Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[ohtani's jacket]

There still aren't *that* many players averaging over 50. Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, and Tendulkar are pretty much the only ones averaging over 55 with a large number of runs under their belt, so I still don't see how they can be denied great status. Lara seems to get it as of right even though his record is slightly inferior to those players.......

That's because Lara is past his prime. If he retired tomorrow, he'd be remembered as an all-time great. I can't say the same for Ponting or Kallis. It's premature to call them all-time greats, as they're still in their prime.

 

[archie mac]

Because there's nothing brave about not taking precautions that are readily available. That is something that falls very firmly into the "stupid" category.

I don't agree, Greg Chappell never wore a helmet, so in your opinion anyone he does not wear a helmet is stupid? Chest pads are also available so players who do not wear them must be stupid. Victor Trumper only wore one batting glove (on many occasions) so he must be stupid?

Because being competitive is about wanting to win. It has little to do with playing the most extravagant shots you can in order to make opposing bowlers look foolish. We are talking about international cricket here after all, it's not a trick shot competition..

The great thing about cricket, is the game inside the game, I think if other players had the skill they would bat the was Viv did. In fact I have seen Sachin and Lara bat that way when in top flight. Viv was just able to do it more often.



Because that statement is completely meaningless

Considering he played in such a dominant team with such a dominant bowling attack, what exactly DID Viv achieve? It seems to me he had the deck stacked in his favour. It seems likely that the West Indies would probably (debatably) have still been a great team without him. So what else was there for him but to score runs? If he wasn't interested in run accumulation, and he knew that the team would probably win without his contributions, then what was he doing? Showing off?

What he was doing was giving pleasure to millions of cricket fans. Steve Waugh, Shane Warne and Glen McGrath also played in great teams, should they also not be considered great?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There still aren't *that* many players averaging over 50. Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, and Tendulkar are pretty much the only ones averaging over 55 with a large number of runs under their belt, so I still don't see how they can be denied great status. Lara seems to get it as of right even though his record is slightly inferior to those players.......

This really is ridiculous.

You do acknowledge, yes, that not every run and every wicket in test cricket is equal? For example, you agree that Brian Lara's 153* against Australia in 99 is worth more than a century of comparable size scored, say, today against the West Indies on a flat Hobart wicket? Or at least, that it probably would be?

Similarly, that 5/50 against India on a flat pitch is better than 5/50 against Zimbabwe on a greentop?

Once you acknowledge that, you also admit that you cannot rate cricketers on average alone. Cricket is not played by robots, and circumstances are no identical for every batsman every time they go out to bat. To look at, say Matthew Hayden and Viv Richards, or Darren Gough and Ian Botham, and conclude that the former was the superior player because they had a better average is simply inexplicable.

No doubt you will accuse me of being part of the "anti-statistics brigade", but in fact I don't object to the use of statistical analysis entirely. It is a useful tool, along with other things, in rating cricketers and how good/valuable they are. And, in fact, you are right that cricket is about performance more than being talented or looking good. However, Viv Richards did perform. And, on top of his runs, the fact that he scored runs when most needed rather than plundering them pointlessly, that the demoralised oppostion bowlers, that he had an aura about him and refused to use a helmet... these things DID have an impact on the outcome of the matches, which you are quite right in suggesting is the primary role of batsmen.

Would you honestly suggest, watching Shane Warne, that he does not take wickets with his personality and the aura he carries about himself as well as with his skill? I couldn't count the number of times people have gotten out to Shane Warne because he induces them into doing something idiotic or simply beats them mentally, rather than because they didn't pick his googly or whatever. Craig McMillan isn't the best player of spin around, but he can certainly play it better than he played Warne last year. Would you say that there is no difference in terms of the outcome between Adam Gilchrist smashing a century after tea on day 1 of a test series and Dravid grinding one out over the course of the whole day? And that it doesn't matter that Kallis murders Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and inflates his averages in the process while struggling against Australia, and Varinder Sehwag doesn't?

If Richards averaged 40, you'd have a point about his reputation outweighing his performance, but he averaged lose to 55 for the vast majority of his career, in an era where nobody managed similar excluding Greg Chappell, who is of course also one of the greatest of all time. He did this despite being a flawed genius, declining with age, and often only really turning it on when he felt like it.

 

[Anil]

I'd rate Brian Lara comfortably above Viv though, having seen both players.

i'd rate lara over viv too...in fact i would say lara can lay claim to being the greatest ever west indian batsman....over viv, sobers, headley and the like...

 

[archie mac]

i'd rate lara over viv too...in fact i would say lara can lay claim to being the greatest ever west indian batsman....over viv, sobers, headley and the like...

Interesting; I would place Viv ahead of Lara, but both behind Sobers. Headley I never watched but would not be surprised if he is the best of all WI batsman.

 

[SJS]

Interesting; I would place Viv ahead of Lara, but both behind Sobers. Headley I never watched but would not be surprised if he is the best of all WI batsman.

