Warnetooextracool said:
couldnt have put it better myself.nice first post!Kain said:Both Chappell and Miandad might have had similar success during the same period,but only Viv had the aura of indestructibility that only a few players throughtout history seemed to possess.Bradman had it it due to the sheer weight of runs that flowed off his bat, Sobers due to his ability to change the nature of any game with his allround skills and Lillee with his ability to out think any batsman.Chappell, Miandad and Richards were all batsmen of supreme class yet Richards stood out.Why? Because he dominated every bowler of that era and did so for most of his career. There was no one bowler he respected with the possible exception of Lillee which he will most likely never admit. Many other great batsmen can't lay claim to that including todays greats Lara and Tendulkar. Fast bowlers tend to intimidate batsmen that is a fact of life. But Richards was never one to be grounded in normalcy and it was this quality and his sheer batting talent that allowed him to turn the tables on them. In a sense Richards is the modern day reincarnation of Sir Don Bradman. Not in technique and amount of runs scored of course where Bradman will always remain supreme. But in terms of their domination of their respective eras they are one and the same. By sheer weight of the number of runs that came off Bradman's bat no sane bowler would relish the chance to have a go at him. Oh yes they might eventually get him out but his score at that point wouldn't make good reading for the bowling side. Richards however went about it in a different way. He wasn't the run machine that was the Don, but he didn't need to be simply because of his approach to batting. Where the Don might score a double hundred thereby totally demoralizing the bowling team, Richards would only score fifty but have the same effect. Well you might ask how can a man who scored a double be compared to another who only scored fifty? The answer would be in the way they both scored their respective runs. Bradman made bowlers feel inferior because they couldn't stop him from scoring even when bowling ultra defensive(bodyline-still averaged fifty something). Richards made you feel inferior because he would just bash you about like if you were some school boy now learning your craft. Just the sight of him coming out to bat demoralized the other side's bowlers. During the mid seventies to early eighties no bowler could claim he had the measure of Sir Viv because everyone got the same treatment shared around in equal doses:they bowl, Viv swings and the ball ends up out of the park. Viv is one of the greatest batsmen the world has ever seen but this is not the reason he made the Wisden list as there were many other great batsmen and great bowlers during his time. Names such as Chappell, Gavaskar, Miandad, Imran Khan, Lillee, Lloyd, Hadlee, Boycott, Border, Botham and Dev were all world class players and will be remembered as some of the greatest cricketers to have ever played the game. But Sir Viv Richards was voted as one the five cricketers of the century and not the others. The Reason. Simply put he dominated them all.Wow! Got a little carried away there
Sorry bout that.
Botham's opinions are very subjective, he ranks players on how good they look and only takes into account players he has seen. He has not seen Headley or Weekes and if he had would probably have a different view.tooextracool said:
i think the fact that you could only bring up 5 instances in his 110 test career says a lot and 1 of them happens to be his debut test match too!a massive zebra said:
None other than Dennis Lilee. Worst example ever hmmm...so you are saying that bowlers were'nt ever intimidated by Lara.tooextracool said:
You look at averages over a period of time you dumb moron. If Andy had maintained his average through 125 Test matches then you could say he was in Gavaskar's league, for it sure was great to watch him bat. And you're saying I have no clue what i'm talking about?tooextracool said:
I could bring up a lot more instances, but was just quoting matches against India because you were saying he bowled tightly against them. He had played 11 matches against them so the fact that I could bring up 5 instances in just 11 matches against them says a lot!tooextracool said:
and sobers opinions are archaic and he only rates people of his generation highly so where do we get?a massive zebra said:
I use my brain when looking at averages. It is blindingly obvious that Richards was better than Vinod Kambli for example and if you use your brain and notice that he played far more matches you will appreciate that his record is better despite having a worse average. Averages are important and if you ignore them completely your opinion is baseless and not based on any evidence. Like the claim that Richards was better than anyone since Bradman because he 'intimidated bowlers' despite the fact that other batsmen have done better. I appreciate that he may have 'intimidated' the batsmen more than anyone else but what use is that if he is less effective than a less intimidating batsman like Dravid for example. At the end of the day its the batsman that scores the most runs that wins the match not the batsman who scares the bowler the most!tooextracool said:
worst example because if any fast bowler has managed to intimidate lara then mcgrath has been most successful at doing so.hes made him look like his bunny on several occasions. the difference is that viv richards intimidated almost every fast bowler that ever bowled to him...while lara intimidated maybe 3-4chicane said:
so since don bradman averaged 99.94 only over 60 odd tests hes clearly not as good as gavaskar and he hasnt proven himself. get real anyboyd who has managed to maintain an average of 50 over 50+ tests has been a great batsman.chicane said:You look at averages over a period of time you dumb moron. If Andy had maintained his average through 125 Test matches then you could say he was in Gavaskar's league, for it sure was great to watch him bat. And you're saying I have no clue what i'm talking about?
