Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

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.

But Corey... he only averaged 50!

 

[Deja moo]

But Corey... he only averaged 50!

Lets conveniently ignore that, shall we ?

 

[luckyeddie]

Well by that logic, Shahid Afridi >>>>>>> Tendulkar/Lara.

Only if you like your entertainment to last fewer than 3 balls.

 

[luckyeddie]

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?

Yes, but Afridi seems to just get bored walking out to the middle, so he swings the bat once and walks back again.

 

[Deja moo]

Which makes him truly great. It simply isnt challenging enough for him.

 

[luckyeddie]

Which makes him truly great. It simply isnt challenging enough for him.

You're preaching to the converted.

You forget that Shahid Afridi signed for my team (Derbyshire) amidst great excitement a couple of years ago. He was almost a throwback to the early days of cricket when an over consisted of four balls.

In Afridi's case a wild yahoo that missed, a top-edged six, another miss and then getting clean bowled.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lets conveniently ignore that, shall we ?

Viv Richards' batting average aged 29: 62.76
Viv Richards' batting average aged 34: 54.56
Viv Richards' batting average upon retirement, aged 39: 50.54

As other people have said, even if you limit yourself to statistics in analysing his career, if you look at the bowlers he faced, and consider the fact that until age took its toll on his batting he averaged mid-50s, it's still an astonishing record. Consider that he averaged mid-50s, that he reserved his best performances for the biggest occasions and dismantled the greatest bowlers, and you have why he's such an incredible batsman. Forget everything about his aura and the testimonies of those who watched him, if you like.

 

[Deja moo]

Whats new about that? Kapil diluted his record with time, so did Waqar. And assuming for the sake of it that he ended his career at 34, which is anyway a couple of years earlier than what I think is the norm for great batsmen, he still would be a batsman who averaged 54. Sure people say he couldve averaged 60+ if he didnt throw it away, but the fact remains that he did.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Whats new about that? Kapil diluted his record with time, so did Waqar. And assuming for the sake of it that he ended his career at 34, which is anyway a couple of years earlier than what I think is the norm for great batsmen, he still would be a batsman who averaged 54. Sure people say he couldve averaged 60+ if he didnt throw it away, but the fact remains that he did.

The fact also remains that it doesn't matter in the slightest what he averaged, because people who watched him recognise that, like the greatest of batsmen, he reserved his best performances for the biggest occasions. He still averaged 50+ because he was very good, but he simply didn't plunder runs when it was pointless. Look at someone like Yousuf Youhana or Matthew Hayden... batsmen with good averages, comparable to Richards. The idea that anyone could suggest they are of comparable value as players is laughable.

 

[luckyeddie]

Whats new about that? Kapil diluted his record with time, so did Waqar. And assuming for the sake of it that he ended his career at 34, which is anyway a couple of years earlier than what I think is the norm for great batsmen, he still would be a batsman who averaged 54. Sure people say he couldve averaged 60+ if he didnt throw it away, but the fact remains that he did.

The difference there is that nobody dreams of rubbishing Waqar or Kapil's career records just because their powers waned, yet you seem to be stuck out on a limb doing that very same thing to Viv Richards in the face of overwhelming opinion, not just from supporters but players of his era who were truly and justifiably in awe of him.

Now either the entire world is wrong, or you (who never saw him play) are.

I know where my 50 pence bet lies.

 

[Deja moo]

I'm not rubbishing him, not by any stretch of imagination. I'm rubbishing the talk of a great player being talked of as greater than great because he apparently got bored with batting deep into his innings'. I see that quality as a failing rather than a positive.

 

[a massive zebra]

I know the legend of Richards is extremely strong but personally I wouldn't put him among the top dozen or so batsmen of all time (nor would Gary Sobers or Charles Davis in his marvellous book, The Best Of The Best, for that matter). Richards simply has too many holes in his resume. Sure, he scored bucketloads of runs against weak teams like England and India, but did not have to face the mighty West Indies lineup and his record against the best attacks available at the time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is well short of world-class leave alone all-time great standard. Faaip says he destroyed the worlds best bowlers, but in actual fact the four bowlers to dismiss him most in Tests were all-time greats - DK Lillee (9 times), IT Botham (7 times), Kapil Dev (7 times) and Imran Khan (7 times).

Considering that Richards is rated as the best batsman of his generation, it would be fair to say that, like Lillee and Warne, his actual performance falls a long way short of his reputation. Viv Richards is often rated as the better batsman, but it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Richards 55.7, even though Richards was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Considering that Richards is rated as the best batsman of his generation, it would be fair to say that, like Lillee and Warne, his actual performance falls a long way short of his reputation. Viv Richards is often rated as the better batsman, but it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Richards 55.7, even though Richards was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I know the legend of Richards is extremely strong but personally I wouldn't put him among the top dozen or so batsmen of all time (nor would Gary Sobers or Charles Davis in his marvellous book, The Best Of The Best, for that matter). Richards simply has too many holes in his resume. Sure, he scored bucketloads of runs against weak teams like England and India, but did not have to face the mighty West Indies lineup and his record against the best attacks available at the time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is well short of world-class leave alone all-time great standard. Faaip says he destroyed the worlds best bowlers, but in actual fact the four bowlers to dismiss him most in Tests were all-time greats - DK Lillee (9 times), IT Botham (7 times), Kapil Dev (7 times) and Imran Khan (7 times).

