Viv Richards - How good was he?

[W63L35]

Ian Botham: 'Sports psychology ... it's the biggest con of all time' The England legend reveals why his proudest moment as a sportsman came in 2007 – and why the greatest cricketer of all time was not Sir Donald Bradman The Brian Viner interview Published: 28 December 2007 Ian Botham: 'Sports psychology ... it's the biggest con of all time' Botham: 'The Australians laugh at us' As British sport looks back on 2007, one man has more reason than any other to heave a deep sigh of contentment, perhaps with an accompanying glug of a good Puligny Montrachet. This was the year in which Sir Ian Botham was knighted, and nothing in his eventful life could match the surge of pride he felt as the royal sword descended on his shoulders. "I've had some great highs, but that, in all honesty, was the biggest moment of my life," he tells me, in the lounge of a bijou hotel in Bath, during a tour to promote his autobiography. "To have my two grandsons there watching..." He is fleetingly lost for words. "We'd been sworn to secrecy," he continues. "We daren't tell the kids, and I couldn't tell my mother, because all she needed was half a glass of shampoo and the whole world would know. My only regret is that my father died two years ago and wasn't around to witness it..." Once again, words fail the great man. I ask him about his fellow honourees at the Palace that day. "Oh, Barry Humphries, a headmaster from Guyana in a wheelchair, nuclear scientists, teachers, firemen... I almost got it wrong right at the end. You stand by a rear admiral, and as soon as you hear your name you walk forward, kneel, the Queen knights you, you get up, and bow, so she can put the chain round your neck. Then she shakes your hand, and you bow again, but I half-turned before I bowed." It wasn't like Botham to get the script wrong; he's been re-writing them most of his life. And what a story it is, I venture, that he and his dear old mucker Viv Richards, neither of themexactly darlings of the establishment, are both now knights of the realm. "Yeah... Viv came up to the house after it had been announced and we had a little party. He made an impromptu speech, which isn't really like him, but he said we should think back to when we started at Somerset, living in a condemned house next to the ground with no running water. Who'd ever have thought that those two guys would end up as they are?" How it all came to pass is the subject of Botham: Head On, which was ghost-written, but not, at his insistence, by a sports writer. "A cricket writer would have had his own ideas about what happened. I didn't want that. So a guy called Neil Hanson did it, a historical writer. He did the true facts of the Great Fire of London." A chuckle. "I got to page five on that. No, he did a great job, although there were some words with 15 syllables and I didn't have a clue what they meant, so they had to come out." Botham likes to present himself as one of life's artisans; one of the more effective tools in the box but not the sharpest. In the book he says that at school he was nicknamed "Bungalow", meaning nothing upstairs. But the truth, I think, is that he is much shrewder than he lets on. "Everyone has their own idea of what Ian Botham is or isn't," he says, as if reading my mind. "But very few have actually met me. I wanted this book to be a walk through my life. And it's warts and all." He's not wrong about that. He spends several pages ridiculing various allegations of extramarital relationships, but then rather abruptly admits to an affair of almost two years with an Australian waitress, as a result of which his daughter Sarah refused to speak to him for "a long time," which must have been dreadfully painful for them both. He also addresses one or two of the higher-profile enmities of his life, notably those with his old Aussie adversary Ian Chappell, and with his former Somerset team-mate Peter Roebuck. "I can't pretend it didn't happen," he says. "But the Ian Chappell thing I hardly give a mention to. It's so insignificant to me, and he's twisted and warped it for his own purposes. Roebuck is just a sad, sad person. But you know, something Seve Ballesteros said years ago stuck in my head. If you take the negative stuff out of the mix, it might unbalance the whole thing." Maybe that philosophy also applies to Englishness, I suggest. Botham is a fierce patriot, and yet there are aspects of our collective psyche that mystify him. He does not, for example, understand why Nick Faldo hasn't received the tap of cold steel. "It's very, very strange. Nick won six majors, just like Nigel Mansell was a world champion, and they got stick for being unsociable or boring or whatever, while we made a hero out of Eddie the Eagle. The Australians laugh at us. They say 'what's wrong with you? You get a champion and you knock him.' You've got to value success. I took 383 Test wickets, and I'll be delighted if Monty Panesar or someone goes sailing past me." How, though, should we define success? Success was England winning the Ashes in 2005, yet it was followed with unseemly swiftness by the whitewash in 2006-07. And the Test team has looked distinctly average in Sri Lanka. Who does Botham blame for that? "I think that some players lived off the back of the 2005 Ashes for a while, but I don't blame just them. The establishment went over the top, the management went over the top. It was farcical in Australia last winter. The England team had security outriders, and there's Shane Warne driving the Aussies around in a minibus. I had no problems with [the England players] all enjoying themselves in Trafalgar Square, but they should have got straight back to business. Instead, central contracts were abused – it's a joke that the England players play hardly any county cricket – and Duncan Fletcher became power mad. He had to go, and now Peter Moores has to address the habits these boys have got into. But we can't judge him until after the next Ashes." In his time, Botham adds, the county obligations of England cricketers were self-regulating. "Somerset were sensible with me. They rested me when it was best to do so. And I had a great mentor in Brian Close, who kept my feet on the ground. Also, relationships at county level can be the most valuable of your life. Viv and I were great for each other, and I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket. Bradman got all the records, but I wonder if Bradman could have adjusted to 20-, 40-, 50-over cricket as well as Test matches? When you look at footage from the 1930s, there's no science about the field placings. They were the same when the batsman arrived at the crease as they were when he'd scored 300. Obviously Bradman was an exceptional talent, but I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv." Unsurprisingly, he also considers the West Indies under Clive Lloyd to have been the Test team par excellence. "People talk about the [1948 Australian] Invincibles. Baloney! They would have been blown away by that lot. And Clive Lloyd made them the West Indies, you know. He brought all those guys from different islands together, in a way that had never been done before, and hasn't been done properly since." Botham's own 12-Test record as an international captain was considerably less impressive (eight draws and four defeats) but it still rankles that he is perceived as a failure. "I would have come good. That [1980-81] season for Somerset I averaged nearly 100. I was in good form. But there were a few senior players who resented a 24-year-old captain, and I didn't realise that some guys needed to be told how good they were. I still don't understand that. Sports psychology, what's that all about? It's the biggest con of all time, people making a lot of money talking ********. In Australia, a sports psychologist came to me and said he was writing a book, could he ask me a few questions? I said: 'what's your field?' 'Cricket,' he said. 'Oh, how many Tests did you play?' 'Erm, I never played first-class cricket.' 'Well, **** off then... what can you tell me about walking out in front of 100,000 people?'" I laugh dutifully, but suggest, rather bravely, that maybe Botham has just nailed his own failings as a captain: an inability to understand the needs of others. Just because he never needed psychological guidance as a sportsman, doesn't mean that some might. After all, he never liked net practice either. But for some it's vital. "Yes, there is that case, but why play professional sport if you're not sure of your talent? Be a car salesman." I persevere. Wasn't Mike Brearley, his captain in the extraordinary 1981 Ashes campaign, essentially a psychologist? "I don't think Mike Brearley made Bob [Willis] take 8 for 43," he says, shortly. Changing the subject to something with a frothily end-of-year feel, I ask him to indulge me by answering a short, impromptu questionnaire. If he were condemned to play only three golf courses for the rest of time, what would they be? "Portmarnock, Doonbeg and Waterville, all in Ireland," he says. And to drink only three wines? "Vega-Sicilia from Spain, Puligny Montrachet, and Jordan Nine Yards from South Africa." And to fish only three rivers? "The Tweed, the Spey and the Tyne." And finally, if he could watch again and again the deeds of only three cricketers? "Viv Richards, Shane Warne, and D K Lillee." Some of us might find room in our fantasy trio for I T Botham.

