Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Swervy]

Anything Swervy can do, I can do better.

I shouldn't bite....but how wrong can a person be!!!!

 

[archie mac]

Can only presume you've never seen Tendulkar or Lara then.

.

I watched all three, and he was the better

 

[Richard]

Better at what? Scoring runs? No way.

 

[Burgey]

Imo Richards was a better player of quicks than either Lara or Tendulkar, though I would have the others ahead of him re spin.

To answer the question in the thread, he was a master batsman imo, certainly no myth.

 

[Top_Cat]

Imo Richards was a better player of quicks than either Lara or Tendulkar, though I would have the others ahead of him re spin.

To answer the question in the thread, he was a master batsman imo, certainly no myth.

I would put Viv ahead of both Sachin and Lara for play against the quicks too but overall, they have had stronger careers and are far better players of spin than Viv ever was.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, though I don't know how many quality spinners were around when he played. The attacks now seem far more balanced than back then.
Jeez, this is a real poser. The 70s & 80s had some good/ great quicks, but the 90s had some real good ones too. Pitch quality? Well, I would think (but don't know) that they were better on the 90s and 00s than the 70s.
He also gets points from me for batting number 3, which Lara also did for much of his career. Shame Sachin didn't bat there as well imo, despite how good Dravid has been for India.

 

[social]

I would put Viv ahead of both Sachin and Lara for play against the quicks too but overall, they have had stronger careers and are far better players of spin than Viv ever was.

Agreed but I would be stronger in my praise of Viv's play against quicks - he simply destroyed many of them

 

[Top_Cat]

Agreed but I would be stronger in my praise of Viv's play against quicks - he simply destroyed many of them

Fair point. Any bloke who can hook Sylvester Clark like he's a medium-pacer without wearing a lid.......

 

[social]

Spent a bit of time with Sylvester at Surrey - absolute express pace on his day and a complete nutter at times. He also had an action where it was really hard to pick the ball up so anyone that hooked him had my respect

Favourite story about Viv

Quote of the Day: "I bounced a cricket ball off his cheek and waited for him to fall down. He just carried on chewing gum and hit my next ball for six, 24 rows back." Rodney Hogg on how hard Viv Richards was.


I was watching this at the time and it was amazing - wasnt a glancing blow and Hogg was seriously quick

 

[straightbat]

This is a case where stats can lie. Anyone that saw Viv play knew how great he was. Other players like Trumper and Miller fall into the same category.

 

[archie mac]

Better at what? Scoring runs? No way.

Better at playing the quicks

And he scored runs in England, India and Pakistan, so he must have been pretty good against spin as well

 

[Richard]

Better at playing the quicks

Better at making the odd knock look sensational, or better at playing more good knocks that looked less sensational but were every bit as effective?

 

[Richard]

He also gets points from me for batting number 3, which Lara also did for much of his career. Shame Sachin didn't bat there as well imo, despite how good Dravid has been for India.

Why on Earth does it matter where someone batted? A player is every bit as good for the results he gets regardless of what batting position he got them from.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why on Earth does it matter where someone batted? A player is every bit as good for the results he gets regardless of what batting position he got them from.

Number 3 is the hardest place to bat mentally as you don't know if you're going in for the second ball of the innings or if you're going to sit for hours with your pads on gearing yourself up to go in. From a practical point of view it's also more likely that you'll face fresh bowlers with the new ball when there's still life in the wicket if it's the first morning.

 

[Richard]

So those who chose to bat at three (could have batted lower if they wanted) are to be praised for doing something that essentially makes life more difficult for them?

Brilliant.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So those who chose to bat at three (could have batted lower if they wanted) are to be praised for doing something that essentially makes life more difficult for them?

Brilliant.

You couldn't make that up for an episode of Monty Python. Of course they should be praised for taking on the most difficult role in the team.

 

[taitmachine]

Stats never tell the full story. In his prime I have no doubt he was the most devastating batsman that ever was. He even puts Gilli in the shade. I think the last few years of his career were tough for him and his eyes started to let him down a bit.

 

[Richard]

You couldn't make that up for an episode of Monty Python. Of course they should be praised for taking on the most difficult role in the team.

Fantastic. So by specifically disadvantaging themselves, and doing something they know is likely to reduce their performance, they should be praised.

Brilliant.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fantastic. So by specifically disadvantaging themselves, and doing something they know is likely to reduce their performance, they should be praised.

Brilliant.

I'm not sure if this is funny or just plain sad that someone who spends half their life on a cricket forum doesn't understand something as basic as the Number 3 batting position.

 

[Richard]

I understand it full well, it's incredibly obvious why batting there is more difficult than batting four, five or six (though also replete with its advantages).

No-one should be commended for doing it, however. Someone should bat wherever they want, if that's three, good, if that's six, good. They should be judged equally, not praised for making life more difficult for themselves.