What made Viv Richards special?

[centurymaker]

I think it was his presence that separated him from the rest. He would instill fear into the opposition bowlers through intimidation. When a bowler would try to intimidate him with a bouncer or hit him on his head, he'd act as if nothing had happened and then hook the next ball for a six!! "take that B****"

I doubt there's been any other batsman who's ever been able to do that. More importantly, he batted for his team, never for himself. All batsmen all selfish to varying degrees but this guy was a selfless champion. He would go out there and try to score quickly in order to give his fellow bowlers as much time as possible to bowl out the opposition and in the process would often lose his wicket for a quick-fire low score.
Hence, his stats tell you little as to how good he actually was.

IMO He's either the 2nd best or the 3rd best batsman ever!!!

He's my dad's favourite player

 

[Ikki]

agree that with Sehwag you always have the feeling that a tight line will keep him quite somewhat

TBH, that's why I'd consider Gilchrist instead of Sehwag when comparing to Richards, in terms of the effect on bowlers. Whilst Sehwag also scores at a frenetic pace, you always felt he was going to give you a chance.

Gilchrist on the other hand was one of the cleanest hitters of the ball - Benaud says cleanest ever, IIRC. It helped cause that feeling that he was indomitable when he got going.

 

[smash84]

agree with some of that......I remember when Wasim was asked if there is some batsman whom you fear bowling to and Wasim replied "I don't get awed by any batsman but if Adam Gilchrist can get going he can really take you apart." Something to this effect

Although I wouldn't go on to say that Gilchrist was a better batsman than Sehwag

 

[silentstriker]

TBH, that's why I'd consider Gilchrist instead of Sehwag when comparing to Richards, in terms of the effect on bowlers. Whilst Sehwag also scores at a frenetic pace, you always felt he was going to give you a chance.

Gilchrist on the other hand was one of the cleanest hitters of the ball - Benaud says cleanest ever, IIRC. It helped cause that feeling that he was indomitable when he got going.

Disagree. Sehwag opens and also lately has been scoring at over 10 s/r faster than Gilchrist. That's pretty deadly to have someone who can score triple centuries at run a ball and take the game away in the first session.

Not comparing the two as players mind you (Gilly would easily make my all time XI), but purely as impact on bowlers type statement. If Gilly opened in Tests, that might be a more worthwhile comparison. And that's what made Hayden so deadly - having someone like that first up is very crucial.

 

[Ikki]

You've missed my point, I feel. I am not talking about their effect in terms of runs scored/balls faced but in how the bowlers perceived them. Sehwag tends to have many risky slashes whereas Gilchrist generally hit them firm and clean.

Although I wouldn't go on to say that Gilchrist was a better batsman than Sehwag

Actually, I would when you look at their overall record. Gilchrist's average is inferior but his record is much more complete than Sehwag's.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5390.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

One thing that gets under-appreciated about Gilchrist is that even with his gung-ho style he was pretty consistent, except against India. As high as I rate Sehwag (I think he is one of the truly talented/great players of any era) his record is very patchy around the world.

 

[silentstriker]

I did not claim that Sehwag is a better player.....in fact I specifically said the opposite.

 

[smash84]

I did not claim that Sehwag is a better player.....in fact I specifically said the opposite.

He wasn't answering you

 

[Bouncer]

He was greatest because the ONLY time while growing up and playing cricket with my elder brother i was allowed to be Imran Khan in our backyard/rooftop cricket matches,it happened when when Viv toured Pakistan and my bro get to be Viv...with chewing gum, chest puffed out and with whole swagger..


But I dont need any other reason to rate him the greatest...Viv the only cricketer who made Imran look the second greatest......I was still happy to be Imran!

 

[smash84]

He was greatest because the ONLY time while growing up and playing cricket with my elder brother i was allowed to be Imran Khan in our backyard/rooftop cricket matches,it happened when when Viv toured Pakistan and my bro get to be Viv...with chewing gum, chest puffed out and with whole swagger..


