Viv Richards vs Sunil Gavaskar vs Greg Chappell - The better Test player?

[Ab Fan]

I always had doubts on who was the standout test batsmen of the 70s-80s era? With no doubts in my mind, Viv was no doubt the greatest ODI batsmen to have graced the game.

However, in testa, many believed he wasn't as good as the likes of Lara or Tendulkar or Gavaskar or Sobers.

To make things more precise, let us compare him with his contemporaries only: -

Sunil Gavaskar: -

Runs: - 10,122
Avg: - 51.12
100s: - 34

Viv Richards: -

Runs: - 8540
Avg: - 50.23
100s: - 24

Greg Chappell:

Runs: - 7110
Avg: - 53.86
100s: - 24

Miandad and AB were there as well but in tests, many felt it eventually came down to this trio only.

So, Viv has a lower average to Chappell and also to Gavaskar, who was an opener and this is without facing his own pace bowling attack as well as not facing enough quality spin bowling as well. To his credit, no doubt, he has a higher SR of 70, but how much of a difference that makes to the other points mentioned against him.

So,to conclude, where does Viv really stand as a test batsmen among his contemporary and particularly when compared to Sunil Gavaskar and Greg Chappell?

 

[Robert]

Richards for the sheer shock factor.

 

[The Viper]

Gavaskar. Opening the batting with great consistency and he scored big. His record against Windies is exceptional also.

 

[Napa]

Add 5 to Gavaskar's average as he was an opener. As I post this, Rahul just got out to Hazelwood in the 2nd over of the innings. A reminder how important it is for an opener to protect the later batsmen.

 

[Napa]

And India are reduced to 19/3 by the Australian pacers. Hard to overestimate the contribution of Gavaskar to the Indian team. Having an opener who averages over 50 was priceless to the Indian team, and a major factor in their reaching the #1 position in Tests way back in the early 1970s.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Gavaskar. Richards is much superior overall but Gavaskar is better in tests without any doubt, regardless of Richard's aura and what not. Gavaskar has better stats in every way imaginable.

 

[Bilal7]

Viv was the better batsman in both formats. This "adding 5 runs" to an opener's account is rubbish because the best positions to bat at in Asia are the two opening spots. You don't have to deal with the spinners straight away and can get set against pacers who are not as lethal as they would be outside Asia.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Gavaskar was the better test batsman.
He is a sure pick in all time x1 as an opener.

 

[Ab Fan]

Viv was the better batsman in both formats. This "adding 5 runs" to an opener's account is rubbish because the best positions to bat at in Asia are the two opening spots. You don't have to deal with the spinners straight away and can get set against pacers who are not as lethal as they would be outside Asia.

But Gavaskar averages 53 outside Asia.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Gavaskar was the better test batsman which also makes him the better overall batsman than the other two.

Makes most ATG XIs as an opener.

Chappel hardly makes any.

Richards usually is picked after Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[Robert]

I wonder how many people on this thread saw any of these three great men play?

 

[happydavy]

As a batsman, Gavaskar probably but as an impact player Richards. If i were to chose one, then it would be Richards.

Gavaskar would always regret on missing out by a whisker, what undoubtedly would have been the greatest test inning ever.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-vs-india-4th-test-india-tour-of-england-1979

 

[Swashbuckler]

Gavaskar is my number 1, his away numbers are jaw dropping and purely by peer review he is a guaranteed starter in an all time XI, unanimous view.

Viv the test bat was a massive underachiever because with his talent he should have sealed his spot as undisputed GOAT, maybe he had motivation/concentration issues? Concentration power isn't tested that much in ODIs and he shone in that format because of his insane talent and athletic prowess.

Chappell will be my no 3 but the margins are so small at that level. The legendary Aussie played disproportionately large number of matches in Australia (>70%) and never toured India. I can imagine what Pujara's numbers would read if he gets to play 70% of his matches in India and another 15% in rest of subcontinent.

 

[MP2011]

I wonder how many people on this thread saw any of these three great men play?

I've seen Viv and of course, Sunny play. But never seen Greg Chappell play. By all accounts, he was a tremendous bat.

 

[Robert]

I've seen Viv and of course, Sunny play. But never seen Greg Chappell play. By all accounts, he was a tremendous bat.

Cool.

GC missed the 1981 Ashes series. Given how tight it was, I think Australia would have won had he been there. He bossed England in the next Ashes series (his last) where Australia regained the Ashes.

 

[Junaids]

Richards by miles.

Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.

Chappell missed several difficult series.

Richards was at his best when the West Indies were at risk of defeat: from January 1976 until he retired in September 1991 his team did not lose a single series* because Viv would simply not get out when his team needed him - think of how he saved the home series v Pakistan in 1988.

I’ve never seen another batsman who just refused to lose like Viv Richards. Probably the only other one in history was Trevor Bailey, who didn’t even have half his talent.

* You simply cannot count the 1-0 defeat by 1 wicket in New Zealand in 1980-81 - the match winner was a particularly patriotic umpire!

 

[MP2011]

Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.

In that case, Viv played favourable bowlers as he didn't have to face best bowling lineup of those times by far which Sunny did, with aplomb.

 

[Junaids]

In that case, Viv played favourable bowlers as he didn't have to face best bowling lineup of those times by far which Sunny did, with aplomb.

Er, no he didn’t.

Gavaskar’s best series against the West Indies was when they had no fast bowlers at all.

I loved Gavaskar, and he was a superb batsman, but he was in the Greg Chappell class, not the King Viv category!

 

[MP2011]

Just because you say this, doesn't make it a truth.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Chappell never had to face Lillee/Thommo, Viv never had to face the formidable WI quicks. Gavaskar missed out on easy runs against Indian popgun attacks, remember the spin quartet was on the decline and by the time Sunny hit his stride our spin stocks were at an all time low and Kapil Dev was the only legit threat. Also Sunny averaged more away than home in an era of home umpires.

 

[Napa]

Viv was the better batsman in both formats. This "adding 5 runs" to an opener's account is rubbish because the best positions to bat at in Asia are the two opening spots. You don't have to deal with the spinners straight away and can get set against pacers who are not as lethal as they would be outside Asia.

Bringing Asia into the conversation when discussing Gavaskar is irrelevant as he actually had a higher average playing in the Aus/NZ/Eng/WI than he had in Asia. He was that good.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...n=5;template=results;type=batting;view=series

 

[Bhaijaan]

If Gavaskar played for the West Indies he would have hit 2000 runs against India alone at an average of 65+ with 15 centuries.

Too bad he only got to play against West Indies like teams whom he smacked for 13 test centuries.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Scoring runs for a weak team should hold more value right? I mean that is a standard logic on PP when it comes to judging Lara (even though the factual basis there is on loose footing) compared to his peers, why not a similar line of argument while ranking Gavaskar who spent 90% his years playing for the 5th/6th ranked team?

 

[Napa]

Er, no he didn’t.

Gavaskar’s best series against the West Indies was when they had no fast bowlers at all.

I loved Gavaskar, and he was a superb batsman, but he was in the Greg Chappell class, not the King Viv category!

Apparently you have never heard of Sir Andy Roberts and Vanburn Holder, to say nothing of the greatest all-rounder of all times who also Gavaskar faced in his debut series.

 

[Ab Fan]

I wonder how many people on this thread saw any of these three great men play?

Good point. This is why I made the thread so that we could get more ideas from those who saw the trio.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Gavaskar is probably also the greatest (non Bradman) batsman in the 4th innings averaging 58+. If points can be deducted from Sachin for being poor in 4th innings, shouldn't Gavaskar get extra points? Some ATG knocks like Oval 221, Port of Spain 100 (record target 406 in 1976) and that Bangalore 96 off the top of my head.

 

[Hitman]

Richards by miles.

Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.

Chappell missed several difficult series.

Richards was at his best when the West Indies were at risk of defeat: from January 1976 until he retired in September 1991 his team did not lose a single series* because Viv would simply not get out when his team needed him - think of how he saved the home series v Pakistan in 1988.

I’ve never seen another batsman who just refused to lose like Viv Richards. Probably the only other one in history was Trevor Bailey, who didn’t even have half his talent.

* You simply cannot count the 1-0 defeat by 1 wicket in New Zealand in 1980-81 - the match winner was a particularly patriotic umpire!

And Viv played on West Indian green mambas?

 

[Napa]

Richards by miles.

<b>Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.</b>

Chappell missed several difficult series.

Richards was at his best when the West Indies were at risk of defeat: from January 1976 until he retired in September 1991 his team did not lose a single series* because Viv would simply not get out when his team needed him - think of how he saved the home series v Pakistan in 1988.

I’ve never seen another batsman who just refused to lose like Viv Richards. Probably the only other one in history was Trevor Bailey, who didn’t even have half his talent.

* You simply cannot count the 1-0 defeat by 1 wicket in New Zealand in 1980-81 - the match winner was a particularly patriotic umpire!

Misleading. Gavaskar actually averaged more in Eng/Aus/NZ/WI than in Asia.

 

[Junaids]

Good point. This is why I made the thread so that we could get more ideas from those who saw the trio.

I did.

I also watched Vanburn Holder bowl, at roughly the speed of Mudassar Nazar.

 

[Proactive_]

Gavaskar > Richards ≈ Chappell.

I should stress here that the margins between all the three here are razor thin tbh. All the 3 are sure shot Top 10 Test batsmen of all time. Border MUST be in the discussion here as well for that era, in my book he was equal to Gavaskar overall and easily the best batsman of the 80s.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Gavaskar is my number 1, his away numbers are jaw dropping and purely by peer review he is a guaranteed starter in an all time XI, unanimous view.

Viv the test bat was a massive underachiever because with his talent he should have sealed his spot as undisputed GOAT, maybe he had motivation/concentration issues? Concentration power isn't tested that much in ODIs and he shone in that format because of his insane talent and athletic prowess.

Chappell will be my no 3 but the margins are so small at that level. The legendary Aussie played disproportionately large number of matches in Australia (>70%) and never toured India. I can imagine what Pujara's numbers would read if he gets to play 70% of his matches in India and another 15% in rest of subcontinent.

Never forget Greg Chapell's outstanding achievement in West Indies in 1979 where in 5 supertests against close to best attack of all time he scored 621 runs at an average of 69 with 3 centuries.No batsmen performed better against the hostile Caribbean attack on their soil like Greg not even Gavaskar.

It is worth noting that it is more challenging for batsmen to face the West Indian speedsters on the fast bouncy pitches in Australia rather than the slower batting tracks in the Carribean.On a fast Australian wicket Greg scored 246 versus a world xi in Wsc cricket in 1977-78 and amassed 702 runs in a home series v West Indies in 1975-76.Greg had a higher aggregate than even Viv in WSC and a better average.Adding scores versus Rest of the world in 1972 Greg averaged above 55.Thta too this was on the fastest tracks in the world.

In addition Greg has scored an unbeaten 235 in Pakistan in 1980,380 runs in a single test in 1974 and 174 in 1982 in New Zealand as well as a classic 131 at Lords in1972.

Thus he conquered all types of conditions and excelled in cricket with its standards ta the highest level in WSC.Classical knock sin the seaming English conditions,the turning sub-continent tracks and the fast pitches of Australia and West Indies.

 

[Godhelpma]

V Richards definitely .

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Richards by miles.

Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.

Chappell missed several difficult series.




Richards was at his best when the West Indies were at risk of defeat: from January 1976 until he retired in September 1991 his team did not lose a single series* because Viv would simply not get out when his team needed him - think of how he saved the home series v Pakistan in 1988.

I’ve never seen another batsman who just refused to lose like Viv Richards. Probably the only other one in history was Trevor Bailey, who didn’t even have half his talent.

* You simply cannot count the 1-0 defeat by 1 wicket in New Zealand in 1980-81 - the match winner was a particularly patriotic umpire!

Junaid throw light on WSC packer supertests to throw light on Greg Chapell as well as scores versus Rest of the World.Remember Viv was not prolific in 1st class games against his own speedsters and also was not at his best versus Pakistan in 1977 facing Imran.Neverthless I do think morally he was a king.Also remember Sunny's 221 at the Oval and his 101 and 57 on a rained wicket at Old Trafford.I wondered whether one should alos mention Ian Chappell and Barry Richards in this bracket who were ranked in the top 3 by none other than Gary Sobers in 1979.

Never forget Greg Chapell's outstanding achievement in West Indies in 1979 where in 5 supertests against close to best attack of all time he scored 621 runs at an average of 69 with 3 centuries.No batsmen performed better against the hostile Caribbean attack on their soil like Greg not even Gavaskar.

It is worth noting that it is more challenging for batsmen to face the West Indian speedsters on the fast bouncy pitches in Australia rather than the slower batting tracks in the Carribean.On a fast Australian wicket Greg scored 246 versus a world xi in Wsc cricket in 1977-78 and amassed 702 runs in a home series v West Indies in 1975-76.Greg had a higher aggregate than even Viv in WSC and a better average.Adding scores versus Rest of the world in 1972 Greg averaged above 55.Thta too this was on the fastest tracks in the world.