Well said, Sir Ian!

[Desi]

i still dont like him

[Nakhuda]

Havn't seen much of "The Don" but playing conditions and bowling standards must have been very different in his day!
Viv was a class act and most probably the greatest batsman in modern times though Lara and Sachin run him close.

[The Blazer]

It's no secret that Botham sucked up to Vivs big-time, being of course only half the batsman the West Indian was. Better than Bradman? That's a bold claim to make, especially since both played in completely different eras!

[rahulrulezz]

Botham has gone crazy.... Viv cant even come close to Bradman..coz

Don ko pakadna mushkil hi nahi Namunkin Hai

[Raz]

He also labelled Warne being the greater cricketer than Bradman when broke the 700 barrier on the last Ashes tour

[Sparhawk]

Thats a pretty big claim. He might be a bit biased towards his old mate, but you gotta respect that he always speaks his mind.

[JustAnotherFan]

Out of curiosity, has anyone read his (auto) biography yet? Is it worth reading? I saw it at a bookstore here in SAF.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan Out of curiosity, has anyone read his (auto) biography yet? Is it worth reading? I saw it at a bookstore here in SAF.

It's moderately interesting buit he shows a complete lack of self-awareness. This is a shame, else I think he would have worked harder and ended up with 7000 test runs and 500 test wickets instead of 5000 and 373.

[pinger]

What a load of tosh from Botham.

It is well known that Viv and Botham were best of friends, with Viv being the godfather of Both's children.

But his man-love for Viv has gone too far here.

To ignore the simple fact that Bradman nearly doubled the average of EVERY cricketer of his era, and EVERY cricketer of every other era

To suggest that Bradman could also not adapt his game to shorter versions of the game is also ridiculous. He was well known for his fast scoring, and improvision bought about from his amazing reflexes (honed by rebounding and hitting a golf ball with a stump against an uneven (corrugated) surface). He was known for his fast footwork, confidence and fast scoring. Sounds almost Punter-esque. He was also an excellent fielder.

