Is Viv Richards an Overrated Test Batsman?

[CricAddict]

Still a level below other test class teams. I wouldn't count them.

No. They were not. As indicated earlier, they won tests against India and Pakistan and also drew a lot of tests. If you don't want to count that team, you should not be counting the current Srilanka or West Indies team too in your stats.

 

[CricAddict]

If you say the same about Bangladesh, I agree. The test status given to them was a bit premature and they were not test class at all at that point of time. Current new test teams, Ireland and Afghanistan, would have beaten them easily.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean 90s Zim were clearly the worst side of the test nations, but they were still competitive. There is a spot between being BD in 00s level of bad and what they were but again, they were clearly the worst of the test sides, esp. in tests.

My point basically is, yes, you can have an asterisk about performances against Zim in the 96-99 period but it can't be the same asterisk as the one you put against the BD/Zim of 00s or Zim of 92-96.

 

[CricAddict]

I mean 90s Zim were clearly the worst side of the test nations, but they were still competitive. There is a spot between being BD in 00s level of bad and what they were but again, they were clearly the worst of the test sides, esp. in tests.

My point basically is, yes, you can have an asterisk about performances against Zim in the 96-99 period but it can't be the same asterisk as the one you put against the BD/Zim of 00s or Zim of 92-96.

Yes, and my point is, we have always had test nations at the level of Zim 96-99 throughout test history, be it India initially, Srilanka later and then Zim-BD-Afg-Ireland and England throughout the 100+ years. So, it gets very complicated if we start dwelling into the stats that way.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean 90s Zim were clearly the worst side of the test nations, but they were still competitive. There is a spot between being BD in 00s level of bad and what they were but again, they were clearly the worst of the test sides, esp. in tests.

My point basically is, yes, you can have an asterisk about performances against Zim in the 96-99 period but it can't be the same asterisk as the one you put against the BD/Zim of 00s or Zim of 92-96.

I can concede on the 90s Zimbabwe. 2001 onwards we agree shouldn't be counted.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, and my point is, we have always had test nations at the level of Zim 96-99 throughout test history, be it India initially, Srilanka later and then Zim-BD-Afg-Ireland and England throughout the 100+ years. So, it gets very complicated if we start dwelling into the stats that way.

Not really, if you wanna bundle those nations under the same category. But I guess we are basically agreeing with each other.

The real shame is that glory generation did not continue for Zim.

Streak, Blignaut, Olonga, Strangs, Whittalls, Flowers, Johnson, Goodwin was a good side who would have been competitive everywhere. Perhaps more in ODIs than Tests but really competitive any which way you look at it.

 

[CricAddict]

Not really, if you wanna bundle those nations under the same category. But I guess we are basically agreeing with each other.

The real shame is that glory generation did not continue for Zim.

Streak, Blignaut, Olonga, Strangs, Whittalls, Flowers, Johnson, Goodwin was a good side who would have been competitive everywhere. Perhaps more in ODIs than Tests but really competitive any which way you look at it.

They do. Zimbabwe team of 96-99 has a better record than India in 40s and Srilanka in 80s. But like you said, we are both agreeing on the same broader point

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Click on something about Viv Richards hoping to discuss the Master Blaster, but just see posts about the Zimbabwean team of the late 90s.

Just another CW thread that goes off a tangent I guess.

 

[CricAddict]

Click on something about Viv Richards hoping to discuss the Master Blaster, but just see posts about the Zimbabwean team of the late 90s.

Just another CW thread that goes off a tangent I guess.

Became Viv vs Sachin, then Sachin vs Lara and then Lara fan boys started removing Zimbabwe stats to big him up post which it was all about Zimbabwe.

That's the storyline for you ?

 

[honestbharani]

then Lara fan boys started removing Zimbabwe stats to big him up post which it was all about Zimbabwe.

Spoken like a true fb Sachin fanboi... I am pretty sure slifer asked an innocent question.


That's the reality for you.

 

[Coronis]

Just another CW thread that goes off a tangent I guess.

Literally every thread we have here.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's Page 28, there's only so much you can say about Viv.

 

[CricAddict]

Spoken like a true fb Sachin fanboi... I am pretty sure slifer asked an innocent question.


That's the reality for you.

Yes, you can also justify your stand that way

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Became Viv vs Sachin, then Sachin vs Lara and then Lara fan boys started removing Zimbabwe stats to big him up post which it was all about Zimbabwe.

That's the storyline for you ?

Thanks. That saved me a lot of time from reading the thread.

 

[mr_mister]

He's overrated but still an ATG. Just not the second best after Bradman some people hold him up as

 

[Coronis]

He's overrated but still an ATG. Just not the second best after Bradman some people hold him up as

Careful, people get mad when you say this.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah he's the second best after Bradman . But is overrated because he's a batsman. All batsmen are overrated.

 

[Godard]

Bradman
Sachin
Viv
Hobbs/Smith
Sobers

Thats my ranking. Smith to be number 2 probably by the end of his career. Always feel sometimes(only on CW tho) Sobers gets overrated as a bat(to being 2nd best after Bradman as a bat) due to his peak of averaging 71 for a decade or, and Viv to the same extent underrated. Yes it is true that Sobers never faced a late career slump like Viv, had also had a great short term peak, while having a way better longer term peak than Viv. But while the long term peak was better than Viv’s it still gets slightly overrated since Sobers matches were spread out widely over the years(he may have averaged 60 or more for the same number of years as Sachin, but for one third the number of matches), and Viv’s short term peak statistically was even better, and even crazier considering the era he batted in, the bowlers he faced and most of those runs in his peak were scored on away pitches. Sober’s era was clearly better to bat in than Viv’s especially, but also than Hobbs, the first half(or more) of Sachin’s career, the second half of Smith’s career. Plus Viv scored much faster than Sobers, and Sobers did a lot of minnow bashing. I also find Viv’s home/away record more complete(due to Sobers sucking in NZ and barely playing in Pak). Viv’s psychological dominance over the bowlers is another fact in his favour as well.

 

[Godard]

Bradman
Sachin
Viv
Hobbs/Smith
Sobers

Thats my ranking. Smith to be number 2 probably by the end of his career. Always feel sometimes(only on CW tho) Sobers gets overrated as a bat(to being 2nd best after Bradman as a bat) due to his peak of averaging 71 for a decade or, and Viv to the same extent underrated. Yes it is true that Sobers never faced a late career slump like Viv, had also had a great short term peak, while having a way better longer term peak than Viv. But while the long term peak was better than Viv’s it still gets slightly overrated since Sobers matches were spread out widely over the years(he may have averaged 60 or more for the same number of years as Sachin, but for one third the number of matches), and Viv’s short term peak statistically was even better, and even crazier considering the era he batted in, the bowlers he faced and most of those runs in his peak were scored on away pitches. Sober’s era was clearly better to bat in than Viv’s especially, but also than Hobbs, the first half(or more) of Sachin’s career, the second half of Smith’s career. Plus Viv scored much faster than Sobers, and Sobers did a lot of minnow bashing. I also find Viv’s home/away record more complete(due to Sobers sucking in NZ and barely playing in Pak). Viv’s psychological dominance over the bowlers is another fact in his favour as well.

Viv also dominated some of best bowlers of all time.