What made the mid-1980s Indian ODI team so good?

[h_hurricane]

He averages 31.5 in the matches WI lost though, fair bit lesser than Lara/Ponting/Sachin.

In the case of Lara or Tendulkar, this stat is logical as they played for much weaker teams. A lot of their good innings would go in vain due to the relative mediocrity of the sides they played in.

As for Ponting, I just do not know. Australia weren't as awesome at the start and beginning of his career, so that could be the reason.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The context here is the 80s. In the 70s, he killed it anyway. In the 80s, Windies lost 6 tests. His batting average was 19 in them.

Now, this stat doesn't mean squat, and it's not because of the sample size either. It's the chicken-egg problem. They lost in at least some part because he failed. The reasoning, even if you want to read into it, doesn't make sense. Suppose there was a match they were losing and he scored a century and they won, it's not like that fact would come up in a "average in losing games" stat.

That's all great but doesn't adress the "would annihilate you if you put up a fight". If WI lose the Test then the opposition is putting up a fight, and he clearly didn't annihilate them.

Sure maybe there were plenty of other games where the oppositon "put up a fight" and Viv turned the tide. But that stat doesn't back up the original claim, even if it doesn't assuredly refute it.

What does tools to average more really mean? Like you can take up any ATG batsman and claim that if he really wanted to he could have scored 10 runs more in each of of his innings, that's not how it turned out though.

It could mean anything that you want it to. It's essentially a meaningless statement.

 

[trundler]

.. which was my point. No room for shoulda woulda coulda when you're compared to Hammond, Tendulkar, Lara, Smith and other who could and did.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sure maybe there were plenty of other games where the oppositon "put up a fight" and Viv turned the tide. But that stat doesn't back up the original claim, even if it doesn't assuredly refute it.

There is really no way of knowing using this particular stat.

Let's break it down. Total of 19 games in his career that Windies lost. Average 31.50 in them.

6 of those happened in 1975/76 where he averaged 51.16.

3 seasons with 2 defeats. 7 seasons with 1 defeat. Trying to judge a batsman from 1 defeat in an entire season is... unwise.

All of this is completely exclusive of the fact that he must have won them many games where the opposition put up a fight.

 

[Flem274*]

viv was a guy with an incredible eye in the best team in the world who lost his eye and has been romanticized ever since. he's an atg, but he lived and died by the sword and is not the second best after bradman.

Many contemporaries also rate Wasim Akram as the best bowler around despite having fairly poorer stats than say the top 5, so either contemporaries are all knowing, or complete and utter wankers.

exactly. people who use former player hot takes should be forced to listen to several hours of commentary by said former players to remind them they're all reactionary idiots in no danger of a deep thought.

great players don't always make great coaches or great judges of a player.

 

[Daemon]

so err, madan lal was pretty good in the '83 wc right

 

[srbhkshk]

In the case of Lara or Tendulkar, this stat is logical as they played for much weaker teams. A lot of their good innings would go in vain due to the relative mediocrity of the sides they played in.

As for Ponting, I just do not know. Australia weren't as awesome at the start and beginning of his career, so that could be the reason.

To clarify all three of Lara/Ponting /Tendulkar do average a lot less in lost matches as compared to their overall average. I just thought trundler's point was that Viv would average more than them in such cases but he actually averages significantly lesser than all three.

 

[trundler]

To clarify all three of Lara/Ponting /Tendulkar do average a lot less in lost matches as compared to their overall average. I just thought trundler's point was that Viv would average more than them in such cases but he actually averages significantly lesser than all three.

That wasn't my point at all. I didn't make a single post along those lines. I'm firmly in the Viv isn't #2 camp.

 

[honestbharani]

He just thinks you are harsh...

 

[pardus]

this is the kind of wishy washy stuff that bothers me. What was his statement? He found batting so easy and boring he didn't feel like averaging 60, even though he apparently had the ability to?