Amen

 

[thierry henry]

This really is ridiculous.

You do acknowledge, yes, that not every run and every wicket in test cricket is equal? For example, you agree that Brian Lara's 153* against Australia in 99 is worth more than a century of comparable size scored, say, today against the West Indies on a flat Hobart wicket? Or at least, that it probably would be?

Similarly, that 5/50 against India on a flat pitch is better than 5/50 against Zimbabwe on a greentop?

Once you acknowledge that, you also admit that you cannot rate cricketers on average alone. Cricket is not played by robots, and circumstances are no identical for every batsman every time they go out to bat. To look at, say Matthew Hayden and Viv Richards, or Darren Gough and Ian Botham, and conclude that the former was the superior player because they had a better average is simply inexplicable.

Do you honestly think that over an entire career, where we are comparing players who have each scored 7000, 8000, 9000, and 10000 runs, that these things have such a big bearing?

imo any player who has performed that well for that long has almost invariably performed in most circumstances.

Anyway, it's already been pointed out that Viv struggled most against the best bowlers. Likewise, Gary Sobers performed best with the bat against weaker attacks.

Maybe if you had some really conclusive proof that Player A had performed clearly better than Player B in certain circumstances, this line of reasoning would be useful. In the absence of that, I think it's fair to usually assume that any player who has 8000 runs at 55, or whatever, has performed pretty well in a wide variety of situations.

No doubt you will accuse me of being part of the "anti-statistics brigade", but in fact I don't object to the use of statistical analysis entirely. It is a useful tool, along with other things, in rating cricketers and how good/valuable they are. And, in fact, you are right that cricket is about performance more than being talented or looking good. However, Viv Richards did perform. And, on top of his runs, the fact that he scored runs when most needed rather than plundering them pointlessly

Do you have any proof that Viv scored more runs in "important" situations than other players with comparable records?

If so, fair enough.

that the demoralised oppostion bowlers, that he had an aura about him and refused to use a helmet... these things DID have an impact on the outcome of the matches, which you are quite right in suggesting is the primary role of batsmen.

How did they have an impact on matches, apart from the amount of runs that Viv himself scored?

Do you really think that because Viv didn't wear a helmet, the other batsman in the team started scoring more runs than they otherwise would have? Or something like that?

Would you honestly suggest, watching Shane Warne, that he does not take wickets with his personality and the aura he carries about himself as well as with his skill? I couldn't count the number of times people have gotten out to Shane Warne because he induces them into doing something idiotic or simply beats them mentally, rather than because they didn't pick his googly or whatever. Craig McMillan isn't the best player of spin around, but he can certainly play it better than he played Warne last year.

This has no bearing on the argument. Here you are talking about Warne using a mental edge to get success. This success is backed up by his record.

We are talking about players whose supposed mental edge is not backed up by their record/performances. A better comparison would be an intimidating bowler who fails to take a wicket.

Would you say that there is no difference in terms of the outcome between Adam Gilchrist smashing a century after tea on day 1 of a test series and Dravid grinding one out over the course of the whole day?

Not really. More time to bowl the opposition out, maybe?

And that it doesn't matter that Kallis murders Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and inflates his averages in the process while struggling against Australia, and Varinder Sehwag doesn't?

Yes, of course that matters. That's stats. You know how much I love them

Gary Sobers inflated his record against weaker sides also. Thoughts?

If Richards averaged 40, you'd have a point about his reputation outweighing his performance, but he averaged lose to 55 for the vast majority of his career, in an era where nobody managed similar excluding Greg Chappell, who is of course also one of the greatest of all time. He did this despite being a flawed genius, declining with age, and often only really turning it on when he felt like it.

He was an amazing talent + he declined with age + sometimes he didn't feel like it= Average of 50= On average he contributed 50 runs with the bat per innings= An average of 50 is a fair reflection of the contribution he made, and hence his career as a test match batsman.

 

[Jono]

I think it's fair to usually assume that any player who has 8000 runs at 55, or whatever, has performed pretty well in a wide variety of situations.

Kallis vs. Best bowling attack of his time (Australia) under pressure? He's never faced that and succeeded.

 

[marc71178]

Do you honestly think that over an entire career, where we are comparing players who have each scored 7000, 8000, 9000, and 10000 runs, that these things have such a big bearing?

Increasing it from 51 to 57 isn't a big bearing?

 

[Slow Love™]

Do you have any proof that Viv scored more runs in "important" situations than other players with comparable records?

If so, fair enough.

Related to this - Wisden did a funky little (or in fact, huge) analysis around three years ago, in which they measured the greatest test players (bowling and batting) as well as the greatest one-day players. They did so by weighting results by the opposition encountered, importance of each performance, and consistency over long careers.

Obviously there's going to be a subjective aspect to this analysis (because Wisden's experts still have to agree on their assignations as to strength of opposition, how important an innings is in context, etc, etc), but all in all, it's at least a study the breadth of which hasn't been matched, before or after, so far as I know.