"This performance was surpassed at Leeds: Bradman scored a century before lunch on the first day of the Test match to equal the performances of Victor Trumper and Charlie Macartney. In the afternoon, Bradman added another century between lunch and tea, finishing the day on 309 not out. He remains the only Test player to pass 300 in one day’s play. " World sport context Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[1] Statistician Charles Davis argues that Bradman's performance is the most dominant of any player of any major sport. He analyses the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are:[citation needed] Athlete Sport Statistic Standard deviations Probability against (1/x) Bradman Cricket Batting average 4.4 184,000 Pelé Football (Soccer) Goals per game 3.7 9,300 Ty Cobb Baseball Batting average 3.6 6,300 Jack Nicklaus Golf Major titles 3.5 4,300 Michael Jordan Basketball Points per game 3.4 3,000 Using the above criterion, it is estimated that someone of Bradman's calibre appears once in 184,000 batsmen, compared with once in 9,300 football players for the next most highly rated person, Pelé. Bradman's statistic would be even higher if extra deviation created by non-batting specialists was taken into account. In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score 43 points per game. For comparison, Michael Jordan holds the NBA record with an average of 30.1 points per game, while Ty Cobb's career batting average of .366 from 1928 still stands as the MLB high mark.

[majid786]

i bet botham didn`t even know wot he was sayin, viv was definantly class but nowhere near don bradman.

[BD-fan]

He was the best.

1) As a captain never lost a test series. 14 series. No Loss!!

2) Never wore a helmet. He said himself - 'I felt I was good enough to deal with the bowlers without using a helmet. I just didn't want to give them any encouragement.'

3) His command while batting (chewing gum) is incomparable. No one looked as relaxed as him. The only reason he was well prepared, physically better than anyone on and off the field. Even at 55+ now he don't have fat in his belly and the V shape is still visible. How fit was he when playing? In 1974, he played for Antigua National team in WC qualifiers. (Football)

4) Eyes of Viv Richards: These were the eyes that subjugated every bowler in the 1970s and 80s. One moment they allowed him to see the ball that millisecond faster than anyone else, the next they could stare down the pitch with such intensity that bowlers shriveled in his presence.

'I won the glare with the bowler every time,' Richards says, 'because I knew that at some time he was going to have to turn around and go back to his mark.' But it was more than that: Richards prevailed because he had an aura beyond that of any cricketer of his generation.

5) On his debut for WI, he scored 192 not out, lol.

Greatest ever:
6) Refused a 'blank check' to play for a rebel West Indies side in apartheid South Africa. Now this is called 'Character'.

7) One of the Wisden's five Cricketers of the Century in 2000. Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs are in that company.

8) 26 centuries, averaging 50+ in 121 test totaling 8,540 runs.

++

I am lucky to see many of his innings and listen to some more of his innings in radio.

[kingusama92]

something Razzaq and those ICL guys need to learn from a man like Richards was his character which as you stated he refused that blank check... awesome player but even better as a person...

[PlanetPakistan]

Wish i had seen him live, he stopped playing a few months before i started watching cricket.

Originally Posted by kingusama92 something Razzaq and those ICL guys need to learn from a man like Richards was his character which as you stated he refused that blank check... awesome player but even better as a person...

There is a difference between apartheid South Africa and league like ICL!

[BD-fan]

Nowadays, you don't see much of batsman's eyes unless they are playing spinners. The only eyes with similar fire I have ever seen is Murali while bowling!!

[Tapori]

To be fair kingusama I understand your point but the comparison is nowhere the same in terms of a wider context.

I am confident if the ICL were politically and socially linked to a regime such as the apartheid one Razzaq and co would not have taken the money.

Undfortunately Richards was before my time but the way you have described along with what vids are available and descriptions of everyone that watched him it further enhances his legend.

What player of this era could possibly match him (or come close), either now or in time?

[JustAnotherFan]

Originally Posted by Tapori What player of this era could possibly match him (or come close), either now or in time?

People make too much of so-called legends.

Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa.

Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers.

I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win.

[observer2]

Originally Posted by BD-fan 5) On his debut for WI, he scored 192 not out, lol.

He hit his first ball for 4 and was out the second ball on his debut.
Not sure if he scored much in the second innings - it was probably a zero or one.
He scored 192 not out in his second match

[nadeem]

"People make too much of so-called legends.

Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa.

Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers.

I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win."


I used to think that Rahul's post saying that asnodkar was good enough to replace one of our middle trio i.e., YK, Yusuf and Miusbah was the worst ever post on PP but we've got a winner here. Diabolical.

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan People make too much of so-called legends. Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa. Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers. I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win.

Honestly speaking, I think you still hark back to the 'great days' of Apartheid.

But like you keep reminding us, we shouldnt talk about the past if it paints you or your country in a negative way.

Clearly, its not even worth debating Viv Richards with you...

