Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[a massive zebra]

Being the hardest to dismiss doesnt make him better

Neither does being the most aggressive. Scoring more runs makes you better. Being harder to dismiss and being more aggressive are virtues that can have a positive effect in different situations, neither is any better than the other.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

more people will remember Richards and his acheivements than they will remember Gavaskars in a hundred years time

I hope you are speaking for yourself

 

[a massive zebra]

I hope you are speaking for yourself

It is true to be fair. There was an article on Cricinfo recently about Gilbert Jessop. There would never be an article on Cricinfo about a more defensive player of 100 years ago like Alec Bannerman. All the same it does not mean he was any better but just made more of an impression because of the way he played.

 

[Tom Halsey]

he was hardly crash hot away from home either 66 tests 215 wickets at almost 33 a wicket with a SR (and for an opening bowler this is pretty poor) of one wicket every 12 overs

Legendary post, mate.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Term derived from a certain unsporting individual (Halsey) packing their team full of them because he couldn't win fair and square.

Grrr.

 

[Sanz]

Being the hardest to dismiss doesnt make him better...on my cricket team we have our wicketkeeper, when he bats he can just defend away for over upon over, when he sets his mind to it, he is impossible to get out....and yet someone else on our team is quite easily a better batsman, scores more runs etc, but his easier to get out. We all know on our team who the better batsman is, and yet when needed we would rely on the blocker to save a game....just the same with the Sunny vs Richards thing.

Well the point here is Sunny scored more runs than Richards at a better average than him and yet managed to earn the reputation of being the hardest to get out...I dont think you have seen much of sunny otherwise you wouldn't have come up with comments like 'blocker' or 'not tested against spin' etc etc.

Gavaskar had a job to do, and that was to open the innings...his prime objective was to occupy the crease.Richards objective was to score runs and to score them quickly...both did their own job brilliantly...but maybe Richards role in the WI team allowed him to flaunt his amazing talents more...but thems the breaks...more people will remember Richards and his acheivements than they will remember Gavaskars in a hundred years time

No matter what position you are in, your main job is to score runs. Being an opener it makes your task all the more diffuclt because you face the best bowling conditions (mostly), new ball all the time and the bowlers fresh as opposed to the middle order where conditions are a lot easier. While occupying the crease Gavaskar scored more runs than anyone more consistently than the most and that's what makes him a better bat than Richards. As for people remembering Gavaskar or Richards well IMO both will be remembered and Sunny more, Richards little less because the future eration would rely more and more on Stats books and Gavaskar beat Richards hands down.

 

[Swervy]

agreed afridi was a bad example but im sure you know what i mean. In a test, it does not matter who was more aggressive. What matters is the runs scored and under what circumstances it was scored. Gavaskar has outperformed Richards consistently. He has scored heavily against the great WI bowlers.

The fact that you tried to take a cheap shot at me shows that you are running out of things to say hehehe but then again i AM really crazy

a cheap shot???? where????

Lets just look at Gavskar vs WI a bit more in depth:

in 1970/71 Gavaskar scored 65,67*,116,64*,1,117*,124,220

I remarkable run granted...but look at the bowling..this wasnot a good WI bowling line up: Sobers (well past his bowling prime),Dowe (WI's supporters once put up a banner with the eleventh commandment Dowe shall not bowl...nuff said),John Shepard (a good first class player,not test standard),Noriega,Boyce(ok, but not exactly Holding),Shillingford (erm...) and Gibbs (a legend)......so a very weak bowling line up truth be told.

Next series in India in 74/75 only played two tests
Scores of 14,0,86,8

Not so successful..his 86 came on an obvious batters delight of a pitch (WI scored 604/6 dec (oddly enough Richards out for 1) and 205/3 dec)...but the bowling attack of the WI's was still not all that good,although the emergance of Andy Roberts was starting.

