Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Furball]

Demonstrate?

Note: I'm only considering Kallis' stats while playing for South Africa - the ICC World XI series v Australia is irrelevant in my book.

First off, we'll remove all innings against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Doing this immediately drops his batting average by 4 runs. In 10 Tests, he has 956 runs from 12 innings, with 6 not outs and 4 centuries, averaging 159.33.

Then we'll look at hot streaks throughout his career. We'll start with the 2004/05 season, which saw Kallis play in 11 Tests - a 2 test series in India, 5 tests at home to England, and 4 tests in the West Indies.

His figures in this period are 1258 runs from 18 innings, with 3 ducks, 6 centuries, 4 50s and 4 not outs, giving an average of 89.86.

Other notable hot streaks include 6 tests against the West Indies (h) and New Zealand (a) between December 2003 and March 2004, where in 10 innings (3 not out) he scored 1065 runs at 152.14.

Finally, we go to the period between October 2007 and January 2008, where South Africa played Pakistan away, and New Zealand and West Indies at home. In 7 tests, 12 innings, 3 not outs, Kallis scores 984 runs at 109.33.

Remove these 34 tests (28%) of his career, and Kallis has career figures of 87 tests, 153 innings, 17 not outs, 5418 runs @ 39.84 - worse than I'd previously calculated.

Note too that none of his hot streaks contain tests against Sri Lanka, Australia, or in England, where Kallis is poor. New Zealand and the West Indies are recurring themes in Kallis' hot streaks, which combined with his milking of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, suggest that Kallis has a massively over inflated average as a result of smashing around poor bowling attacks, and turns into a distincly average cricketer when faced with challenging conditions (England, Sri Lanka, where he has 1 hundred in 15 Tests) or top bowling attacks. (Australia)

The idea that Kallis is a top class batsman who is worthy of a Test Batting Average greater than that of Tendulkar and Lara is a myth.

Having said that, he'll probably make an effortless double hundred in the third Test after his team are 3 down for not a lot.

 

[Richard]

I've always rated Kallis lower than many (and the same thing's true of Ricky Ponting) because of when he started to score (ie, September 2001).

Certainly neither Kallis nor Ponting are batsmen of the calibre of Tendulkar, Lara and Stephen Waugh in my book and never will be.

I'm not sure the Kallis example is as significant as it is in the Vivian Richards case, because as I say with Kallis the significant thing for my money is pre- and post- September 2001. But it's interesting to see that he too has had bouts of on and off even after September 2001.

BTW, while getting rid of matches for ICC World XIs and against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is quite right, it should only be one series against Zimbabwe, ie that in 2005/06. The rest before that were all worthy of Test status.

 

[krishneelz]

Contrary to what others are saying I would like to inform you that Sir Viv Richards is actually a myth...He never really existed much like the Lockness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti, Roswell, George Bush and Matthew Hoggard (I was close to saying Steve Harmison but then I would have looked like a complete idioit and jepordised the validity of this post), oh and Steve Tikolo, Yashpal Singh and Darth Vader.

 

[krishneelz]

Oh I also forgot to mention God

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You were wise to choose to be there, while the rest of the Conservative Party was being bombed in, er, Brighton

Well it might have been 1985, but good on you for only doubting that part of the story.

 

[Perm]

Have you read Imrans autobiography? He rates Viv (iirc) as the best he bowled to and the best he saw. I believe Hadlee makes the same comments and Lillee put him in the top bracket too, as do, for that matter, most bowlers who bowled to him. I think they'd know.

No, unfortunately I haven't read Imran's biography. Haven't had any sort of chance to spend money on cricketing books to further my knowledge, but it's something I intend to do as I grow older.

I never once thought that Sir Viv Richards wasn't a superb batsman, as he was one of the most phenomenally blessed players to ever lift a piece of willow. Some of the things he did in his career are quite simply amazing, especially when you consider the era in which he played and some of the bowlers he faced. Nor have I ever doubted his ability as a cricketer, his combined skills make him one of the greatest ever. I have, and still do, to an extent, dispute his ability as a batsman based on the key role that a batsman should perform. That of course is scoring runs, of which Richards was very good at, but IMO there were some who were better. Maybe they didn't have the same sense of style or brutality, but I think they did the basic job better.