[Oxy]

A real LIVING LEGEND.

I got into cricket watching this guy - copying every little intracasy...the gum...the swagger...even bought a Slazenger V100.

Met the 'King' on a number of ocassions.

Greatest cricketer of all time for me.

How awesome would he have been had been playing in the friendly batting conditions of today? 1 bouncer per over? Heavier bats? Shorter boundaries.

The MASTER BLASTER! The ORIGINAL Beast (who COULD bat!)

[Robert]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan People make too much of so-called legends. Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful.

Sir Viv faced better fast bowlers than there are around today. Lillee, Thommo, Hadlee, Imran, Willis, Botham, Kapil, Wasim.

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by Robert Sir Viv faced better fast bowlers than there are around today. Lillee, Thommo, Hadlee, Imran, Willis, Botham, Kapil, Wasim.

Perhaps JAF wants King Viv to have face the might of Brian MacMillan before he can be talked of in 'legendary' terms?

[McBoom]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan People make too much of so-called legends. Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa. Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers. I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win.

This is hall of shame material.

Tell me do you dislike Viv because he refused the blank cheque ?

[BD-fan]

Viv is not a legend. He is modern day cricket. Pioneer to change the game. No one putting on pads before had played the game the way he use to play.

In between 1980 to 1991 (his captaincy), the WI team changed alot. After Lloyd's departure, Holding-Garner-Andy Roberts was past their prime and reitred soon. Yet he never lost.

Captaincy and winning comes hand to hand. The weak settles with a loss. The strong can't stand losing.

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by BD-fan Oxy is too slow for you. So please read his response on what he would have been had he played in this era. Viv is not a legend. He is modern day cricket. Pioneer to change the game. No one putting on pads before had played the game the way he use to play. In between 1980 to 1991 (his captaincy), the WI team changed alot. After Lloyd's departure, Holding-Garner-Andy Roberts was past their prime and reitred soon. Yet he never lost. Captaincy and winning comes hand to hand. The weak settles with a loss. The strong can't stand losing. I guess in your world XI, legend XI you would have Lara ranked high. Wouldn't you? Hard to find another talent like Lara, he can't even get close to the work ethic Richards had. It rubbed off on to everyone. Richie Richardson, Harper, Hooper, GG, Haynes all saw first hand what it takes to win. Thanks for recognizing the obvious!! The generation gap!!

BD Fan - you quoted the wrong poster....check again

[BD-fan]

Originally Posted by observer2 He hit his first ball for 4 and was out the second ball on his debut. Not sure if he scored much in the second innings - it was probably a zero or one. He scored 192 not out in his second match

You are correct it was his second test (I looked it up). His first test scores were 4 and 3.

In 1978 and 1979 he only played 4 innings. That was his prime time. He averaged 74.5 in those four innings. There wasn't that many tours around the world. The opportunities were not there.

Again as for averaging 50 in 70's and 80's, Hard pressed i can't remember any other batsmen had or not. Only in recent times 50's became the norm when pitches became flat.

[OzPride]

Viv was huge here in Aus in the 80's, even bigger than the mullet hair doo and moustach....LOL.

Every kid batting, myself included used to be Viv in the backyard games, if Viv was already taken then Alan Border would have to do.

[12thMan]

Again as for averaging 50 in 70's and 80's, Hard pressed i can't remember any other batsmen had or not.

there were some greats like Gavaskar, Miandad and G Chapell (the higest I think). 50 average was the peak then

[iafzal]

Originally Posted by BD-fan Viv is not a legend. He is modern day cricket. Pioneer to change the game. No one putting on pads before had played the game the way he use to play. In between 1980 to 1991 (his captaincy), the WI team changed alot. After Lloyd's departure, Holding-Garner-Andy Roberts was past their prime and reitred soon. Yet he never lost. Captaincy and winning comes hand to hand. The weak settles with a loss. The strong can't stand losing.

I recently saw (on Zee Sports) his brilliant inning in a ODI against England in England where he scored 139 I think, not out.
An amazing inning and he even played the leg flick the shot Misbah made famous in that innings. I could not beleive when I saw it to see someone play that shot 30 years before it has become popular. He did get a 4 of that shot though, lol.

[silly-mid-on]

Never saw him live as I didnt get to watch a cricket match till 1996 (poor family, and a cheap Pakistani/Yorkshireman for a father ), but I saw the extended highlights of his 189* against England - wonderful innings, and IIRC, he accounted for well over half of the entire W.I. total in that match!

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by silly-mid-on Never saw him live as I didnt get to watch a cricket match till 1996 (poor family, and a cheap Pakistani/Yorkshireman for a father ), but I saw the extended highlights of his 189* against England - wonderful innings, and IIRC, he accounted for well over half of the entire W.I. total in that match!

At one stage WI were something like 105/7 and 166/9! Must have been the greatest ODI innings ever

[rahulrulezz]

Originally Posted by nadeem "People make too much of so-called legends. Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa. Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers. I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win." I used to think that Rahul's post saying that asnodkar was good enough to replace one of our middle trio i.e., YK, Yusuf and Miusbah was the worst ever post on PP but we've got a winner here. Diabolical.

:dna
Ailllaaa!!!!
When did i say that... YK and Misbah are one of my favorite batsmen.. Nadeem bro, maana that you are fan of Shoaib Akhtar too but that doesnt mean you throw Bouncers at me

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by rahulrulezz :dna Ailllaaa!!!! When did i say that... YK and Misbah are one of my favorite batsmen.. Nadeem bro, maana that you are fan of Shoaib Akhtar too but that doesnt mean you throw Bouncers at me

Think Nadeem confused you with Jusarr.

[JustAnotherFan]

Originally Posted by imranahmed_khan Tell me do you dislike Viv because he refused the blank cheque ?

There was never such a thing as a blank cheque. The WI players were paid betwenn $100,000 to $120,000 for the 2 tours.

[JustAnotherFan]

Originally Posted by Oxy A real LIVING LEGEND. I got into cricket watching this guy - copying every little intracasy...the gum...the swagger...even bought a Slazenger V100. Met the 'King' on a number of ocassions. Greatest cricketer of all time for me. How awesome would he have been had been playing in the friendly batting conditions of today? 1 bouncer per over? Heavier bats? Shorter boundaries. The MASTER BLASTER! The ORIGINAL Beast (who COULD bat!)

Oxy, you have summed it up there.

Just like any other kid, you copied the best player of the time.

You lined up in the queue and got his signature on your bat.

[ehjaz]

Well, Imran said about Viv Richards that the best way to get him out was just start boring him with your bowling and he would get tired of it. Richards loved the contest, and more the bowler tried hard to get him out the more he got aggressive. No comparison with any of the modern batmen... he was a different class...

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Oxy Perhaps JAF wants King Viv to have face the might of Brian MacMillan before he can be talked of in 'legendary' terms?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Oxy A real LIVING LEGEND. I got into cricket watching this guy - copying every little intracasy...the gum...the swagger...even bought a Slazenger V100. Met the 'King' on a number of ocassions. Greatest cricketer of all time for me. How awesome would he have been had been playing in the friendly batting conditions of today? 1 bouncer per over? Heavier bats? Shorter boundaries. The MASTER BLASTER! The ORIGINAL Beast (who COULD bat!)

Oxy, I started following cricket from about 1995. You have watched cricket from the days of Viv Richards. So you have wayyy more knowledge than me on cricket.

Tell us honestly, after having watched Viv Richards against those fearsome bowling attacks with bowling friendly pitches, and Tendulkar and Lara ....... how would Tendulkar and Lara fare against Viv in your opinion ? I mean please let us know about your opinion when comparing Viv with Tendulkar and Lara both separately.

[tmac4real]

The Michael Jordan of cricket. Or shall I say jordan is the viv of basketball.

[cars112]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa.

As if you hadn't showed yourself up enough on the "AB de Villiers catch thread", you come up with this. Wow.

[TruSachFan]

first comes bradman
then a close viv

then ofcourse lara/sach

then the rest

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan You lined up in the queue and got his signature on your bat.

Hilarious I know.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by TruSachFan first comes bradman then a close viv then ofcourse lara/sach then the rest

Gary Sobers was very good too. Ian Chappell rates him higher than Lara, Sachin and viv.

[Savak]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan People make too much of so-called legends. Nowadays there have been many players with better stats. 50.23 batting average in tests is good, but not wonderful. He never managed to get that century against South Africa. Viv also led a very good team. They did truly dominate that period of cricket due to the bowlers. I would pick him in a 'Legends XI' team to play against a current 'World XI', but in general I think a current 'World XI' would win.

Please objectively explain why you think Viv Richards is not a legend even though he batted against the likes of Imran, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Botham. He batted without a helmet against those quicks, his style of batting is the most unmatched ever, i dont think anyone has induced such fear into the bowlers ever, you could spend a lifetime practicing but would still never be able to play the shots he did. And you call him a so called Legend. I cant believe this. If you make such claims, then please back them up with solid evidence or even a logical argument atleast to earn some respect for your views.

[cars112]

Well, let's put it this way:

Just about every fan of this great game acknowledges like there was no one like Viv before he came and there will be no one like him, ever.

To a certain "Just Another Fan" he wasn't all that, though. Poor Viv, eh!

[Savak]

Originally Posted by cars112 Well, let's put it this way: Just about every fan of this great game acknowledges like there was no one like Viv before he came and there will be no one like him, ever. To a certain "Just Another Fan" he wasn't all that, though. Poor Viv, eh!

To have a genuine opinion about something and to back it up with logical or even attempted logical reasoning is one thing. But to arrogantly say that someone who was an all time great "is a so called legend" and not even backing his claims up and to make jokes and take cheap shot at others. JAF i am sure you are more capable than this.