Next,75/76 in WI (4 tests)
37,1,156,26,102,66,2...a pretty good series..first test Holding and Roberts,Julien,Holford bowling, so a developing opening pair..overall an average attack (WI had just been beaten 5-1 vs Australia)..later on Daniel replaced Roberts, the final test was the famous India chucking in the towel test (probably justified)...so again not the strongest WI bowling attack, but starting to come on...but note that Gavaskars scores arent as good as that first series, getting a bit trickier now the bowling is improved....hey Sunny

Next in India 78/79

Scores:205,73,0,107,182*,4,1,120,40...looks good..then you see this was the Packer weakened WI team with one very decent bowler,Clarke, who struggled to get into the WI normally..this bowling attack was very poor...not worth talking about.

Next 83 in WI

Scores:20,0,1,32,147*,2,19,18,1...nothing of note apart from 147* in the third test..no chance of a result on a batsmans paradise which had two days called off , but fair enough he scored the runs in that game...not anywhere else though..a shocker. Look at the bowling...for the first time, he faces a top class WI attack..holding, Roberts,garner,Marshall,and then occassionally Winston davis and Eldine baptiste, and he does poorly.

Next in India in 83/84

Scores:0,7,121,15,90,1,12,3,0,20,236*...saves his best till last innings,236 coming in at number 4 although the score was 2 down for 0 when he came in..he had struggled on the whole opening in this series vs Marshall etc.

So when you say he destroyed the WI attack, yeah he did, the crap ones, he was a lot less effective vs what we all consider THE WI's attack...see averages dont tell the full story

 

[Swervy]

I hope you are speaking for yourself

nope..I am speaking for those who saw richards play and for those who dont think Indian cricket is the be-all and end all

 

[Swervy]

Well the point here is Sunny scored more runs than Richards at a better average than him and yet managed to earn the reputation of being the hardest to get out...I dont think you have seen much of sunny otherwise you wouldn't have come up with comments like 'blocker' or 'not tested against spin' etc etc.



No matter what position you are in, your main job is to score runs. Being an opener it makes your task all the more diffuclt because you face the best bowling conditions (mostly), new ball all the time and the bowlers fresh as opposed to the middle order where conditions are a lot easier. While occupying the crease Gavaskar scored more runs than anyone more consistently than the most and that's what makes him a better bat than Richards. As for people remembering Gavaskar or Richards well IMO both will be remembered and Sunny more, Richards little less because the future eration would rely more and more on Stats books and Gavaskar beat Richards hands down.

Beats Richards hands down..you are talking tripe..think where Richards had to play half the time compared to where Gavaskar had to play half the time.

oh and I have seen enough of gavaskar playing to be able to make judgements on who was the better player dont worry about that...i finding it laughable that we are even having this conversation to be honest...Richards was so obviously more talented, had a wider range of strokes blah blah blah

 

[Sanz]

nope..I am speaking for those who saw richards play and for those who dont think Indian cricket is the be-all and end all

Well in that case you are not speaking for me

 

[Swervy]

Well in that case you are not speaking for me

dont worry I never thought I was

 

[Sanz]

Beats Richards hands down..you are talking tripe..think where Richards had to play half the time compared to where Gavaskar had to play half the time.

Only person who has been talking tripe in this thread has been you. You claim that sunny was not tested against spin, then you claim that his job was basically to occupy the crease and then when you are not able to backup your claim you come up with 'Stats dont tell you the truth.'

Yeah Right Gavaskar had a job to occupy the crease and Richards had job to throw his wicket at every given opportunity.

 

[Sanz]

oh and I have seen enough of gavaskar playing to be able to make judgements on who was the better player dont worry about that...i finding it laughable that we are even having this conversation to be honest...Richards was so obviously more talented, had a wider range of strokes blah blah blah

What is the point of having the talent if you are not able to perform ? Sunny Gavaskar performed better than Richards almost against every team and almost every where in the world despite having less talent and that makes him even greater.

And no, I dont think you have seen Gavaskar enough, otherwise you wouldn't have claimed that he was non tested against spin bowling. Try watching his 185 at Lords in the MCC Bicentenary TEST. It will tell you why he is the greatest after Sir DON.

 

[Swervy]

Only person who has been talking tripe in this thread has been you. You claim that sunny was not tested against spin, then you claim that his job was basically to occupy the crease and then when you are not able to backup your claim you come up with 'Stats dont tell you the truth.'