To each their own man. You are talking as if Viv averages 30, while others average 50. Viv is not statistically better than the likes of Tendulkar or Lara, but then he isn't really inferior to them either (other than in runs scored - which is obviously a result of them playing much more cricket than Viv).
I have no issues if someone opines that Tendulkar or Lara were better batsmen than Viv, however to claim that they are miles ahead of Viv, or that Viv was nothing but theatrics is honestly laughable.

Viv was way ahead of his time. Nobody batted like that in that era. In that era, just nobody tried to hit fast bowlers back over their heads in Test match cricket - as often as Viv did. He was one batsman who you could safely say would be successful - if you time-transported him just as he was at his peak in 1980 - to practically any era, in any format of cricket. There are very few batsmen about whom you could say that. For example - many batsmen of Viv's era - if they were time-transported as they were at their peak back then to today's 20-20 era, they would have struggled to cope with the demands of scoring at hectic pace in 20-20.

And similarly if modern day greats were transported back to mid-1970s for example (with those equipment and those rules), they too would not be very comfortable say facing Lillee and Thomson in Test cricket with no helmets, minimal padding, and very little restrictions on bouncers. At the very least, it would definitely affect their attacking approach.

It isn't just Chappell, the list of cricketers who rated Viv as the best batsman they have seen is pretty impressive. It includes Brian Lara, Barry Richards, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Jeff Thomson, Martin Crowe, Aravinda De Silva, Mohammed Azharuddin, Ravi Shastri, Javed Miandad, Ramiz Raja, Inzamam Ul Haq among many others.

The impact that Viv's batting had - when seen live - was something else, especially in the era that he played in. Is Viv the unquestionable all-time #2? Definitely NOT for me. Is he in the conversation for top 5 batsmen of all time? For sure he is (as are Hobbs, Sobers, Lara, Tendulkar and a few others).

 

[srbhkshk]

He just thinks you are harsh...

nah I thought he was hurricane, I'm getting old :-(

 

[Engle]

Not only did Viv not wear a helmet, I recall a bowler saying he felt like wearing a helmet when bowling to Viv. Picture that if you will.

 

[mr_mister]

I don’t mean this in a harsh way, but did you see much of Viv or have you watched much of him batting?

well I was born in '91 so i've only had highlights to go by, but I've seen a few innings by him. I watched his 146 against Australia just yesterday. He looks great sure. Great power, dismissive, effortless style, big hits, takes on Merv - the commentators gush over him as if he's a god and this is a standard Viv innings - one you might get 2-3 times a series. However it was one of only 16 times he passed 100 in about 100 tests and 14 years from 77-91 - this is where i take issue

I just feel when he was on he must have made memories that lasted for the ages but there must have been a lot of failures/inconsequential innings in between, considerably moreso than Sachin, Hobbs, Smith etc going by some of his stats.

I wouldn't be suprised if his % of single digit scores over his career was quite a bit higher than Sachin, Hobbs, etc - all those blokes in the conversation for number 2

maybe i'll try and find those numbers soon

 

[Daemon]

maybe i'll try and find those numbers soon

lmk if you need help with that

 

[mr_mister]

To each their own man. You are talking as if Viv averages 30, while others average 50. Viv is not statistically better than the likes of Tendulkar or Lara, but then he isn't really inferior to them either (other than in runs scored - which is obviously a result of them playing much more cricket than Viv).
I have no issues if someone opines that Tendulkar or Lara were better batsmen than Viv, however to claim that they are miles ahead of Viv, or that Viv was nothing but theatrics is honestly laughable.

Viv was way ahead of his time. Nobody batted like that in that era. In that era, just nobody tried to hit fast bowlers back over their heads in Test match cricket - as often as Viv did. He was one batsman who you could safely say would be successful - if you time-transported him just as he was at his peak in 1980 - to practically any era, in any format of cricket. There are very few batsmen about whom you could say that. For example - many batsmen of Viv's era - if they were time-transported as they were at their peak back then to today's 20-20 era, they would have struggled to cope with the demands of scoring at hectic pace in 20-20.

And similarly if modern day greats were transported back to mid-1970s for example (with those equipment and those rules), they too would not be very comfortable say facing Lillee and Thomson in Test cricket with no helmets, minimal padding, and very little restrictions on bouncers. At the very least, it would definitely affect their attacking approach.

