Viv Richards vs Virat Kohli

[Nintendo]

Viv batted much faster than either, and Viv dominated great bowlers with a better frequency than either, and Viv batted in the hardest era for batting, while Smith’s peak was mostly in a batting friendly era, while Sobers peak was still in a much better era for batting than Viv’s.

3 years of smith's peak came in the pace playing pandemic tbf. Saying it was mostly in a batting friendly era is a bit harsh.

 

[subshakerz]

What about Smith (14-19) where he averaged 76 as opposed to a match average of 34.1 and Sobers (58-68) where he averaged 74.1 as opposed to a match average of 33.4

None of them played anywhere near the quality of bowlers Viv did. Especially Smith.

 

[subshakerz]

3 years of smith's peak came in the pace playing pandemic tbf. Saying it was mostly in a batting friendly era is a bit harsh.

In his peak he had a couple series against Rabada/Philander and he averaged around 30 in those series collectively. Then there was one good but not great series in England against Anderson, and a ton against Steyn right in the beginning if you want to count that.

That above is his record in his peak against quality pace bowlers in his peak. Decent but not stellar. Nowhere near dominating like Viv.

 

[joshsly]

Those stats look awfully similar

just saying…

Kohli played on flat batting wickets with 65 metres boundaries, no swing bowling, two new balls, no great bowlers and comparing him to Viv who was the best batsman of his era by a mile. Kohli isn't even in the top 5 in test cricket for a long time now. Viv was way better than Virat

 

[joshsly]

Viv Richards is easily the most devastating batsman I've seen in over 45 years of watching cricket. Like he was just ****ing ridiculous. He was better than Gilly-level demoralizing but did it right handed and higher up the order. And he was also the best all round fieldsman of his generation - utterly brilliant, and bowled handy offies with it. And a decent skipper too.

Like you see blokes these days bomb sixes over mid off and extra cover all the time. No one did that in the 70s and 80s. You just didn't see it. Except him. He was doing it back when it was pretty much unthinkable.

These two guys would probably be two of the first fellas picked in an AT LO XI. Kohli as a LO has basically done it all, and fair enough people marvel at it. But Viv did it first. Sort of the Pele of ODI batting.

And in tests, as an Aus fan growing up in the 70s and 80s, you hid behind your couch and peeked over the top of it in fear when Viv came out to bat, because if he batted for any more than about and hour and a half you were going to get pummeled into oblivion

Edit: oh, and swag. FMD the man was walking testosterone. I know that shouldn't come into it but it did, because you marveled at it while at the same time wanting him brought down a peg or two. Said it before on here a few times, but when he and Lillee went at it, you could have a ground with the combined capacity of the MCG and the Modhi Stadium, and it still wouldn't be big enough for the combined ego.

Definitely agree. Viv is Viv, Virat is no match to Viv. Virat is not even in the top 5 test batsmen for a long time. Comparing him to Viv is a joke. Virat has great numbers in ODIs but it's a flat track batting era and a huge number of batters average close to Virat. Viv was averaging nearly 50 in an era when 35 was an ideal batting average in ODIs for a top batter.

 

[joshsly]

I think you're overrating the strength of the attacks Richards faced. Most of the ATG bowlers were on his side.

You started following cricket in 2021 most probably. Viv faced Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Wasim Akram, Sarfaraz, Botham, Hadlee, the great spinners of India in the 70s, Abdul Qadir in the 80s. Oh these attacks are not great, can only be coming from Virat fan. Virat played in the easiest batting era of all time on the flattest pitches of all time with the shortest boundaries of all time with BCCI's power backing him. Viv is miles ahead of Virat.

 

[Starfighter]

You started following cricket in 2021 most probably.

Wrong.

Viv faced Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Wasim Akram, Sarfaraz, Botham, Hadlee, the great spinners of India in the 70s, Abdul Qadir in the 80s. Oh these attacks are not great, can only be coming from Virat fan. Virat played in the easiest batting era of all time on the flattest pitches of all time with the shortest boundaries of all time with BCCI's power backing him. Viv is miles ahead of Virat.

About half of Richards' career was post Lillee and most of it was after Thomson's best (before he injured his shoulder colliding with Turner). Sarfraz wasn't that special a bowler, Botham was mediocre after 1981, he only played a handful of matches against any of against the Indian quartet, who were not that special and partly past their best, most of his career was before Akram's peak, and there were plenty of flat pitches in ODIs then in Asia. I'm not a Kohli fan and in fact I quite dislike him.

 

[ma1978]

This post was obvious sarcasm. Directed at the people who worship Ken Barrington and Everton Weekes and the like without putting their stats in context.

Virat Kohli and Viv Richards statlines in tests are almost identical, and it’s not even evident Viv played in a harder bowling era. That said, I admire Kohli as a test player and think he’s underrated for the hard runs he’s scored, he’s not in Viv’s league which is in the top 5 batsmen of all time. That’s obvious to anyone who saw them play.

ODIs are different and there is an argument.

 

[joshsly]

This post was obvious sarcasm. Directed at the people who worship Ken Barrington and Everton Weekes and the like without putting their stats in context.

Virat Kohli and Viv Richards statlines in tests are almost identical, and it’s not even evident Viv played in a harder bowling era. That said, I admire Kohli as a test player and think he’s underrated for the hard runs he’s scored, he’s not in Viv’s league which is in the top 5 batsmen of all time. That’s obvious to anyone who saw them play.

ODIs are different and there is an argument.