Considering that Richards is rated as the best batsman of his generation, it would be fair to say that, like Lillee and Warne, his actual performance falls a long way short of his reputation. Viv Richards is often rated as the better batsman, but it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Richards 55.7, even though Richards was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

Sure. And Trescothick is England's best batsman since Barrington.

 

[Sanz]

Typical arrogant post from Eddie. How do you know that he never saw Richards play ?

 

[luckyeddie]

I know the legend of Richards is extremely strong but personally I wouldn't put him among the top dozen or so batsmen of all time (nor would Gary Sobers or Charles Davis in his marvellous book, The Best Of The Best, for that matter). Richards simply has too many holes in his resume. Sure, he scored bucketloads of runs against weak teams like England and India, but did not have to face the mighty West Indies lineup and his record against the best attacks available at the time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is well short of world-class leave alone all-time great standard. Faaip says he destroyed the worlds best bowlers, but in actual fact the four bowlers to dismiss him most in Tests were all-time greats - DK Lillee (9 times), IT Botham (7 times), Kapil Dev (7 times) and Imran Khan (7 times).

Considering that Richards is rated as the best batsman of his generation, it would be fair to say that, like Lillee and Warne, his actual performance falls a long way short of his reputation. Viv Richards is often rated as the better batsman, but it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Richards 55.7, even though Richards was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

Anyone who ever denigrates a batsman or bowler on the grounds that he didn't have to face his own side is basically spouting rubbish.

Carry on, I'll get the popcorn.

 

[Sanz]

The fact that such questions are asked shows how much damage statistics have done to the game.

Yet, you are the first one to bring up statistics, when the argument isn't going your way.

 

[luckyeddie]

Typical arrogant post from Eddie. How do you know that he never saw Richards play ?

It was a follow-on from a post I made yesterday where I said "I can only conclude that you never saw him bat", and as Deja Moo replied to that post and a few others of mine quite civilly without disputing that fact, I assumed that he hadn't.

Clearly he could well have done, and I am sorry if I gave you or anyone else the impression that I was stating it as a matter of fact.

If that has truly come over as arrogance, I apologise.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Leave it. You'll get used to it. It's common.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I know the legend of Richards is extremely strong but personally I wouldn't put him among the top dozen or so batsmen of all time (nor would Gary Sobers or Charles Davis in his marvellous book, The Best Of The Best, for that matter). Richards simply has too many holes in his resume. Sure, he scored bucketloads of runs against weak teams like England and India, but did not have to face the mighty West Indies lineup and his record against the best attacks available at the time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is well short of world-class leave alone all-time great standard. Faaip says he destroyed the worlds best bowlers, but in actual fact the four bowlers to dismiss him most in Tests were all-time greats - DK Lillee (9 times), IT Botham (7 times), Kapil Dev (7 times) and Imran Khan (7 times).

Considering that Richards is rated as the best batsman of his generation, it would be fair to say that, like Lillee and Warne, his actual performance falls a long way short of his reputation. Viv Richards is often rated as the better batsman, but it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Richards 55.7, even though Richards was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

Hang on, were you just basing your conclusion on Richards ability on the assumption that Pakistan and New Zealand had the best attacks in the world outside of the West Indies?

In January 76, Richards made the century that put him on the map in Australia, when he opened the batting against an attack including Lillee, Thommo at the peak of his powers (in the couple of seasons when he was a genuinely world class bowler), and Gilmour, as well as some decent spin support. In 79, he scored another century against another Australian attack including Lillee, Thommo slightly past his best, and Rodney Hogg. It wasn't until the mid 80s that Richards faced an Australian attack that was remotely weak, when Lillee was gone, and Lawson and McDemott led a relatively poor Australian bowling lineup.

Richards also performed against England attacks such as Hendrick/Snow/Old/Greig, Willis/Botham/Hendrick/Underwood, and so on. To suggest that these attack which contained multiple quality bowlers were poorer than New Zealand or Pakistan in the same period... attacks which included one great bowler with support ranging from minimal to non-existant is ridiculous. Richards played against New Zealand attacks where Chatfield opened the bowling, and Martin Crowe was second change. Pakistan of course became much better once the likes of Wasim Akram arrived, and they usually had good spin support from Imran and some good pacers, but Lillee/Thomson/Gilmour is obviously miles ahead, and the suggestion that Pakistan and New Zealand had the best attacks of the late 70s shows a general ignorance of bowling strengths in the era in question.