CW50 2nd Edition - No 07

[smash84]

And Pakistan is actually the only Test country I've never been mistaken for being a fan of on CW by a new member. I need to focus more on my pro-Imran, pro-Miandad posting to confuse some poor soul and complete the set, I think.

Really had to laugh out here...well said....

 

[Teja.]

For me personal skill, ability to hit the good ball for four, how good one looks like when he's batting, how one inspires future generations etc. are completely irrelevant while judging greatness and just the capacity churn out runs put in the context of the time matters and at that, Viv is IMO, the third best of his contemporaries by minuscule margins even if he might have been the most skillful or talented of them by a big margin. He would not have made my top 25 if I made one.

I understand though that the way he batted and how easy he made run scoring of pacers bowling at 150 kph look is a very important part of how people rate Viv as a great - and I respect that. Just don't consider a factor of rating.

 

[smash84]

I like how Smali writes 2 lines on his own,and then copy pastes the rest of it from cricinfo

**** off salman. I wrote quite a bit of this myself which you won't find on cricinfo. Especially the quotes needs a bit of searching and sometimes I have to go through videos to get them.

Very well written Smali. What a great batsman and for me probably best after Bradman because he batted higher than Sobers, faced better bowlers than Headley and could dominate more than Sachin.

Thanks kyear2. Have to say that even I admired my own write up of Viv after I had completed it

Great write-up there. Gave me goosebumps. Wish I could have seen him play live.

Thanks Agent

I included a lot of parts on Viv from some of Imran's interviews. I remember one interview where Imran said that he hadn't seen Bradman play but it was difficult for him to imagine anyone being a better batsman than Viv. Lots of praise coming from man who is usually scant with it and the greatest cricketer alive IMO.

 

[Ikki]

@ Teja

I think that's just judging him incorrectly. Viv was the Sehwag of his time; but much more consistent and far less of a flat track bully. His legacy comes from turning the tide at the right time. And he also did it against the best - WSC being a good example. Viv in many ways is like Warne in my eyes - he might not have the best stats, although he has great stats, but his legacy is in terms of clutch performances and the attitude he displayed going about them. In basketball clutch performances are easier identified than cricket. With cricket, it could be any wicket - the best batsman or a couple of troubling tail-enders - but there are certain periods in games I feel that are more important than others. Kallis, for example, might have some impressive stats, but the last thing I'd call him is clutch.

Like I was shocked when someone said Warne wouldn't make it to a top 25, I'd be similarly shocked if Richards didn't make it. Whilst that person is entitled to their opinion, I think they are ignoring a lot of evidence outside of stats to hold that position.

 

[GIMH]

Great post Ikki. Always knew you'd renounce stats and join me on the dark side

 

[smash84]

Very well written Smali. What a great batsman and for me probably best after Bradman because he batted higher than Sobers, faced better bowlers than Headley and could dominate more than Sachin.

if the bowlers who bowled to him are anything to go by then he took dominating to another dimension. Have to say though that he has to be the coolest batsman ever

 

[Teja.]

@ Teja

I think that's just judging him incorrectly. Viv was the Sehwag of his time; but much more consistent and far less of a flat track bully. His legacy comes from turning the tide at the right time. And he also did it against the best - WSC being a good example. Viv in many ways is like Warne in my eyes - he might not have the best stats, although he has great stats, but his legacy is in terms of clutch performances and the attitude he displayed going about them. In basketball clutch performances are easier identified than cricket. With cricket, it could be any wicket - the best batsman or a couple of troubling tail-enders - but there are certain periods in games I feel that are more important than others. Kallis, for example, might have some impressive stats, but the last thing I'd call him is clutch.

Like I was shocked when someone said Warne wouldn't make it to a top 25, I'd be similarly shocked if Richards didn't make it. Whilst that person is entitled to their opinion, I think they are ignoring a lot of evidence outside of stats to hold that position.

At the end of it, You could hardly accuse say, Allan Border(The one batsman I without a doubt rate ahead of Viv from his time) of not being up to it at clutch periods. In fact, he was renowned to shine especially when his team was under pressure. However, rightly or wrongly, the way Border's clutch performances are seen - "Man had such great grit and determination, a true leader" as opposed to Viv's clutch performances - "A true genius, An ability to bat like he does not care at all if wickets are falling on the other side. Ice-blooded" again impacts ratings.

