• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

archie mac

International Coach
Fusion said:
What was his beef against them?
I must be careful because of the bad language used :)

On Craig McDermott: ' When it was time for him to be on the receiving end he became a real Billy, as he was called. He screamed like a pig when the ball got above chest level and he ran away from the crease'. 'A real coward' I turned to him and said ' you can xxxx off, you piece of Queensland xxxx'

It is a good read if you can find a copy :)
 

Beleg

International Regular
I have read the autobiography (about the only cricket related autobiography I own :p) and I cannot remember any sort of comments about best batsman. Of course, I read the thing a few years back and my memory of most parts is pretty hazy.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Lillian Thomson said:
I have never seen, and never expect to see a greater batsman than Viv Richards, yet his Test Match record doesn't show any hint of supreme greatness. It's the record of a great player of course, but nowhere near what his talent should have produced.

Tests=121 Innings=182 Runs=8540 HS=291 Average=50.23 100's=24 60's=45

He should have had another 10 centuries and he was good enough to average in the mid 70's.
He should have broken all records(apart from the Dons 99.94 average) but didn't. There are players with much less ability yet better records. Maybe with so many great players around him he didn't always concentrate like he should, maybe his distain for all bowlers lead to his early dismissal on occasions.
Whatever the reasons, history will remember Viv as a great batsmen, but only those that saw him will remember him as the Greatest.
The fact that such questions are asked shows how much damage statistics have done to the game.
 

SteveG

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I was lucky enough to start watching cricket around the time Viv Richards started playing test cricket and he would be one of the top 3 batsman that I have ever seen. I don't think any one bowler worried him, it was usually his cavalier attitude that got him out. But, in the meantime he could destroy a bowling team in a session.

Personally, I think Lillee caused him more trouble than any other Australian bowler, but I would never say he worried him. Richards dominated from the outset and sometimes that was his undoing.

Needless to say, he was one of the great batsman.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Deja moo said:
Boredom is the genius's equivalent of the lessers batsmans loss of concentration. Both are cricketing sins, and not excuses to big up a player. It can only be concluded that Viv was only as good as his record hints at him being.
Exactly. The way some of the "anti-statistical" brigade wax lyrical, you would think that it was a sin to make the most of your talent.

International cricket is about one thing- performing.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Almost everything I've ever read about Richards makes him sound like an arrogant ***** who was more interested in waging a personal vendetta against opposing bowlers than actually scoring runs, and who totally underachieved.

And we are supposed to love him for this?

I guess you had to be there.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
Almost everything I've ever read about Richards makes him sound like an arrogant ***** who was more interested in waging a personal vendetta against opposing bowlers than actually scoring runs, and who totally underachieved.

And we are supposed to love him for this?

I guess you had to be there.
Totally underachieved? He played in an era of great bowlers and, generally, more difficult pitches than today, and until the last couple of years of his career dragged his average down he averaged mid-50s. Whether you analyse his performance statistically or though actually, you know, watching him bat, he was a great.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Deja moo said:
Why do so many place so much importance on ability over actual performance?
Because cricket is an art, not a science, therefore beauty trumps efficiency.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
thierry henry said:
Exactly. The way some of the "anti-statistical" brigade wax lyrical, you would think that it was a sin to make the most of your talent.

International cricket is about one thing- performing.
Cricket is about entertaining, first and foremost.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
C_C said:
Well by that logic, Shahid Afridi >>>>>>> Tendulkar/Lara.
You read my mind :) . After all, Afridis a great who just gets bored hanging around. Why dig in for your team when you can dazzle the crowds instead?
 

Craig

World Traveller
Top_Cat said:
I remember reading Viv's autobiography and he rated Chandrasekhar as the best bowler he ever faced. He said it took him a while after his first tour of India to realise that Chandra wasn't representative of genuine Test bowling but was a little bit better. This caused a conflict because he had doubts about his ability to that point.
And I love his reference to Glenn McGrath.

How much fun it would have been if he (Richards) at his peak v McGrath?
 

archie mac

International Coach
thierry henry said:
Exactly. The way some of the "anti-statistical" brigade wax lyrical, you would think that it was a sin to make the most of your talent.

International cricket is about one thing- performing.
You find 7 quality batsman who all average 55 but score at 33/100 you watch the game of cricket die.

International cricket is also about the way you score your runs. I have no doubt that Richards could have averaged 60+ but would he have so many fans in the world claiming him to be one of the all time greats. And yes you had to be their, I feel privileged to have seen the great man.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think there was a time in Lara's career when he did the same thing as Viv and got out trying to be too dominating. Unfortunately for him, his team wasn't as good as Sir Viv's and he had to change things around in a couple of years' time.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And I love his reference to Glenn McGrath.