POUR SOME COLD WATER ON YOUR HEAD!
Because they have only seen Richards and give the benefit of the doubt to players they have seen. Most of the few people who have seen all of them do not share that view. If Richards had played in the 1920s/30s and Headley in the 1970s/80s the vast majority of people would rank Headley higher because they would not have seen Richards.tooextracool said:
Complete garbage. Those matches were spread over 20 years so he clearly did prove himself over a period of time as Chicane said. These days it takes a lot less time to play 60 matches although IMO once you have played over 50 matches your career can be thought of as valid.tooextracool said:
there is no point in bringing kambli into this discussion, i mentioned andy flower who has maintained his average over a reasonable number of tests.....AFAIC you are comparing players who you have never seen play, and thats just ridiculous. if it were that easy then even a person who has never seen a cricket match in his life can come in here and judge who the better player is and who is not just by looking at "averages". no i dont discount averages, on most occasions a person averaging 10 runs ahead of another player in the same era is a better player but when the averages are really similar you have to take into account a lot of other things that you would never understand.a massive zebra said:
so if andy flower and gavaskar had similar averages how can you say that gavaskar was better simply because his average was over a period of over 125 test matches while andy flowers was not.there are other reasons why gavaskar was better but using some of massive zebras philosophy they are as good as each other!chicane said:
Because the Stats you have posted is incorrect.tooextracool said:
Pure assumption on your part. Sri Lanka with this batting lineup would have struggled anyway.tooextracool said:
If that is true then you are not in a position to comment who the best player since Bradman is because you have not seen them all.tooextracool said:
If I remember correctly you rank Haynes/Greenidge above Hayden so clearly give little weight to avarages. I do understand there are plenty of other things to take into account like average scores at the time and the team you played for. Richards did not have to play against the West Indies so that would help his record and average scores were lower then than now but Chappell/Miandad/Gavaskar still did just as well.tooextracool said:
I don't think they are as good as eachother. Scores are higher now and some people did better than Flower during his time while no one was more productive than Gavaskar in the 70s/80s. If you take into account the standard of bowlers Gavaskar faced they were generally higher than those faced by Flower.tooextracool said:
don bradman averaged more than 40 runs above everyone else...i think its quite safe to say that he was the best player. you are saying that a player who averages 1.5 runs above another is better without having seen him play, there is a clear difference!!a massive zebra said:
so if steve waugh never got to play against mcgrath,warne etc does that make him any less great?fact is that in the 80s almost every team had 1-2 quality fast bowlers and the pitches then favoured the bowlers!a massive zebra said:
Headley was the first great West Indian batsman and if you want to compare I'd campare Lara with him. Both great batsmen having to carry their team batting wise without muck support. It would have been interesting to see if he had played another thirty tests but he did not. The important thing however is that during his time there were many great batsmen such as Hobbs, Bradman and Hutton. And even though Headley was a fabulous batsman he did not dominate that era of test match cricket and that is extremely important.Bradman dominated that era and Richards is in the same mould as he. Richards dominated his era unlike Headley who was among a throng of great players at the time. Headley might have scored more runs than Richards but he could never have the effect of a Richards. If Bradman had only had an average of early 60s or late 50s he would not have been on the same level as Richards. The fact that he did have an average of 99 shows what a genius he is and why he accomplished more than Viv. Headley may be the equal of Bradman and Richards and Sobers but he did not have time to accomplished what he might have done. Plus Headley did not have the support Viv and Bradman had in terms of batting.My personal view is that Bradman is on top followed by a select group of people such as Headley, Richards, Sobers, Hammond, Sutcliffe, G.Pollock, Hobbs and a few others .a massive zebra said:
