Viv final test inning

[zen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4337LFabJEI 

 

^ oh boy, the swagger even when the candle is just flickering .... superb player of fast bowling. post 1970s has the best average in top order among those with 2k or more runs

 

Also read - https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22523053/viv-richards 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

Had he been dismissed for less than 20 in this innings, he would have finished with a Test average of less than 50. Would've completely changed the narrative on his Test career.

[zen]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Had he been dismissed for less than 20 in this innings, he would have finished with a Test average of less than 50. Would've completely changed the narrative on his Test career.

I am not sure about potential changes in narratives  but I would have liked 49 too as it makes legendary and/or freak players appear human (and probably more than numbers). Bradman 99 (needed 4 in his last inning for 100) and Richards 49 (needed 20 in his last inning to get to 50), while someone like Miandad at an avg. of 53 would still not have as many backers

Edited May 8, 2020 by zen

[Gollum]

11 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Had he been dismissed for less than 20 in this innings, he would have finished with a Test average of less than 50. Would've completely changed the narrative on his Test career.

Do you consider WSC Supertests record legit? Viv missed a couple of years at his peak to that, averaged 55+ in those tests. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

10 hours ago, zen said:

I am not sure about potential changes in narratives  but I would have liked 49 too as it makes legendary and/or freak players appear human (and probably more than numbers). Bradman 99 (needed 4 in his last inning for 100) and Richards 49 (needed 20 in his last inning to get to 50), while someone like Miandad at an avg. of 53 would still not have as many backers

Viv's case is not really comparable to Bradman though. Bradman could have scored ducks in his last 10 innings and still finished light years ahead of everyone else. Viv was in real danger of missing out on the psychological benchmark for "human" ATG batsmen (Test average of 50+). It's comparable to a bowler in danger of finishing with an average of 26+. Think of how many batsmen/bowlers who average less than 50/higher than 26 but are still considered ATGs. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Do you consider WSC Supertests record legit? Viv missed a couple of years at his peak to that, averaged 55+ in those tests. 

I don't ignore them which is one of the reasons why I rate Greg Chappell so highly. His "overall" record becomes scary good if you add the WSC Tests. However, I remember reading a post from someone who has watched extensive footage of those games and mentioned that the standard of cricket wasn't too high all the time and the the atmosphere in quite a few of the games was rather casual and festive. 

[Gollum]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I don't ignore them which is one of the reasons why I rate Greg Chappell so highly. His "overall" record becomes scary good if you add the WSC Tests.

Great batsman, rate him above Gavaskar from that era, only behind Viv. Wish he had face our famed quartet at least once in India. 

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

However, I remember reading a post from someone who has watched extensive footage of those games and mentioned that the standard of cricket wasn't too high all the time and the the atmosphere in quite a few of the games was rather casual and festive. 

Interesting, but not tough to imagine. 

[zen]

4 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Viv's case is not really comparable to Bradman though. Bradman could have scored ducks in his last 10 innings and still finished light years ahead of everyone else. Viv was in real danger of missing out on the psychological benchmark for "human" ATG batsmen (Test average of 50+). It's comparable to a bowler in danger of finishing with an average of 26+. Think of how many batsmen/bowlers who average less than 50/higher than 26 but are still considered ATGs. 

I don’t think that Viv is an ATG just for his stats as there are batsmen like Miandad who average 53 (more than Viv) but do not have as many takers as Viv. Viv is usually rated as the best batsman of his time even with a lower average than many of his contemporaries. 

 

Talking about avg of less than 50, there are quite a few great batsmen who play in Eng, NZ, and SA and bat esp. in the top order who average less than 50. If we take Zim and BD out, guys like Dravid average less than 50 too.
 

On one hand, guys like Dravid and Kallis could be judged more based on stats as their relatively risk free playing style does not bring too many intangibles to the table. On the other hand, you have guys like Viv, who are considered as great for how they play their game!  

[zen]

4 hours ago, Gollum said:

Do you consider WSC Supertests record legit? Viv missed a couple of years at his peak to that, averaged 55+ in those tests. 

Talking about supertests, only Viv, Greg, and Barry averaged 50 or more. Others averaged less than 40. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 hour ago, zen said:

I don’t think that Viv is an ATG just for his stats as there are batsmen like Miandad who average 53 (more than Viv) but do not have as many takers as Viv. Viv is usually rated as the best batsman of his time even with a lower average than many of his contemporaries. 

I am saying Viv being rated ahead of his contemporaries is an easier "sell" right now because he finished with an average of 50+ which is the bare minimum that one expects from an ATG bat. Would have been much harder otherwise no matter what intangibles or swagger he brought to the table.

 

1 hour ago, zen said:

Talking about avg of less than 50, there are quite a few great batsmen who play in Eng, NZ, and SA and bat esp. in the top order who average less than 50. If we take Zim and BD out, guys like Dravid average less than 50 too.

And how many of them are rated as ATG batsmen? For instance do you consider Boycott or any other sub-50 averaging openers on par with Gavaskar? 

[zen]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I am saying Viv being rated ahead of his contemporaries is an easier "sell" right now because he finished with an average of 50+ which is the bare minimum that one expects from an ATG bat. Would have been much harder otherwise no matter what intangibles or swagger he brought to the table.

 

And how many of them are rated as ATG batsmen? For instance do you consider Boycott or any other sub-50 averaging openers on par with Gavaskar? 

For me, averages are only a part of equation and not the only equation, or as I said, one would prefer Miandad over Richards or anyone with an avg. of less than 53. If an avg. of 50 is good enough to be rated above someone with an avg. of 53, so is 49 imo. If the avg difference is quite huge, then of course the intangibles and/or other factors have to play a huge role in a player’s career. 
 

I rate Boycott to be as good as Gavaskar. If Gavaskar had opened more in Eng, his average could have been lower    .... Why I would pick Gavaskar is because of his performance against top side like WI (even with Marshall-Holding in the 11, he averaged 41 in 83/84), the ability to play spin better (maybe a perception as he played a lot in Ind, but played that knock of 90 odd vs. Pak at B'lore), and hit big 100s. As an opener, he looks solid too while batting.  But would be happy with Boycott too. 

 

Talking about Boycott, Gooch has a lower average than him but was chosen by a bunch of cricketers in one of the Eng AT11 over Boycott to partner Hobbs or Hutton, iirc. So a selection at a given point in time could be based on a variety of factors including team’s requirements.
 

As for other sub 50 avg. openers,  I rate G Smith (opened in SA + good record in Eng and NZ), Sehwag (for high SR batting and performances in certain conditions including Aus), Greenidge (Caribbean flair), etc., high too.  Among other batsmen, S Waugh barely touches 50 (lower than 50 if you exclude BD and Zim) but irrespective of that, I rate him for his fighting spirit and ability to play crunch knocks. Another such player is Amarnath. There is Martin Crowe as well who I rate higher than quite a few batsmen with an avg. of 50 or more. 

I give weightage to averages if a player has a relatively short body of international games and/or an absolute freak like Bradman (also compared to his peers). For e.g., Barry Richards, who averages 73 (and known as one of the best openers). With that average,  I looked further to see how good he really is. With a FC avg. of 55 playing mostly in Eng, he gained more of my attention. Then I observed that even in supertests, he averaged 79-80, scoring a 100 in 4th innings to win the game for his team in the final (a SA who does not choke!). Further, I looked at his clips. Now I am convinced that he is as good as he is made out to be. But the process of discovering what he is about, started because he had an avg. of 70+ in a short body of work. If he had played more international games than naturally he would have more to the equation than just that average. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by zen