 

[Perm]

Haha, I agree. I thought Perm was against the idea that Richards was overrated by posting that. Players that averaged under 25? I guess Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Underwood, Botham, Hogg, Dev, McDermott, Chatfield and Qadir (all which are listed by Perm) were poor bowlers.

No, all were very fine bowlers for their respective countries. It was not my intention to try and say otherwise, my mistake if it came across that way

 

[zaremba]

Well it might have been 1985, but good on you for only doubting that part of the story.

I know the rest to be true.

 

[Athlai]

Good thread this, asking the hard questions

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viv was neither a master nor a myth, he was a dumbass. Shouldve retired 11 years into his career like Greg Chappell did to protect his average.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

A mystic

 

[Migara]

hmm, eddie here's a question your way,

Which bowler(s) do you think he was never able to truly dominate? And which bowler(s) in turn dominated him to some extent?

I ask this because I have often heard people talk about Imran often getting the best of Viv and I want to get a largely () neutral prespective on it.

Chandrashekar for surely. Wasim to some extent, but then Viv was past it.

 

[Slifer]

Chandrashekar for surely. Wasim to some extent, but then Viv was past it.

Actually, Chandra troubled Viv in India in Viv's very first series. In the return series in '76 Chandra and co got taken apart like everyone else. Ditto Akram; one series in Pakistan where Wasim had the edge but in the return in the Wi (I think 1988) Viv did well vs Wasim and Imran. My point, Viv didn't really struggle per set vs any one bowler ala Lara vs McGrath. Even there, Lara certainly won his fair share of battles.

 

[grecian]

I will post this in here, too, crap so obviously number 2

Stupid argument, that everyone things viv is sacrosanct, and we justthink of these deliberations are based on "just coz" across generations. I am not afraid to think that anyone surpassed him, but all arguments are generally because you fear the player you rate is worse than him, just coz.

In the end he had a terrible end to his career but he was clearlt best of his time for awhile.

Yet everyone knows the people you rate between about years 10-22 are going to be faves coz that's when you are fresh and enthusiastic. So fully willing to believe Viv isn't in reality the "best I've ever seen", but to me he was, and will probably always will be. Yet people need to realise they have their inherent biases towards the guys they loved early on.

Yet I have kinda discarded as greats many of my eighties loves, I rarely try to rate Gatting better than Hayden for instance, to try to prove my fave player is better than someone who averaged 14 more in a different era. then coming up with bizarre theories to surmount that well unsurmountable gap, as that would make me a ****ing idjit

 

[GIMH]

Yet I have kinda discarded as greats many of my eighties loves, I rarely try to rate Gatting better than Hayden for instance, to try to prove my fave player is better than someone who averaged 14 more in a different era. then coming up with bizarre theories to surmount that well unsurmountable gap, as that would make me a ****ing idjit

Heh

 

[grecian]

Heh

Did you get the subtle dig?

Btw good luck with your covid probs for you and your family, I'm not good at saying these things, my brother just said he loved me on my birthday, I'm thinking of ignoring him forever rather than replying, I think it's doable.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, cheers mate. And happy birthday for whenever it was

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That best number 3 thread is every reason why I rarely bother with threads about Viv and haven’t for years. You can’t show how good he was via stats guru. Then you say if you’d seen him you’d understand how good he was you get accused of being a deluded misty eyed snob, so there’s nowhere to go with it. I still haven’t seen a better batsman in his prime but Lara and Tendulkar have come close.

 

[GIMH]

What about Ian Bell?

 

[Coronis]

That best number 3 thread is every reason why I rarely bother with threads about Viv and haven’t for years. You can’t show how good he was via stats guru. Then you say if you’d seen him you’d understand how good he was you get accused of being a deluded misty eyed snob, so there’s nowhere to go with it. I still haven’t seen a better batsman in his prime but Lara and Tendulkar have come close.

Oh sure I doubt anyone (though surely someone will prove me wrong) doesn’t acknowledge that Viv was an amazing and destructive batsman and he had one of the greatest peaks as a batsman that we’ve ever seen. However when rating batsmen I don’t purely rate them on their peaks, just the same as I don’t purely rate them on their averages. Obviously I rate him lower than many others on this forum but for me he’s still vying for others with a spot as one of the top 10 batsmen of all time. I even have him very close to and perhaps vying for top 5 if you are talking only of middle order batsmen and not openers.