But I dont need any other reason to rate him the greatest...Viv the only cricketer who made Imran look the second greatest......I was still happy to be Imran!

haha......rooftop matches in Pakistan. Man I miss the good old days. Playing gully cricket in Pakistan and rooftop cricket with cousins and friends

 

[abmk]

I think it was his presence that separated him from the rest. He would instill fear into the opposition bowlers through intimidation. When a bowler would try to intimidate him with a bouncer or hit him on his head, he'd act as if nothing had happened and then hook the next ball for a six!! "take that B****"

I doubt there's been any other batsman who's ever been able to do that. More importantly, he batted for his team, never for himself. All batsmen all selfish to varying degrees but this guy was a selfless champion. He would go out there and try to score quickly in order to give his fellow bowlers as much time as possible to bowl out the opposition and in the process would often lose his wicket for a quick-fire low score.
Hence, his stats tell you little as to how good he actually was.

IMO He's either the 2nd best or the 3rd best batsman ever!!!

He's my dad's favourite player

This may sound blasphemous, but if he were really that selfless, he'd probably have tried to have modified his batting style later on his career as his reflexes started declining - tried to knuckle down and play more cautiously. ( Not that he didn't do this at times, but the occasions were quite less )

IMHO Viv, unlike the likes of Sehwag and Gilly had a very good technique and he was capable of that IMO. Just that he chose to continue playing his natural game.

'Selflessness' is not just about scoring quickly to give the bowlers more time, but also knuckling down, swallowing pride if necessary !

I don't look at Viv's approach as selfish/selfless, but rather that he liked to play his natural game most of the times

 

[honestbharani]

This may sound blasphemous, but if he were really that selfless, he'd probably have tried to have modified his batting style later on his career as his reflexes started declining - tried to knuckle down and play more cautiously. ( Not that he didn't do this at times, but the occasions were quite less )

IMHO Viv, unlike the likes of Sehwag and Gilly had a very good technique and he was capable of that IMO. Just that he chose to continue playing his natural game.

'Selflessness' is not just about scoring quickly to give the bowlers more time, but also knuckling down, swallowing pride if necessary !

I don't look at Viv's approach as selfish/selfless, but rather that he liked to play his natural game most of the times

Well, given how well it worked for the most part of his career, you can't blame him for trying that approach.

 

[weldone]

This may sound blasphemous, but if he were really that selfless, he'd probably have tried to have modified his batting style later on his career as his reflexes started declining - tried to knuckle down and play more cautiously. ( Not that he didn't do this at times, but the occasions were quite less )

IMHO Viv, unlike the likes of Sehwag and Gilly had a very good technique and he was capable of that IMO. Just that he chose to continue playing his natural game.

'Selflessness' is not just about scoring quickly to give the bowlers more time, but also knuckling down, swallowing pride if necessary !

Good post.

More than playing for the team, I would say that he played to entertain the crowds. Yes, his playing style helped his team because they were such a good team that more often than not they were playing to win rather than to save. But yeah, when you look at his last few years in International cricket, you can't help thinking that he didn't change his game because that would hurt his super-ego. He was a proud man, and a super entertainer. I would say that he played as much for his team as did Miandad and Gavaskar (in test matches).

 

[bagapath]

i can reel off at least six test matches where his style of batsmanship produced wins out of nothing for his team. but i cant think of any game in which his dismissal resulted in his team sliding to a defeat. the WC final in 1983 is a good example in ODI cricket where viv's arrogance proved to be too costly for his team. but i dont know if such a thing ever happened in test matches at all.

 

[honestbharani]

i can reel off at least six test matches where his style of batsmanship produced wins out of nothing for his team. but i cant think of any game in which his dismissal resulted in his team sliding to a defeat. the WC final in 1983 is a good example in ODI cricket where viv's arrogance proved to be too costly for his team. but i dont know if such a thing ever happened in test matches at all.

Even that game, had Dujon and Roberts managed to pull it off, it would have looked like his innings eased the pressure for them to play slowly and knock off the runs. As others have said, it takes more than just one silly shot to lose a game. It maybe a critical moment but any team will surely have other chances.

 

[bagapath]

yeah, i agree. it is silly to call him a selfish cricketer just because he was aggressive. on the other hand i found dour batsmen like boycott and kallis more selfish than the richardses and gilchrists.

 

[Sanz]

i can reel off at least six test matches where his style of batsmanship produced wins out of nothing for his team. but i cant think of any game in which his dismissal resulted in his team sliding to a defeat. the WC final in 1983 is a good example in ODI cricket where viv's arrogance proved to be too costly for his team. but i dont know if such a thing ever happened in test matches at all.

That was a freak dismissal. Richards was unlucky that Kapil was there to take it.

