What made Viv Richards special?

[abmk]

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.

^^

Who said it was selfish ?

Read what I wrote again:

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

As far as the second part is concerned, precisely what I meant to address with my post, especially the bolded part

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

This is not to say Kallis/Boycott were less selfish than Richards/Giclhrist, hell no. They were certainly more 'selfish'

Just that slow scoring batsmen are not necessarily selfish, and aggressive batsmen not necessarily selfless

 

[abmk]

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

It wasn't the sole reason, hell no. But just a part of it. How big ? Well that depends ...

Bagapath just asked me to list some matches where Viv's aggressive ( at times too much ) approach was counter-productive for his team and I did.

Not at any moment did I suggest his dismissal was the sole reason because cricket is a team game .....

 

[abmk]

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

you could argue that. But surely he realized his reflexes were declining in that time period after 87 ? He went on a decline for almost 4 years. A slight change in approach would probably have helped , yes ?

 

[adub]

you could argue that. But surely he realized his reflexes were declining in that time period after 87 ? He went on a decline for almost 4 years. A slight change in approach would probably have helped , yes ?

Yeah but then he wouldn't have been Viv. As noted he studied the great boxers and how they projected themselves. He was Viv just like Ali was Ali, or Leonard was Sugar Ray. It wasn't an act, it was ingrained. Viv was Viv and Viv don't do Boycott maan.

 

[bagapath]

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

really appreciate the effort you have put in to answer my question, mate. thank you. enjoyed reading those match reports and going through the scorecards.

 

[abmk]

really appreciate the effort you have put in to answer my question, mate. thank you. enjoyed reading those match reports and going through the scorecards.

Welcome

They do have similar match reports for almost every test match in the past @ cricinfo as well.

 

[abmk]

Yeah but then he wouldn't have been Viv. As noted he studied the great boxers and how they projected themselves. He was Viv just like Ali was Ali, or Leonard was Sugar Ray. It wasn't an act, it was ingrained. Viv was Viv and Viv don't do Boycott maan.

I am not saying he needed to be Boycott, no. But he could have a been a bit more judicious with his shot selection, when his reflexes started declining ....

 

[weldone]

Nobody on this thread has called Richards a selfish cricketer - arrogant maybe, but not selfish. He definitely played for the team, just like Miandad and Gavaskar and Border and Chappell (in test matches). But anyone suggesting that he made some personal sacrifices specifically with the team in mind that the above-mentioned greats didn't doesn't have any idea what they are talking about. Again, I ashould clarify that I'm restricting this discussion to test matches alone.

Richards' style of play definitely helped his team more often than not (in fact, it would help any dominant team). But saying that the only reason he played the way he did was the team will be like saying the same for Sehwag. Sehwag plays the aggressive game because he would have an average of 29.22 if he didn't. Richards' case is slightly different. He could well play the defensive game if he wanted to. But he didn't want to play that kind of a game, never. Because he was the Mohammad Ali of batting.

 

[Sanz]

. Richards' case is slightly different. He could well play the defensive game if he wanted to. But he didn't want to play that kind of a game, never. Because he was the Mohammad Ali of batting.

But why would he play the defensive game when he could score more runs by playing natural game ? I am not sure if people are just trying to pick negatives out of his game for the sake of it or just trying to pick holes in his batting and since they can't find anything they are just making up stories. How do you know if Richards did not want to play the defensive games ?

 

[Sanz]

I am not saying he needed to be Boycott, no. But he could have a been a bit more judicious with his shot selection, when his reflexes started declining ....

So you pick out some of his dismissals and try to prove that he was careless ?

 

[robelinda]

Viv was defensive when he needed to be, its a myth he was attacking ALL the time. I'll dig up some innings, and videos.

 

[weldone]

But why would he play the defensive game when he could score more runs by playing natural game ? I am not sure if people are just trying to pick negatives out of his game for the sake of it or just trying to pick holes in his batting and since they can't find anything they are just making up stories. How do you know if Richards did not want to play the defensive games ?

During his last 3 years of test cricket, he played 19 tests, made 978 runs @ 36.22 - which is rather poor by his standards. Presumably this was mainly due to reduced reflexes (no proof, sorry). Maybe he didn't have a way of overcoming his reduced reflexes by tweaking his game a bit. I personally won't be so dismissive of his abilities, I think he could change his game to be of more help to his team if he wanted to (again no proof, sorry).

In essence, what I am saying is that he had the talent to do better than he did, overall. If that seems like a way to make stories to belittle him then I am sorry. But it came across to me that he had the ability to score more runs than he did. Again no proof, maybe he didn't have as much ability as I am thinking. Maybe it's all stories.

