.. IN fact, even in all time world XI, if we were picking players based on styles suited for each position, he would WALK in at #5 AFAIC..

I love you man..

[robelinda]

Oh AB is just a bloody legend. Just ridiculously talented ( really, he was), and the most hardened batsman of all time IMO. All time champion.

[archie mac]

I wonder how STR would have went without a helmet? I don't remember him being hit in the head too often. As opposed to JL who may well have been killed if he played in the 70s

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Altaican

Slifer, you don't have to justify. Certain posts (or posters) just aren't worth replying to . Their only intention is to lead to a flame-war and get the thread closed. Just surprised though at the amount of slack mods are giving those insecure Sachin fans :O, considering robelinda was warned for something trivial.

Coming back to your post, you are correct on all notes. You just need to look at the Aus-WI series scorecards to see the number of retired hurts (in fall-of-wickets section of the scorecards). Kallicharan himself was one of the victims (had his nose broken by a Lillee bouncer, in the Perth match I think). Lloyd got hit in the face too, as did several other players including Holding. Greenidge admitted later that Thommo's spells were frighteningly quick, and it really did affect his confidence. Windies then got the message that if you have an array of fast bowlers, use them to intimidate and subjugate the opposition.

Hapless Bishen Singh Bedi's men were the first targets of the Windies pacemen. They continously hammered all teams, with the probable exception of Pakistan, at home and away, and this was the reason the laws were changed (every other Board would have readily voted for the change in bouncer law). An astonishing number of batsmen were hit during mid 70s and 80s. Bowlers like Sylvester Clarke, Roberts and Marshall quite openly targeted the batsman's body. They mastered the art of bowling bouncers at a fearsome pace at an uncomfortable height (between chest and chin) forcing batsmen to play at it.

Fantastic post

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by archie mac

I wonder how STR would have went without a helmet?

he would have hooked a lot more. helmets have taken away that shot from the art of batting as a protective as well as a run scoring stroke against fast bowlers on bouncy tracks. he would have done well, averaged around 48, I guess (against richards' 50). Had Richards, OTOH, played in the current batter friendly era, he would also have averaged about 48 (against sachin's 56) simply because he would be bored of less challenging bowlers and thrown his wicket away more easily more often. richards, overrated? i was trying to avoid this thread all these days. can't take it anymore!!!

[Teja.]

Originally Posted by archie mac

I wonder how STR would have went without a helmet? I don't remember him being hit in the head too often. As opposed to JL who may well have been killed if he played in the 70s

IMHO,

What must be kept in mind is that these batsmen' technique revolved around the assumption that they are always wearing a helmet. If they had to grow up playing without helmets, they obviously would have developed a completely different attitude towards the short ball. You just cannot directly take a current player who got hit a few times on the head and say he would have been murdered if he played in the 70s.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Teja.

IMHO,

What must be kept in mind is that these batsmen' technique revolved around the assumption that they are always wearing a helmet. If they had to grow up playing without helmets, they obviously would have developed a completely different attitude towards the short ball. You just cannot directly take a current player who got hit a few times on the head and say he would have been murdered if he played in the 70s.

Yeah it's completely irrelevant when rating a player IMO. A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah it's completely irrelevant when rating a player IMO. A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

How's that any different to different pitches in different eras though? I think you're right but it's invariably said so-and-so wouldn't cope in X or Y era when pitches were worse to bat on.

[robelinda]

Here's another point- even the WI with their 4 man attack didnt bowl lots an lots and lots of bouncers, they werent stupid. They didnt want to kill people, as ruthless as they were they still got a hell of a lot of wickets with good length balls or pitched up balls to batsmen only half forward. Some of the dismissals against aussie batsmen look plain awful, guys desperate for a scoring shot that they flash at anything the slightest bit loose and nick it. Its not like every batsmen was out hooking or fending off their face. Allan Border for instance was hardly ever dismissed off a short ball, Malcolm Marshall in particular got through his defence often enough with good length balls. Its a bit of an internet myth how scary the WI bowlers were, they were awesome but they werent all menace, they were mostly smart bowlers who knew how to work out batsmen and set them up with well targetted short balls, rather that a crazy barrage, though obviously at some point early on they went a bit over the top and laws were introduced to stop the craziness. If the pitch wasnt quick and bouncy, say a typical English pitch, they bowled like a well oiled machine and got nicks etc, rather that a bunch of crazy guys bouncing everyone willy nilly.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Burgey

How's that any different to different pitches in different eras though? I think you're right but it's invariably said so-and-so wouldn't cope in X or Y era when pitches were worse to bat on.

Yeah, but I don't subscribe to that crap either. It's just an extrapolation of my stance on that issue really. Obviously if run-scoring is easier as a whole in your era then you'll be expected to score more than those in other eras to be rated the same, as averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 30 is more impressive than averaging 40 when everyone else is averaging 45. However, I reckon it's a load of crap when people try to pick apart players' techniques and guess how they'd go in other eras based on that (for example, saying Kallis > Sehwag because Kallis would've scored more in the 80s even though Sehwag scores more now while they're playing under largely the same conditions). Sehwag's job isn't to look like he'd score runs in other eras; it's to score runs in the conditions he's presented with. Same goes for all players.