• 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.

Viv Richards vs steve smith

Who had better peak

  • Viv

    Votes: 16 40.0%
  • Smith

    Votes: 24 60.0%

  • Total voters
    40

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
I think subs means in compared to other ATGs from past eras, not the Fab 4 (he only rates Smith as an ATG)
The main problem doesn't changes really. It's not he never scored in these countries away, he has a good to ATG tour in most tough countries; it's his sheer ineptness to score anywhere in the last 5 years.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The main problem doesn't changes really. It's not he never scored in these countries away, he has a good to ATG tour in most tough countries; it's his sheer ineptness to score anywhere in the last 5 years.
I think it's fair to say he may end up with an average that doesn't reflect the player he is, but at the end of the day if he ends up with a sub 40 average away, yes regardless if it's imbalanced towards England, it will be quite a damning stat.
 

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
I think it's fair to say he may end up with an average that doesn't reflect the player he is, but at the end of the day if he ends up with a sub 40 average away, yes regardless if it's imbalanced towards England, it will be quite a damning stat.
As I said, it will be. But the problem of his isn't really with away matches, as the average might suggest, but everywhere over the last 5 years.
 

Kirkut

International Regular
it's hard to know if it made the difference. I remember Sehwag scored a run a ball double hundred in SL and India still lost the test match.
Considering the form India's batsmen were in, that innings was certainly not the defining factor. In fact the bowlers were forced to overperform due to batters flopping.

On that double hundred you're referring to, India won the game in Galle and that 200 is believed to be his best ever test knock.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
As I said, it will be. But the problem of his isn't really with away matches, as the average might suggest, but everywhere over the last 5 years.
Sure but that also means that unlike say Ponting he didn't dominate away consistently enough in his prime to the degree to still be overall impressive even after decline.
 

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Sure but that also means that unlike say Ponting he didn't dominate away consistently enough in his prime to the degree to still be overall impressive even after decline.
Nahhhhh. He was better away in prime than Ponting. He had a much better decline
 

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Then who is greatest match winner according to you and also what is stupidest thing i ever said can you plz mention 😉
Only looking at specialists here for a more fair comparison… top two candidates off the top of my head..


Bradman is a candidate. In only 4 out of the 30 matches he won, he didn’t make a 50. (one of them he was injured during the opponent’s first innings and didn’t bat)

Murali would be the other candidate. In only 4 of the 54 matches he won he took less than 5 wickets. (only 6 of the 54 matches he took his wickets at an average of 30+)
 

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Lol putting that innings as "Series defining/changing" is the epitome of nonsense. They score 89 in 30 overs, the Bumrah initial threat is dealt with. ****ing McSweeney did just that in the very 2nd match!!! Survived the initial onslaught and then Head went boom. Do you really have such a bad memory???
He doesn’t have a bad memory, he just doesn’t actually watch test cricket except on scorecard sheet sheets
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Only looking at specialists here for a more fair comparison… top two candidates off the top of my head..


Bradman is a candidate. In only 4 out of the 30 matches he won, he didn’t make a 50. (one of them he was injured during the opponent’s first innings and didn’t bat)

Murali would be the other candidate. In only 4 of the 54 matches he won he took less than 5 wickets. (only 6 of the 54 matches he took his wickets at an average of 30+)
The idea of a matchwinning batsman is itself a stretch, Bradman aside.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Only looking at specialists here for a more fair comparison… top two candidates off the top of my head..


Bradman is a candidate. In only 4 out of the 30 matches he won, he didn’t make a 50. (one of them he was injured during the opponent’s first innings and didn’t bat)

Murali would be the other candidate. In only 4 of the 54 matches he won he took less than 5 wickets. (only 6 of the 54 matches he took his wickets at an average of 30+)
Hadlee was involved in 22 wins. In 18 of them he took atleast 6 wickets. In the remaining four he had:
- A spell of 4-33 in the first innings vs SL
- A spell of 4-65 in the second innings vs India
- 4 wickets in the match and 33 runs vs Australia
- 0 wickets vs England but an important innings of 75

NZ won 0 of the 14 tests Hadlee missed in his career. 6 losses, 8 draws.
 

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hadlee was involved in 22 wins. In 18 of them he took atleast 6 wickets. In the remaining four he had:
- A spell of 4-33 in the first innings vs SL
- A spell of 4-65 in the second innings vs India
- 4 wickets in the match and 33 runs vs Australia
- 0 wickets vs England but an important innings of 75

NZ won 0 of the 14 tests Hadlee missed in his career. 6 losses, 8 draws.
Yeah Hadlee also popped to mind but I wanted to stick with specialists for a more direct comparison.
 

Top