Sir Viv talks about Kapil's memorable catch, Videos: Cricketnext
BRILLIANT CAPTAIN KAPIL DEV - YouTube

 

[abmk]

i can reel off at least six test matches where his style of batsmanship produced wins out of nothing for his team. but i cant think of any game in which his dismissal resulted in his team sliding to a defeat. the WC final in 1983 is a good example in ODI cricket where viv's arrogance proved to be too costly for his team. but i dont know if such a thing ever happened in test matches at all.

1) Sydney 89

Again carelessness had much to do with their downfall, especially in the case of Hooper and Richards, both caught at deep mid-off trying to loft Hohns for six.

Wisden - AUSTRALIA v WEST INDIES 1988-89



2) Sydney 76

Australia gained a lead of 50 runs and on the third evening the West Indies lost the wickets of Fredericks, Kallicharran, who had opened in place of the injured Julien, and Richards, all to wild and unnecessary hooks.They ended the day at 33 for three and their lack of responsibility at times of crisis was never better illustrated.

Wisden - Australia v West Indies



3) Christchurch 87

When Haynes was out to the sixth ball and Greenidge to the seventh next morning, all fight seemed to leave the West Indians and they batted with carefree abandon as wickets fell at regular intervals. Richards epitomised his team's approach. Coming in at 80 for three after Hadlee had claimed his 350th Test wicket by having Richardson caught off a miscued hook, he took five fours off the first seven balls he received from Hadlee and was then caught behind, cutting at a ball too close to him, the first of Snedden's five wickets.

Wisden - NEW ZEALAND v WEST INDIES 1986-87



4) Headingly 91


as West Indies crumbled under pressure. Richards sacrificed his wicket with a wild stroke against Watkin,

Wisden - ENGLAND v WEST INDIES 1991



5) Oval 91

It has to be said, though, that a rash of reckless strokes contributed to this collapse, which began when Lambert miscued Tufnell's first ball of the day to cover. Marshall cut to slip, Richards, Ambrose and Walsh gave their wickets away in one over


Wisden - ENGLAND v WEST INDIES 1991

 

[abmk]

Good post.

More than playing for the team, I would say that he played to entertain the crowds. Yes, his playing style helped his team because they were such a good team that more often than not they were playing to win rather than to save. But yeah, when you look at his last few years in International cricket, you can't help thinking that he didn't change his game because that would hurt his super-ego. He was a proud man, and a super entertainer. I would say that he played as much for his team as did Miandad and Gavaskar (in test matches).

agreed. He liked to dominate and entertain the crowd.

 

[honestbharani]

1) Sydney 89

Again carelessness had much to do with their downfall, especially in the case of Hooper and Richards, both caught at deep mid-off trying to loft Hohns for six.

Wisden - AUSTRALIA v WEST INDIES 1988-89



2) Sydney 76

Australia gained a lead of 50 runs and on the third evening the West Indies lost the wickets of Fredericks, Kallicharran, who had opened in place of the injured Julien, and Richards, all to wild and unnecessary hooks.They ended the day at 33 for three and their lack of responsibility at times of crisis was never better illustrated.

Wisden - Australia v West Indies



3) Christchurch 87

When Haynes was out to the sixth ball and Greenidge to the seventh next morning, all fight seemed to leave the West Indians and they batted with carefree abandon as wickets fell at regular intervals. Richards epitomised his team's approach. Coming in at 80 for three after Hadlee had claimed his 350th Test wicket by having Richardson caught off a miscued hook, he took five fours off the first seven balls he received from Hadlee and was then caught behind, cutting at a ball too close to him, the first of Snedden's five wickets.

Wisden - NEW ZEALAND v WEST INDIES 1986-87



4) Headingly 91


as West Indies crumbled under pressure. Richards sacrificed his wicket with a wild stroke against Watkin,

Wisden - ENGLAND v WEST INDIES 1991



5) Oval 91

It has to be said, though, that a rash of reckless strokes contributed to this collapse, which began when Lambert miscued Tufnell's first ball of the day to cover. Marshall cut to slip, Richards, Ambrose and Walsh gave their wickets away in one over


Wisden - ENGLAND v WEST INDIES 1991

He may have had soft dismissals but really really stupid to suggest he was the reason they lost the games. Just so so silly.

 

[robelinda]

Indeed.