Yeah Right Gavaskar had a job to occupy the crease and Richards had job to throw his wicket at every given opportunity.

now this is grade A tripe....

Where did I say gavaskar was not tested against spin...referring to an easlier post, when did i say he was a blocker...

the game is different now to what it was...obviously the opener was there to score runs, but primarily he was to bat as long as possible, thats the way the game was played back then..obviously there were some exceptions, but that was generally how the game was played.

To be honest I dont really need stats to back myself up...MOST (not all) people with a fundamental knowledge of the game who saw Richards bat would probably agree that he has no superior batting wise in test cricket in the last 30 years

 

[Swervy]

What is the point of having the talent if you are not able to perform ? Sunny Gavaskar performed better than Richards almost against every team and almost every where in the world despite having less talent and that makes him even greater.

And no, I dont think you have seen Gavaskar enough, otherwise you wouldn't have claimed that he was non tested against spin bowling. Try watching his 185 at Lords in the MCC Bicentenary TEST. It will tell you why he is the greatest after Sir DON.

erm...yeah great innings vs some great bowlers , some of who were very reluctant to actually put 100% into it...come on now, it was an exhibition match...and again..I never said he was not ever tested vs spin...please stop making things up in your 'brain' to suit your arguement

 

[tooextracool]

Well the point here is Sunny scored more runs than Richards at a better average than him and yet managed to earn the reputation of being the hardest to get out...I dont think you have seen much of sunny otherwise you wouldn't have come up with comments like 'blocker' or 'not tested against spin' etc etc.
No matter what position you are in, your main job is to score runs. Being an opener it makes your task all the more diffuclt because you face the best bowling conditions (mostly), new ball all the time and the bowlers fresh as opposed to the middle order where conditions are a lot easier. While occupying the crease Gavaskar scored more runs than anyone more consistently than the most and that's what makes him a better bat than Richards. As for people remembering Gavaskar or Richards well IMO both will be remembered and Sunny more, Richards little less because the future eration would rely more and more on Stats books and Gavaskar beat Richards hands down.

heres a quote of mine from back in this thread
"for one viv richards played about 3-4 years longer than he should have. towards the end he became a very ordinary player and his average as a result dropped from about 53-54 to the low 50s.at the peak of his career)81-82) in fact he averaged in the low 60s,which in that era that is quite unbelievable. "
for me even the stats show that he was a better player than gavaskar

 

[a massive zebra]

MOST (not all) people with a fundamental knowledge of the game who saw Richards bat would probably agree that he has no superior batting wise in test cricket in the last 30 years

Well they would be wrong if there is not any evidence to back it up, which there isn't.

 

[a massive zebra]

heres a quote of mine from back in this thread
"for one viv richards played about 3-4 years longer than he should have. towards the end he became a very ordinary player and his average as a result dropped from about 53-54 to the low 50s.at the peak of his career)81-82) in fact he averaged in the low 60s,which in that era that is quite unbelievable. "
for me even the stats show that he was a better player than gavaskar

No he should have better fiqures because he didn't have to play Tests against by far the best bowling attack and there was so much less pressure on him, but he only had a better record during his peak. Even if he averaged 53-54 I would still put Gavaskar above him for those reasons and the fact that Gavaskar was an opener which is the hardest position to bat in. His record was only superior to that during his very best period and overall Gavaskar outperformed him against almost every team and over the course of their careers. There is no doubt that Richards was the more talented but its runs that count and Gavaskar was as a matter of fact more consistently reliable.

 

[Sanz]

Where did I say gavaskar was not tested against spin...referring to an easlier post, when did i say he was a blocker...

Here is a quote from your post :-

"Remember that Gavaskar was a great player of fast bowling (he had to be, he was an opener) but he was from what I can remember never noted for his play vs class spin...Richards was a middle order batsman, he had to play well vs quality spin...just something to think about"

You are right you dont need to backup, because you can't, this time you dont even have the stats to rely on.

 

[tooextracool]

Well they would be wrong if there is not any evidence to back it up, which there isn't.

isnt the fact that hes on the wisden 5 evidence enough?