 

[adub]

I am not saying he needed to be Boycott, no. But he could have a been a bit more judicious with his shot selection, when his reflexes started declining ....

You might see it as just a bit more judicious, King Viv would have seen it as surrender. He was the champ, to be the champ you gotta BE the champ. Viv ALWAYS was the CHAMP. ALWAYS. No retreat, no surrender, attack at all times. It made him vulnerable sometimes, but it was also what made him great. His thought process was always so simple - this ****ing clown bowling is going to the fence. Didn't matter if it was Lillee or some some part time county trundler. The intent was to smash him out of the park. He couldn't have done what he did when he was at his best if he was worrying about if that approach was the best to take today. By not having the slightest doubt he made it work when lesser mortals would have scratched around trying to survive and got an ugly 30. It didn't always come off, but he would have been sooo much less if he didn't believe, not even believe - be utterly completely convinced, that it was the ONLY way. So so great.

 

[weldone]

You might see it as just a bit more judicious, King Viv would have seen it as surrender. He was the champ, to be the champ you gotta BE the champ. Viv ALWAYS was the CHAMP. ALWAYS. No retreat, no surrender, attack at all times. It made him vulnerable sometimes, but it was also what made him great. His thought process was always so simple - this ****ing clown bowling is going to the fence. Didn't matter if it was Lillee or some some part time county trundler. The intent was to smash him out of the park.

This is excatly what I was saying.

 

[Sanz]

During his last 3 years of test cricket, he played 19 tests, made 978 runs @ 36.22 - which is rather poor by his standards. Presumably this was mainly due to reduced reflexes (no proof, sorry). Maybe he didn't have a way of overcoming his reduced reflexes by tweaking his game a bit. I personally won't be so dismissive of his abilities, I think he could change his game to be of more help to his team if he wanted to (again no proof, sorry).

Or it is also possible that in his mind he thought he could still play those shots but his body just couldn't play along. For most of his Test career Viv's SR was around 75 but during the period you quoted above his SR was 57.59 well below his career SR which suggests that He did curb a lot of his strokes,he did try to slow down. He was 39 at the time of his retirement about 37 at the beginning of the period you picked. Are you really serious about your argument that he did not try to change his game ?

 

[weldone]

Or it is also possible that in his mind he thought he could still play those shots but his body just couldn't play along. For most of his Test career Viv's SR was around 75 but during the period you quoted above his SR was 57.59 well below his career SR which suggests that He did curb a lot of his strokes,he did try to slow down. He was 39 at the time of his retirement about 37 at the beginning of the period you picked. Are you really serious about your argument that he did not try to change his game ?

Yes, I am serious. Strike rates will not tell you the whole story. His strike rate for the period was 57.59 not because he wanted it that way. Rather he played like he did when his strike rate was around 75, but he would mistime/miss some of the strokes thereby declining his strike rate. There is a thin difference between changing your game in order to strike lower, and not changing your game yet not being able to strike as high because of reduced reflexes etc. Viv's case was the second, anyone who has seen him play in those last years will say so (and I hope you, too).

When you bring up the age I must clarify that is quite common for players of that age to lose their touch. So nothing against Viv there.

Remember the whole point was brought up when someone claimed that Viv was more selfless than the other greats of the game. I only said that it's not a matter of being selfish/selfless. The main reason Viv did strike that high was because that was his natural game, he liked to intimidate the bowlers and please the crowds. This has been elaborated by poster 'adub' just a few posts earlier in a much better way than I could.

 

[weldone]

Viv was defensive when he needed to be, its a myth he was attacking ALL the time.

'wanted', not 'needed'

 

[Ikki]

With all due respect, though; striking at 75 to 58 is a huge drop. It is clearly a change in batting.

I wonder where Sanz got those stats though. IIRC Viv had a career SR of 67 but not sure on how that was split.

 

[weldone]

With all due respect, though; striking at 75 to 58 is a huge drop. It is clearly a change in batting.

Virender Sehwag had a strike rate of 67 in the recently concluded South Africa and England tours combined. So, should we take that he changed his natural game deliberately to strike much lower than his overall SR? If you have seen his batting in those two series, you would know the answer.

 

[Ikki]

Virender Sehwag had a strike rate of 67 in the recently concluded South Africa and England tours combined. So, should we take that he changed his natural game deliberately to strike much lower than his overall SR? If you have seen his batting in those two series, you would know the answer.

We're talking about the last 3 years of Viv's career; not 1-2 series.

Also, Sehwag struck at 70 against SA and 55 against England. Having seen the series I'd say his drop in SR was because he could barely get started (scores of 0,0,8,33).