In addition Greg has scored an unbeaten 235 in Pakistan in 1980,380 runs in a single test in 1974 and 174 in 1982 in New Zealand as well as a classic 131 at Lords in1972.

Thus he conquered all types of conditions and excelled in cricket with its standards ta the highest level in WSC.Classical knock sin the seaming English conditions,the turning sub-continent tracks and the fast pitches of Australia and West Indies.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I always had doubts on who was the standout test batsmen of the 70s-80s era? With no doubts in my mind, Viv was no doubt the greatest ODI batsmen to have graced the game.

However, in testa, many believed he wasn't as good as the likes of Lara or Tendulkar or Gavaskar or Sobers.

To make things more precise, let us compare him with his contemporaries only: -

Sunil Gavaskar: -

Runs: - 10,122
Avg: - 51.12
100s: - 34

Viv Richards: -

Runs: - 8540
Avg: - 50.23
100s: - 24

Greg Chappell:

Runs: - 7110
Avg: - 53.86
100s: - 24

Miandad and AB were there as well but in tests, many felt it eventually came down to this trio only.

So, Viv has a lower average to Chappell and also to Gavaskar, who was an opener and this is without facing his own pace bowling attack as well as not facing enough quality spin bowling as well. To his credit, no doubt, he has a higher SR of 70, but how much of a difference that makes to the other points mentioned against him.

So,to conclude, where does Viv really stand as a test batsmen among his contemporary and particularly when compared to Sunil Gavaskar and Greg Chappell?

You must add the performances of the WSC supertsets where the standard of cricket was more competitive than conventional test cricket.

It was to the advantage of Gavaskar playing a 2nd string West Indies attack at home in 1978-79 ,a 2nd string Australian attack in 1979 and a depleted attack in Australia without Lillee in 1978-79.Gavaskar greately elevate his test average in time of WSC cricket from 1977-79.

Viv Richards in the 1sy year in WSC cricket aggregated 862 runs at an average of 86.2 and averaged over 100 for the world xi.Greg Chappell topped the batting averages in Wsc Supertests from 1977-79.He also in the Carribaen in 5 supertests averaged 69,aggregating 621 runs with 3 centuries.No batsmen in the decade performed better against the Carribaen pace quartet as Greg in that series.Also remember Greg's average of 100 versus Rest of the world in 1972.

Why do you not consider Barry Richards or Ian Chappell in this club?Barry topped the averages in World series cricket while Ian was the best in a crisis.

No doubt Viv was the most impactful.It is not only about stats.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Thus he conquered all types of conditions and excelled in cricket with its standards ta the highest level in WSC.Classical knock sin the seaming English conditions,the turning sub-continent tracks and the fast pitches of Australia and West Indies.

Explain the bolded bit [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION].

Greg Chappell never set foot in India during his test career.

Greg Chappell played 4 out of his 87 tests in the subcontinent.

3 against Pakistan in 1980: Failed miserably in the turning pitch at Karachi which Pakistan won. Remaining 2 tests were high scoring draws (617 meets 382/2 decl at Faisalabad and the Lahore snoozefest with spinners rendered toothless, where 1200+ runs were scored across 3 innings and not once was there an all out displayed on the scorecard !!!)

1 against minnow Sri Lanka in 1983 where he scored 66 in an innings of 514/4. Arjuna Ranatunga was Lanka's 1st change bowler and there were 4 other hacks who would make Dodda Ganesh and Reetinder Sodhi look like mythical beasts.

Give me a facts based argument about how he mastered the turning SC conditions. And why the disparity in judging Asian players vis-a-vis non Asians? Batsmen like Samaraweera, Mahela, Pujara, Younis etc are frequently derided for being HTBs/FTBs when each of them has a better resume in SENA compared to someone like Greg Chappell in Asia.

You can tag other respected posters to confirm/re-examine your stance regarding this issue. I will say that the Aussie as legendary as he was has no right to be conferred the title 'a master of all conditions'. And SC conditions are a big part just like English/Aussie conditions because of radically different skill sets required.

Don't bring the '70s SCG/MCG=spin wicket' argument because it can never simulate SC conditions in the truest form. Chepauk (and Green Park for a brief period of time) was a lightning quick pitch once upon a time, never have I seen Indian fans bring that up to defend the prowess of old time Indian batsmen against pace. The current Dharamsala pitch has more juice than most SENA pitches, don't see anyone bring that up while talking about 'conditions'.

What say [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] [MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]? Is this a valid question or am I supposed to take these generic assessments regrading Chappell at face value?