Anyhow, there's an article about it here.

Based on this system, Wisden rated Viv Richards the third best test batsman ever, and the number one batsman ever in one-day cricket. People's opinions will vary (and they should), but maybe it'll help you in some way understand why Richards is held in such high regard by so many.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Related to this - Wisden did a funky little (or in fact, huge) analysis around three years ago, in which they measured the greatest test players (bowling and batting) as well as the greatest one-day players. They did so by weighting results by the opposition encountered, importance of each performance, and consistency over long careers.

Obviously there's going to be a subjective aspect to this analysis (because Wisden's experts still have to agree on their assignations as to strength of opposition, how important an innings is in context, etc, etc), but all in all, it's at least a study the breadth of which hasn't been matched, before or after, so far as I know.

Anyhow, there's an article about it here.

Based on this system, Wisden rated Viv Richards the third best test batsman ever, and the number one batsman ever in one-day cricket. People's opinions will vary (and they should), but maybe it'll help you in some way understand why Richards is held in such high regard by so many.

It's interesting to see Border at Number 5 on that list just behind Sobers. Garry Sobers himself never rated Border at all. In an interview when Border was at his peak Sobers mentioned who he thought were the best batsman at the time and didn't mention Border. When the interviewer brought Border's name up Sobers dismissed him as a player who never "dominated" the bowling, he just "tolerated" it.

 

[thierry henry]

Kallis vs. Best bowling attack of his time (Australia) under pressure? He's never faced that and succeeded.

Sobers was a poor performer against Australia. So I suppose it's not really fair to rate him either.

 

[thierry henry]

Related to this - Wisden did a funky little (or in fact, huge) analysis around three years ago, in which they measured the greatest test players (bowling and batting) as well as the greatest one-day players. They did so by weighting results by the opposition encountered, importance of each performance, and consistency over long careers.

Obviously there's going to be a subjective aspect to this analysis (because Wisden's experts still have to agree on their assignations as to strength of opposition, how important an innings is in context, etc, etc), but all in all, it's at least a study the breadth of which hasn't been matched, before or after, so far as I know.

Anyhow, there's an article about it here.

Based on this system, Wisden rated Viv Richards the third best test batsman ever, and the number one batsman ever in one-day cricket. People's opinions will vary (and they should), but maybe it'll help you in some way understand why Richards is held in such high regard by so many.

Well not really, as I don't know the criteria they used. And you're right, it's totally subjective when you are trying to weigh different innings like that.

 

[thierry henry]

Increasing it from 51 to 57 isn't a big bearing?

Apparently not. After all, it's been stated repeatedly in this thread that a batsman averaging 50 is better than batsmen averaging 57.

 

[luckyeddie]

Apparently not. After all, it's been stated repeatedly in this thread that a batsman averaging 50 is better than batsmen averaging 57.

Ken Barrington - better than Sobers.

Discuss.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ken Barrington - better than Sobers.

Discuss.

Matthew Hayden - better than Steve Waugh?

 

[luckyeddie]

Matthew Hayden - better than Steve Waugh?

(pulls head out from where the sun doesn't shine) No discussion required - the averages tell me so, therefore it's true (sticks it back up there again).

 

[marc71178]

Apparently not. After all, it's been stated repeatedly in this thread that a batsman averaging 50 is better than batsmen averaging 57.

Comparing players over 2 generations.

A lot of batsmen average a lot more in the current era because of flatter pitchs and a general decline in bowling standards at the moment.

However your hero Kallis only averages 51 when removing his run filled orgies against the weakest of the weak - which is a far cry from his career average.

 

[Anil]

Interesting; I would place Viv ahead of Lara, but both behind Sobers. Headley I never watched but would not be surprised if he is the best of all WI batsman.

it's all perspective...they are all fantastic players....i guess my judgement is coloured by the fact that lara carried a weak west indian team for such a long time....and viv really played the bulk of his career in an era of plenty where brilliant batsmen and bowlers abounded in the west indian team...

 

[open365]

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.

best post...EVER

This is probably the best thread i've read here aswell.

IMO, people concentrating on stats are missing the whole point of cricket.

Crickets not about how much runs you score,its the way you score them,its the situations you play in.
Cricket needs heros/ledgends to inspire people. not just in cricket but for life.
I was captivated as a child when my dad used to talk to me about Viv Richards and how he hooked fast bowlers without a helmet,and how he could destroy an attack like swatting a fly.

That is what inspired me to play cricket,for those moments when you act like your heros ,when you can pretend that your Viv Richards,and your the one in control,your the one who'll people will talk about in awe.

Viv may have only averaged 50,but do i care?

like hell i don't.

Like TC and Lucky Eddie said,cricket is entertainment. Players get paided to play in front of crowds.

and who would you pay more to see?

Jaques Kallis or Viv Richards?

Kallis averages 7 more runs,but what significance does that have?Jaques Kallis will never have the same aura as Richards,i'll never speak to my kids about him the way my dad spoke to me about Viv.