If I were a bowler I'd obviously consider the batsman who can hit me for six over my head for a good length delivery at 77/6 with complete nonchalance as the best batsman I've seen as opposed to someone who'll block the best bowler in my team and then grind out the same runs.

At the end of the day, It is not that I'm assuming a greater knowledge than people who've played test cricket for 100+ tests, that's not the case at all. It's just that my criteria for greatness is massively different from their criteria for greatness itself.

Imran Khan said that his criteria for considering Viv the best bat since Bradman is that he terrorized bowlers like no other.

Say, Mike Atherton considers Sachin to be the best bat after Bradman because of his ability to carry the pressure of a billion hearts each time he bats and Harsha Bhogle believes the same because Sachin has the purest technique in the world.

All these statements are irrelevant to me, not because I'm assuming a higher knowledge and understanding of the game, then Imran or Atherton or Ian Chappell or whoever but rather what I consider for exercises like these is only the ability to churn out runs put in context of the times as opposed to the various subjective considerations each of them has.

If tomorrow, someone who has played a lot of cricket will come out and say "I rate xyz the best because he was the best pure run-scorer of his time across situations" without bringing any qualifications of how pure his technique was, how he was a presence in himself on the field, how he had a smashing cover drive etc. then I will rate the opinion of that individual very highly on the topic but such opinions are exceptionally rare.

 

[The Sean]

For me personal skill, ability to hit the good ball for four, how good one looks like when he's batting, how one inspires future generations etc. are completely irrelevant while judging greatness and just the capacity churn out runs put in the context of the time matters and at that, Viv is IMO, the third best of his contemporaries by minuscule margins even if he might have been the most skillful or talented of them by a big margin. He would not have made my top 25 if I made one.

I understand though that the way he batted and how easy he made run scoring of pacers bowling at 150 kph look is a very important part of how people rate Viv as a great - and I respect that. Just don't consider a factor of rating.

I know you're a Border man, but who is the other - Gavaskar, Chappell or Miandad?

And welcome back BTW.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Also.... Marshall was a champ. But there is no way he could be above Richards.

What rot. Marshall is the Greatest. Typical view of those who rate batsmanship ahead of bowling skill. (c.f. my thread about popularity of Batting being a product of rampant consumerism)

NB: I assume we're not talking about Hamish or James btw.

 

[silentstriker]

Also.... Marshall was a champ. But there is no way he could be above Richards.

I'll take a very good bowler over a great batsman anyday (not that such is the case here).

 

[Burgey]

If Worrell was the catalyst for racial equality in West Indies cricket, I always think of Viv as the black consciousness movement brought to cricket. There was nothing obsequious about any of those guys in that team, but to me Viv was the one whose attitude and dominance basically said "We're here. We are who we are. And the rest of you can get ****ed".

That, and he knocked back a blank cheque to play on the rebel tours in the 80s.

He's the most devastating batsman I've ever seen.

 

[silentstriker]

Have you watched Fire in Babylon? It's about that period - I just watched it on Netflix. The players were talking about how the tour of Australia in the mid 70s was the real catalyst for WI.

 

[Burgey]

Have you watched Fire in Babylon? It's about that period - I just watched it on Netflix. The players were talking about how the tour of Australia in the mid 70s was the real catalyst for WI.

Yeah I watched it on a flight back from England last year. It's brilliant. I commend it to anyone remotely interested in cricket.

It was, they got smashed. Aside from what might have been shouted at them from the crowds, it showed Lloyd that if your best four bowlers are quicks, you pick them. I also recall Michael Holding saying during that tour he basically couldn't believe anyone could play cricket as hard as Australia did.

Well, they gave it back. And in bucket loads.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

There was something I didn't like about Fire in Babylon. I watched it a fair while back now, and can't remember why I didn't like it. Helpful post, eh?

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah I watched it on a flight back from England last year. It's brilliant. I commend it to anyone remotely interested in cricket.

It was, they got smashed. Aside from what might have been shouted at them from the crowds, it showed Lloyd that if your best four bowlers are quicks, you pick them. I also recall Michael Holding saying during that tour he basically couldn't believe anyone could play cricket as hard as Australia did.

Well, they gave it back. And in bucket loads.

Lillee specifically was mentioned and how he played his cricket. Indtournedos next and their goal was to play like him. Which caused India to forfeit.