It isn't just Chappell, the list of cricketers who rated Viv as the best batsman they have seen is pretty impressive. It includes Brian Lara, Barry Richards, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Jeff Thomson, Martin Crowe, Aravinda De Silva, Mohammed Azharuddin, Ravi Shastri, Javed Miandad, Ramiz Raja, Inzamam Ul Haq among many others.

The impact that Viv's batting had - when seen live - was something else, especially in the era that he played in. Is Viv the unquestionable all-time #2? Definitely NOT for me. Is he in the conversation for top 5 batsmen of all time? For sure he is (as are Hobbs, Sobers, Lara, Tendulkar and a few others).

It's more than just the averages. I know 50 is only a few points away from Sachin and Lara's averages but then again Michael Hussey had that too honour too. It's almost the fact that his career stats seemed to go in one direction after his initial peak period that is worrisome. He had 8 tons after 21 tests then basically went full Neil Harvey/Arthur Morris. And the fact that he played so many tests against some weakish bowling units like 80s England and Australia and still only managed that careeer average of 50(and during the 80s a lot lower). He doesn't have enough excuses to explain away his average - he definitely faced easier bowlers than Sachin and Lara.

But I definitely take your point, I do. I just feel when push comes to shove, and we really have to make tough decisions and break down these players careers as much as we can(should we want to truly decide the 2nd best after Bradman and as cricket nerds I feel all we do), he should objectively not be in the top 5 - as Sachin, Hobbs, Smith, Lara and let's say, Sobers all seem to have stronger cases with a bit of comparison - Viv might certainly deserve to be in the discussion of the the top 10/15 of all time, but I dont think he deserves to be in the discussion for second best after Bradman. And that's pretty much all I'm trying to say - not that he was useless or anything, just that he's slightly overrated.

 

[h_hurricane]

That's all great but doesn't adress the "would annihilate you if you put up a fight". If WI lose the Test then the opposition is putting up a fight, and he clearly didn't annihilate them.

Sure maybe there were plenty of other games where the oppositon "put up a fight" and Viv turned the tide. But that stat doesn't back up the original claim, even if it doesn't assuredly refute it.

Below example illustrates the annihilation part. West Indies during 80s rarely came close to losing a test match or a series. On this occasion, when they almost surely did, Viv turned the table keeping with his awesome reputation, winning the match in a session.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...es-1st-test-west-indies-tour-of-india-1987-88

Australia's victory over WI in 1995 is revered(and rightly so) as it signaled the end of an ATG team's era and the potential beginning of another. This series victory would not have been remembered as much had India won the above mentioned match and the series 2-0. Would have broken the WI period of dominance much earlier. Viv just needed a session to create this impact.

That is what Viv was all about. Kept the WI flag flying as long as he was there. Dominant, domineering. The best batsman I have seen across both formats.(well, it is my opinion and I am sure many will concur).

And of course, I didn't mean that he annihilated the opposition in every match. The leopard could be tamed occasionally.

 

[ma1978]

Viv Richards is an ATG amongst ATGs. The standard bearer for the most dominating sports team in any sport.

But on the topic at hand, India's mid 1980s ODI team was damn good. And there was one reason. Kapil Dev. He was an excellent test cricketer but arguably the worst of the four great all rounders of that time (no shame there), but he was the best in ODIs and by far the most valuable ODI player of the 1980s and top 5 all time. In the ICC all rounder stats, he is head and shoulders amongst everyone. He was at one point the top tanked bowler and another the sixth ranked batsman. Putting his stats in the modern context, his batting was Sehwag and his bowling was Mitchell Starc.

There were other good pieces. But Kapil was the most valuable ODI player in the world for a while.

 

[ankitj]

Interesting perspective. Hurricane will agree.

 

[trundler]

If you adjust his batting average upwards to be Sehwag-like then his bowling average must be Woakes or Amir

 

[srbhkshk]

If you adjust his batting average upwards to be Sehwag-like then his bowling average must be Woakes or Amir

He isn't talking about his full career I think.