Most iditotic comment ever, there are tons of today's batters having stats similar to Viv but are way inferior to him including Kohli. Moreover, Kohli average over 60 at home in tests and a below mediocre 43 overseas including the easy peasy West Indies. All this in today's easiest batting era (yes in tests too, even a little bit of grass on the pitch calls for crying and whinging nowadays) + those pitch favors with laughably unethical practises BCCI follows these days to help their batter improve stats. To add, Kohli has scored immensely against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka(among the worst teams of the decade), West Indies(the worst in their history since 1930s) Seriously, some of them here, need real cricket history classes. Comparing Kohli to Viv, specially in tests is laughable. Kohli isn't among the top 5 in tests among current generation, forget Viv who was simply the best after Don

 

[joshsly]

Wrong.

About half of Richards' career was post Lillee and most of it was after Thomson's best (before he injured his shoulder colliding with Turner). Sarfraz wasn't that special a bowler, Botham was mediocre after 1981, he only played a handful of matches against any of against the Indian quartet, who were not that special and partly past their best, most of his career was before Akram's peak, and there were plenty of flat pitches in ODIs then in Asia. I'm not a Kohli fan and in fact I quite dislike him.

He did play Lillee from mid 1970s to about 1983-84, quite a long time and this was the time Richards was at his best. Akram was the fastest druing 1985 to about 1988 and Viv has rated a delivery from Akram the fastest he ever faced (He did say the similar thing about Sylvester Clarke too). Botham was mediocre after 1981, that's your assumption. He was still a smart bowler till about 87-88. Hadlee, Imran, Sarafraz and lot others. Indian quartet were still lethal on Indian wickets when Viv played them, rating them down is so unfair to Viv. Lawson was pretty good early on his career, so as bowlers like Devon Malcolm, Mcdermott, etc. There was no dearth of great bowlers during the era, the pitches weren't like today's flat batting roads. The attacks Viv faced weren't overrated by any means.

 

[Nintendo]

Most iditotic comment ever, there are tons of today's batters having stats similar to Viv but are way inferior to him including Kohli. Moreover, Kohli average over 60 at home in tests and a below mediocre 43 overseas including the easy peasy West Indies. All this in today's easiest batting era (yes in tests too, even a little bit of grass on the pitch calls for crying and whinging nowadays) + those pitch favors with laughably unethical practises BCCI follows these days to help their batter improve stats. To add, Kohli has scored immensely against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka(among the worst teams of the decade), West Indies(the worst in their history since 1930s) Seriously, some of them here, need real cricket history classes. Comparing Kohli to Viv, specially in tests is laughable. Kohli isn't among the top 5 in tests among current generation, forget Viv who was simply the best after Don

Huh? 2016 to now has been the hardest era for batting in tests, ever. Australia have been producing green tops, every deck in india is a sandpit, etc. New Zealand and Sri Lanka are the only countries good for batting RN.

 

[Coronis]

He did play Lillee from mid 1970s to about 1983-84, quite a long time and this was the time Richards was at his best. Akram was the fastest druing 1985 to about 1988 and Viv has rated a delivery from Akram the fastest he ever faced (He did say the similar thing about Sylvester Clarke too). Botham was mediocre after 1981, that's your assumption. He was still a smart bowler till about 87-88. Hadlee, Imran, Sarafraz and lot others. Indian quartet were still lethal on Indian wickets when Viv played them, rating them down is so unfair to Viv. Lawson was pretty good early on his career, so as bowlers like Devon Malcolm, Mcdermott, etc. There was no dearth of great bowlers during the era, the pitches weren't like today's flat batting roads. The attacks Viv faced weren't overrated by any means.

Have you actually watched test cricket lately? You keep calling them flat batting roads. This isn’t the mid 00’s anymore.

 

[ma1978]

Most iditotic comment ever, there are tons of today's batters having stats similar to Viv but are way inferior to him including Kohli. Moreover, Kohli average over 60 at home in tests and a below mediocre 43 overseas including the easy peasy West Indies. All this in today's easiest batting era (yes in tests too, even a little bit of grass on the pitch calls for crying and whinging nowadays) + those pitch favors with laughably unethical practises BCCI follows these days to help their batter improve stats. To add, Kohli has scored immensely against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka(among the worst teams of the decade), West Indies(the worst in their history since 1930s) Seriously, some of them here, need real cricket history classes. Comparing Kohli to Viv, specially in tests is laughable. Kohli isn't among the top 5 in tests among current generation, forget Viv who was simply the best after Don

Did you read what I wrote or do you just like to pointlessly rant. I agree with you Kohli is not in Vic’s league.

May be best not to post drunk

 

[Aidan11]

Viv = GOAT

 

[shortpitched713]

Peak Viv was the greatest batsman since Bradman the world has ever seen. Take any other batsman at their peak and they fall short of him.

Make a thread with stats guru filters. Will be good fun for all!

 

[shortpitched713]

This post was obvious sarcasm. Directed at the people who worship Ken Barrington and Everton Weekes and the like without putting their stats in context.

I rate Weekes based on footage seen. Barrington isn't as impressive to me, so he's rated lower by me. Regardless, not sure what context makes their astounding run production meaningless , other than maybe playing in an easier era.

 

[Coronis]

I rate Weekes based on footage seen. Barrington isn't as impressive to me, so he's rated lower by me. Regardless, not sure what context makes their astounding run production meaningless , other than maybe playing in an easier era.

If you only had that level of footage available how would you rate the Fab Four, Tendulkar, Lara etc? Eyetest is a **** metric

 

[kyear2]

If you only had that level of footage available how would you rate the Fab Four, Tendulkar, Lara etc? Eyetest is a **** metric

I respectfully disagree. I don't think it should be the primary test, but they all contribute in forming an opinion of a player.

 

[Coronis]

I respectfully disagree. I don't think it should be the primary test, but they all contribute in forming an opinion of a player.

Nah if Bradman looked like he batted like a tailender it wouldn’t change my opinion of him as a player at all.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

The only thing that matters is the results