[JustAnotherFan]

Originally Posted by Savak Please objectively explain why you think Viv Richards is not a legend even though he batted against the likes of Imran, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Botham. He batted without a helmet against those quicks, his style of batting is the most unmatched ever, i dont think anyone has induced such fear into the bowlers ever, you could spend a lifetime practicing but would still never be able to play the shots he did. And you call him a so called Legend. I cant believe this. If you make such claims, then please back them up with solid evidence or even a logical argument atleast to earn some respect for your views.

Read my original message.

I said people make too much out of so-called Legends. By that I meant the concept of Legends. We have 2 or 3 in every generation. A lot of them play past their sellby date.

Bradman was a legend. Sobers. Imran Khan. etc. I never denied Viv wasn't a legend. He was one of top players of the century.

Recently we have had players like Lara and Warne. Tendular is still playing. Ponting will be a legend.

However it would be truly interesting matching past legends at the peak of their careers versus today's best. I think today's player is more fit, the game is better for the batsmen and we don't have the same quality of pace as years ago.

So who do you think would win in a legends game vs modern day player game? Thinking about now, Legends would win the tests, modern day players would take the ODI's and T20. Shorter form of the game is where the surprises always happen.

[cars112]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan RThinking about now, Legends would win the tests, modern day players would take the ODI's and T20. Shorter form of the game is where the surprises always happen.

Tests are what count, not limited overs games. Even Bangladesh wins the odd limited overs game. They don't mean much. Do you not understand this fundamental fact about cricket? Because if you did, you wouldn't bother saying "modern day players would take ODIs and T20's". Who cares about T20's.

Then again, for you Viv's average of 50.23 in the 1980's wasn't all that great, so what do we ordinary fans know compared to Just Another Fan eh?

[JustAnotherFan]

Originally Posted by cars112 Tests are what count, not limited overs games. Even Bangladesh wins the odd limited overs game. They don't mean much. Do you not understand this fundamental fact about cricket? Because if you did, you wouldn't bother saying "modern day players would take ODIs and T20's". Who cares about T20's.

It seems like most of India does.

Originally Posted by cars112 Then again, for you Viv's average of 50.23 in the 1980's wasn't all that great, so what do we ordinary fans know compared to Just Another Fan eh?

Well if you want to be picky go and do some research.

The following players had better averages then Viv during his career and period 1974 to 1991: Javed Miandad, Greg Chappell, Mark Taylor, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott.

Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border scored more runs. Sunil Gavaskar scored more centuries.

So do stats lie?

I do not doubt that Viv was a captain of a winning team, but a team is 11 players. He had an explemary record as captain.

[BD-fan]

Sobers, I didn't see him playing. Read a lot about him. He gave 110% on the field.

Imran, I am not sure will there be another captain like him. The eyes to pick up match winners, the calmness when it matters the most are unmatchable.

Viv, well there is nothing calmness about him. I am here, you know I am the best, so admit it infront of me, type of attitude. Kevin Peterson, Hayden may have that a tad bit, Definitely Sanath Jayasuriya has it when playing against Bangladesh.

Why Viv rises above the others? Because no other players prepared himself and made it look so easy while batting. Thank you tmac4real for comparing with Michael Jordan. Just as his practices were more intensed than the actual games (I went to same college of Scottie Pippen), similarly at the nets Viv prepared himself against the likes of all the great bowlers of that time (WI battery attack). And yes even at nets he didn't wear helmets against Marshall, holding, Garner, Roberts, Croft etc.

Comparing Viv to Lara, well Lara is very talented and has more patience than Viv, no doubt. But the attitude and work ethic is missing. Hear it from the horses mouth:

Richards will not castigate Lara publicly. Indeed he is quick to recognize a batting genius, but his frustration comes out as he compares the attitude of two eras of West Indian cricket. 'The next generation did not seem to be smart enough to realize that you have to work to be at the top and to stay at the top. You can have talent, but if you do not work hard it's not going to happen. We were no way the finished product when we set off for India in 1974 [Richards and Greenidge made their debut on that tour]. But that was when the great side was forged. Garry Sobers and Rohan Kanhai had retired and Clive Lloyd was embarking on his first tour as captain. 'We trained harder than the rest. After Packer, we kept the physio, Dennis Waight, and he put us through our paces. Clive Lloyd supported Waight in everything he wanted to do. And we followed Clive. We were fitter than the others and less prone to injury. We would fly in to Sydney and be running within the hour. They used to come and watch us train on the days before the Tests. What we were doing was an unusual sight in those days. We had some good athletes in the side, but we had the discipline to keep working on the physical side of our game.' He goes on to point out that when he became captain Lara soon got rid of Waight, the implication being that the new leader did not relish the hard work required by the physio. That decision might not have affected Lara himself greatly, but the message it sent the rest of the squad was significant. The captain sets the tone. Now the hope is that, with a fresh regime, West Indies have a team of players hungry to work even if they are not as gifted as their predecessors.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/140149.html

[BD-fan]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFan It seems like most of India does. Well if you want to be picky go and do some research. The following players had better averages then Viv during his career and period 1974 to 1991: Javed Miandad, Greg Chappell, Mark Taylor, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott. Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border scored more runs. Sunil Gavaskar scored more centuries. So do stats lie? I do not doubt that Viv was a captain of a winning team, but a team is 11 players. He had an explemary record as captain.