How much fun it would have been if he (Richards) at his peak v McGrath?
I think we've read different books. The one I read was 'Hitting Across the Line'. There was a later one he wrote, right? Where he was a bit more animated? Not sure.

As for the performance vs style debate, it depends on what one values. Viv rocked because he brought 'cool' to the game but still managed to be a fantastic player. I appreciate both sides of the debate but it depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking Dravid, a great Dravid knock for me is a ton. If we're talking about Mark Waugh, I can watch him score 70 and feel entertained. And if we're talking Shahid Afridi, he can make 30 entertaining.

Viv was able to do it all. He didn't do it as consistently as Dravid or Tendulkar because, well, he didn't seem interested in being consistent. Like most people who are artists, sometimes they are inspired and sometimes they're not. They live for those moments and don't really worry about when they don't do as well because they know another good innings is but a moment away. Consistent players work on their consistency, artists work on sensing the mood when they are in the zone and then they have a stage on which to flourish.

I guess it's like two different sorts of girlfriends. There's the person whose always there for you, supports you when you're down, remembers your birthday, listens to you, laughs at your jokes, is into the stuff you're into and considers your views. You appreciate the fact she fits you so well and is consistent but you're less than inspired.

Then there's the ***** who treats you like crap, starts arguments for no reason other than that she's bored, leaves town for a fortnight without calling then comes back and acts like nothing has happened. After you've yelled at her for doing all of this, she smiles and leans over then kisses you on the lips and breathes "I'm sorry, baby." into your ear then walks out of the room.

Now I challenge anyone who has been out with both types of females (*hand up*) and NOT forgive the second one. :D

It's the human condition; people appreciate the volume of excellence and consistency from guys like Dravid yet remember the one innings of Viv which changed their lives. Personally, I'm aware that Viv was the leading run-scorer for the year of 1976 but if I was asked quickly what I remember most about Viv's play from vids I've seen, it'd have to be his hook-shot off Sylvester Clarke which sailed over the square-leg fence or the hoik over square-leg off the last-ball of the 1979 WC final. Conversely, I saw every ball of Dravid's double ton at Adelaide oval last time India was here and although I remember appreciating it at the time and remember it was a great knock, when I think of him, I remember the 50+ average, the fantastic 2003 he had, etc.

Like I said, it just depends on what you value in a player.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Top_Cat said:
I think we've read different books. The one I read was 'Hitting Across the Line'. There was a later one he wrote, right? Where he was a bit more animated? Not sure.

As for the performance vs style debate, it depends on what one values. Viv rocked because he brought 'cool' to the game but still managed to be a fantastic player. I appreciate both sides of the debate but it depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking Dravid, a great Dravid knock for me is a ton. If we're talking about Mark Waugh, I can watch him score 70 and feel entertained. And if we're talking Shahid Afridi, he can make 30 entertaining.

Viv was able to do it all. He didn't do it as consistently as Dravid or Tendulkar because, well, he didn't seem interested in being consistent. Like most people who are artists, sometimes they are inspired and sometimes they're not. They live for those moments and don't really worry about when they don't do as well because they know another good innings is but a moment away. Consistent players work on their consistency, artists work on sensing the mood when they are in the zone and then they have a stage on which to flourish.

I guess it's like two different sorts of girlfriends. There's the person whose always there for you, supports you when you're down, remembers your birthday, listens to you, laughs at your jokes, is into the stuff you're into and considers your views. You appreciate the fact she fits you so well and is consistent but you're less than inspired.

Then there's the ***** who treats you like crap, starts arguments for no reason other than that she's bored, leaves town for a fortnight without calling then comes back and acts like nothing has happened. After you've yelled at her for doing all of this, she smiles and leans over then kisses you on the lips and breathes "I'm sorry, baby." into your ear then walks out of the room.

Now I challenge anyone who has been out with both types of females (*hand up*) and NOT forgive the second one. :D

It's the human condition; people appreciate the volume of excellence and consistency from guys like Dravid yet remember the one innings of Viv which changed their lives. Personally, I'm aware that Viv was the leading run-scorer for the year of 1976 but if I was asked quickly what I remember most about Viv's play from vids I've seen, it'd have to be his hook-shot off Sylvester Clarke which sailed over the square-leg fence or the hoik over square-leg off the last-ball of the 1979 WC final. Conversely, I saw every ball of Dravid's double ton at Adelaide oval last time India was here and although I remember appreciating it at the time and remember it was a great knock, when I think of him, I remember the 50+ average, the fantastic 2003 he had, etc.

Like I said, it just depends on what you value in a player.
Great post, TC. That is one of the reasons I guess I like Lara so much. He can "nearly" as entertaining as Viv, Gilly and anyone and can still be "nearly" as consistent as Tendulkar or Gavaskar or some of those other greats. Not often you find such mixtures. I guess Viv must have one such mixture as well, and perhaps the best of the lot.
 

Top