That and Packers speech in WSC that really lit a fire. After that speech pretty much, they didn't lose a series for 15 years.

 

[Ikki]

@ Teja

Forgive me, but I don't quite catch your point. This is a comparative exercise is it not? Insofar as that is concerned there are 3 things to look at IMO. Your opinion when watching them, others' opinions and the statistics. Personally, I find stats a great tool at comparing players and finding certain truths. I do think, though, especially when I haven't watched the players and their stats are so close, that the opinions of the pros who played with or against or renown pundits matter when they seem to be pretty universal.

I think those opinions add a context that you simply can't get from the scorecard or you can't appreciate even if you watched those old matches now. That is why I rate Lillee the way I do and similarly Richards from that era. Because I can look at the stats and provide ample reason why they're comparable to the best; but the commentary which regards their feats almost universally above the others is a tie-breaker for me.

Yet, I can understand if some other player is your favourite or what have you. I have a hard time believing he doesn't make your top 25. It's just strange to me - maybe I do not appreciate your reasonings.

 

[Burgey]

Lillee specifically was mentioned and how he played his cricket. Indtournedos next and their goal was to play like him. Which caused India to forfeit.

That and Packers speech in WSC that really lit a fire. After that speech pretty much, they didn't lose a series for 15 years.

Haha yeah...

"Gentlemen, QF1 leaves the airport every day. I'm happy to send you off on it" or wtte.

Dennis Waite was a massive influence on that team too.

 

[Jono]

@ Teja

Forgive me, but I don't quite catch your point. This is a comparative exercise is it not? Insofar as that is concerned there are 3 things to look at IMO. Your opinion when watching them, others' opinions and the statistics. Personally, I find stats a great tool at comparing players and finding certain truths. I do think, though, especially when I haven't watched the players and their stats are so close, that the opinions of the pros who played with or against or renown pundits matter when they seem to be pretty universal.

I think those opinions add a context that you simply can't get from the scorecard or you can't appreciate even if you watched those old matches now. That is why I rate Lillee the way I do and similarly Richards from that era. Because I can look at the stats and provide ample reason why they're comparable to the best; but the commentary which regards their feats almost universally above the others is a tie-breaker for me.

Yet, I can understand if some other player is your favourite or what have you. I have a hard time believing he doesn't make your top 25. It's just strange to me - maybe I do not appreciate your reasonings.

Isn't Tendulkar and Lara just like Viv in the way their opponents, contemporaries, experts and general fans talk about them and hold them higher than their competitors?

Teja's views or Viv are not that different to you in the way you treat the above are they?

 

[Ikki]

If I hadn't watched them, I might agree. But having watched them I think they're both a bit overrated. Sachin never dominated like Viv and Lara only did it really notably against Australia; very patchy against the other great bowling sides. They're ATG batsmen for sure but I don't see why people automatically place them ahead of even guys like Hammond or Chappell.

Moreover, I don't think either shared the narrative Viv did in terms of establishing and keeping their country as a force. The documentary "Fire in Babylon" kinda shows how Viv was pretty much a symbol of the ongoings of the time transforming his team and perceptions of his country. A Muhammad Ali of sorts where he sacrificed money for his political principles.

Ability-wise if we called their batting even for the sake of argument; I don't think there is any that he was a much better fielder than them and also a far more notable/successful captain. I think in terms of "greatness" he's just that bit ahead and more special.

FTR, it's not about me disagreeing with x or y being greater than Viv. I find it hard to believe there are 25 players greater than him.

 

[Jono]

If I hadn't watched them, I might agree.

But then isn't that the point?

Had you been born 20 years from now, you would rate Sachin and Lara just like you rate Viv. The contemporary opinion on Sachin and Lara is just as strong as Viv, just with different themes or stories.

So shouldn't you then think, well as I was able to view Sachin and Lara live and reckon they are incorrectly rated higher than their contemporaries or past greats (your opinion), then the same is quite possible for Viv?

Huge disclaimer: I actually think Viv is the best of his generation, and same with Lara and Tendulkar, as I value the contemporary opinion highly as well as believe they have the stats/performances to back it up. But just playing devil's advocate as it seems you aren't applying the reasoning you use when assessing current cricketers with past ones. It is simple logic that if you believe contemporaries overrate Sachin and Lara, they overrate Viv too.