Yes stats lie!!
Noone had the aura that Viv brought in the game. Both Gavaskar and border were block block block, the bowlers are frustrated, hit a four. Boycott, Miandad, Taylor and Chappell were good but bowlers didn't fear them. All of them may be technically better than Viv but they can't beat him in discipline and passion. Those things can't be taught by a coach. It grows within.

[ehjaz]

Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts

[bmwduran]

I have seen him play lots of important and Mind-boggling innings, tearing apart the opposition in a matter of a few overs. He could face any bowler, be it a legspinner, an off-spinner (of course no doosras at the time), he could play medium pacers and real fast bowlers equally well, he was fearless, he had an aura of invincibility around him, he was the most prized wicket of his time, but the question is was he a reliable batsman too who could bat for hours to save a test when needed. I have question marks on that ability of his, what do you think? then is there any batsman who was as dominating as Viv yet at the same time could go into lower gears to defend if situation demanded?

[VolcanicAsh]

He is a legend for a reason. Of course.

[greekscavenger]

The best defense is attack.

[bmwduran]

Originally Posted by VolcanicAsh He is a legend for a reason. Of course.

no doubt about that, I grew up watching him, watched some of his innings live in the stadium, but my question still remains, was he a reliable batsman under pressure when the situation demanded for him to stay on the wicket,

[bmwduran]

Originally Posted by greekscavenger The best defense is attack.

okay, i have seen lost some battles in doing that too,

[madaboutcricket]

I have seen many of his innings. he was mainly an attacking player. so there would be some risk in most of his shots he played. He was not technically perfect like Gavasker or Boycott. If I wanted to save a test, I would go for Boycott or Gavasker over Richards. Richard was more like Lara + Shewag. He had talent like Lara and fearless attitude / hand eye co-ord like Shewag. Hence he was very hard to stop.

[bmwduran]

Originally Posted by madaboutcricket I have seen many of his innings. he was mainly an attacking player. so there would be some risk in most of his shots he played. He was not technically perfect like Gavasker or Boycott. If I wanted to save a test, I would go for Boycott or Gavasker over Richards. Richard was more like Lara + Shewag. He had talent like Lara and fearless attitude / hand eye co-ord like Shewag. Hence he was very hard to stop.

now we are talking, so I completely agree with the attck part you mentioned, he was head and shoulders above any other player i have watched when it came to attack, but, his defense was not as good as some out there, even Miandad or Hanif Mohammaed would be a better player in defense,

[Mehr]

Originally Posted by madaboutcricket He had talent like Lara and fearless attitude / hand eye co-ord like Shewag. Hence he was very hard to stop.

forget about helmet he even wear a elbow pad lol

[madaboutcricket]

Originally Posted by bmwduran now we are talking, so I completely agree with the attck part you mentioned, he was head and shoulders above any other player i have watched when it came to attack, but, his defense was not as good as some out there, even Miandad or Hanif Mohammaed would be a better player in defense,

Like I said Richards was not technically perfect. no his defense was not great. I have never seen Hanif Mohamad. I have watched a few Miandad's innings. Miandad was very gutsy. He was more like a nudger in ODIs. not very elegant, except when he played cover drives.

Gavaskar and Boycott had better defense than Richards.

[ElRaja]

i havent seen him live but his general attitude was always positive and aggressive, i dont think his natural game was tailored to playing for a draw, that said his record in draws is pretty good.

He only scored one hundred with a recorded strike rate of below 50, against pak in multan.

So on form and stats hes not your man if you want to grind out a draw, but if you had viv in your team you pbly were not in that situation often anyway.

[madaboutcricket]

Originally Posted by Mehr forget about helmet he even wear a elbow pad lol

I am talking about the way they play. You dont think Shewag is fearless?

[Mehr]

Originally Posted by madaboutcricket I am talking about the way they play. You dont think Shewag is fearless?

then muralitharan is also fearless

[madaboutcricket]

Originally Posted by Mehr then muralitharan is also fearless

OMG. I have to give up. You are right.

[zia]

Viv Richards was a master , he used to bat without a helmet too, and of course he was reliable batsmen I remember him samashing Botham Willis and Foster in 1984 at Old Trafford West Indies were something like 160-for 9 at one stage Richards scored 189 not out from total of about 270.

[bmwduran]

Originally Posted by madaboutcricket Like I said Richards was not technically perfect. no his defense was not great. I have never seen Hanif Mohamad. I have watched a few Miandad's innings. Miandad was very gutsy. He was more like a nudger in ODIs. not very elegant, except when he played cover drives. Gavaskar and Boycott had better defense than Richards.

Watch Mindad's inning here against SA, especially at 50 and then 8:01, just before Donal starts to deliver, Mian looks towards thrid man and then the ferocious cut off of one of the fiery fast bowlers is something to appreciate, not many can play that,

[bmwduran]

Originally Posted by zia Viv Richards was a master , he used to bat without a helmet too, and of course he was reliable batsmen I remember him samashing Botham Willis and Foster in 1984 at Old Trafford West Indies were something like 160-for 9 at one stage Richards scored 189 not out from total of about 270.

yup thats true but those typ eof innings were not common from the great man, there are other examples opposite to what you said, where against Pakistan, Viv should have stayed to bat longer, instead he gave up his wicket and WI was bundled out for 53,

He scored at a fearsome pace for that time, when batting was not that easy, laws were not batsman friendly, but, i still feel if you can try to find some weakness in his game then that would only be his defense, it could also be that he never wanted to play defensively, he did not want to be bogged by the bowlers, maybe he hated this feeling

[zia]

bmwduran yes he did fail at times but more then often he won games for West Indies that was my argument.I did not watch that game you mentioned they were bundled for 53 in Pakistan as it was not possible to watch overseas like it is today.

[MMHS]

Actually he was. He played for a internation team whom hardly required a stonewaller to bat out few sessions to save a game. Also in many cases, Viv went on to win games from a desperate situations, when other batsmen would have played for survival. 2 of such matches I have seen later was the '79 WC final & '84 bs Eng at Old Trafford. He was a great player for occasion as well.

In his later part of career, his team lost the invincibility & Viv was required to play slightly different role, 2 of such Test century was against PAK in '88 @ PoS & India '88 @ Delhi. In his club/FC career, Viv played for a mid level County Somerset, for whom he was remarkably reliable.

However, we are talking about Vivian Richards, greastest batsman of all time to me, even in desperate situations, that man had grace, aura & class which normal greats 'll term as rackless, but that's Viv, never allowed the bowlers to dictate terms.

[OZGOD]

He would be the second batsman I would pick in my all time XI after Sir Don, no matter the situation.

[Justcrazy]

was the greatest batsman ever, when you impact players like him backed by quality bowlers like holding, Marshal, roberts ..... do you need to defend.

[Random Aussie]

Remains the only player I have seen be able to walk out to bat and intimidate not only the opposition but the crowd. He was fearsome.

[Random Aussie]

That WI team usually had a defensive batter (Larry Gomes mostly) but Viv was not required to be defensive.

[ecstatic_freak]

Well one thing for sure, most of the "debaters" over here rely heavily on youtube lol Viv may not be a "tuk tuk" master but i do remember him grinding it out to DRAW test matches. He was a proper batsman who could score freely but also had a fantastic defense. Reliable? depends whats "reliable" to you. If it means a player who could get you out of troubles when you are looking at the defeat? Yes he did it many times! if "reliable" means Misbahesque tuk tuk on last day when the target is in sight and still sleeping over it? No he wasn't but he certainly wasn't like Sehwag as people making him out to be, he was a fantastic batsman with a good defense.

[IndianWillow]

From a purely technical perspective, Greenidge was the best batsman in the WI side during Richard's time, sublime in both attack and defence. Richards, on the other hand, carried aggression to a new level altogether. The remarkable WI bowling during the 70s and 80s probably enabled Richards to bat with a nearly care free attitude, and some times lost his wicket to inferior bowlers. Very rarely were WI on the backfoot with that kind of bowling line up, home or away, and Richards was fully justified in using that purely intimidating approach. Richards remained at the top of the batting rankings, even ahead of Gavaskar and Miandad, for such a long time, that there is no reason to think that he was not reliable.

[ecstatic_freak]

Originally Posted by mmhs actually he was. He played for a internation team whom hardly required a stonewaller to bat out few sessions to save a game. Also in many cases, viv went on to win games from a desperate situations, when other batsmen would have played for survival. 2 of such matches i have seen later was the '79 wc final & '84 bs eng at old trafford. He was a great player for occasion as well. In his later part of career, his team lost the invincibility & viv was required to play slightly different role, 2 of such test century was against pak in '88 @ pos & india '88 @ delhi. In his club/fc career, viv played for a mid level county somerset, for whom he was remarkably reliable. However, we are talking about vivian richards, greastest batsman of all time to me, even in desperate situations, that man had grace, aura & class which normal greats 'll term as rackless, but that's viv, never allowed the bowlers to dictate terms.

101%

[AZ]

67 50 + innings / 182 = 38% chances of a 50+ score.

Sachin is 32%
Ponting is 37%
Lara is 35.3%

[MVP26]

Viv is the best player of all time
/thread