 

[latecut]

I wonder how many people on this thread saw any of these three great men play?

Yes, a very pertinent question. People who were not born when these players played are judging players on the basis of statistics and hearsay, instead of actually watching them. Chalk and cheese.

 

[Tusker]

Yes, a very pertinent question. People who were not born when these players played are judging players on the basis of statistics and hearsay, instead of actually watching them. Chalk and cheese.

Have you heard of this thing called youtube ?

 

[Robert]

Er, no he didn’t.

Gavaskar’s best series against the West Indies was when they had no fast bowlers at all.

I loved Gavaskar, and he was a superb batsman, but he was in the Greg Chappell class, not the King Viv category!

I concur with this. Richards was a terror, two decades ahead of his time.

 

[Robert]

And Viv played in West Indian green mambas?

Not green mambas, the Sun was too strong for grass. They were concrete fliers in Sir Vivian’s day. It was the era of “pace like fiyah” after all.

 

[Justcrazy]

Gavaskar was opener , you cannot compare openers with middle order batsmen.

Gavaskar is first choice for best Asian Test XI.
Also , arguably would make first Test world XI.

 

[latecut]

Have you heard of this thing called youtube ?

You have ? OK. Then show me the youtube videos of the debut series of Viv Richards. What about the videos of Viv Richards century in Delhi 1974 and his struggles in his debut match in Bangalore ? What about Gavaskar's centuries in India in 1970s ? Go ahead, show me the youtube videos of these matches.

 

[Tusker]

You have ? OK. Then show me the youtube videos of the debut series of Viv Richards. What about the videos of Viv Richards century in Delhi 1974 and his struggles in his debut match in Bangalore ? What about Gavaskar's centuries in India in 1970s ? Go ahead, show me the youtube videos of these matches.

The question was whether people have seen him play as opposed to seen him play every single ball of every match that he featured in. I can assure you none of the supposedly self proclaimed "I have seen him play" posters have done that.

 

[Sachin136]

You have ? OK. Then show me the youtube videos of the debut series of Viv Richards. What about the videos of Viv Richards century in Delhi 1974 and his struggles in his debut match in Bangalore ? What about Gavaskar's centuries in India in 1970s ? Go ahead, show me the youtube videos of these matches.

Are you suggesting that you need to watch every innings of a batsman to be able to judge him? By that metric, most of us can't judge anyone, even if they're a batsmen from this generation, since no one has time to watch every innings.

 

[latecut]

I am not talking of just judging a batsman. I am talking about being able to compare three batsmen of that era and pronouncing the verdict about who is better when you did not even live in that era. The circumstances under which these players played were entirely different from now. In fact the circumstances under whch the three played differed for each of them as well. As a result, the three batsmen had to adjust their batting accordingly. How can those circumstances be guaged from statistics ?

 

[Robert]

I am not talking of just judging a batsman. I am talking about being able to compare three batsmen of that era and pronouncing the verdict about who is better when you did not even live in that era. The circumstances under which these players played were entirely different from now. In fact the circumstances under whch the three played differed for each of them as well. As a result, the three batsmen had to adjust their batting accordingly. How can those circumstances be guaged from statistics ?

They can’t, in isolation. They are merely the beginning of understanding.

YouTube is a tool too but only one in a toolbox. It is interesting and enlightening to some extent but it doesn’t tell you about more than just one moment here and there, and how a player was feeling at the time, was he fully fit, was he bowling at top pace or not, was he in the nets giving a little demonstration to the kids.

It’s nonsensical to say Gavaskar was better than Richards because he hit more centuries. All the quantitative evidence is there but the qualitative is missing. Stats cannot tell you how demoralised a fielding side became as soon as they saw Richards walk out. The sheer dominance of his presence. The sheer speed of his scoring, how he made bowlers look and feel rubbish, even some elite bowlers. Imran wrote that he suffered from nightmares about Richards. Bob Willis said bowlers should be allowed to bowl off eleven yards at him not the full 22 to handicap him enough to make it fair. All these little nuggets of wisdom are lost.

Unless you read books.

 

[Robert]

Gavaskar is probably also the greatest (non Bradman) batsman in the 4th innings averaging 58+. If points can be deducted from Sachin for being poor in 4th innings, shouldn't Gavaskar get extra points? Some ATG knocks like Oval 221, Port of Spain 100 (record target 406 in 1976) and that Bangalore 96 off the top of my head.

I would credit Tendulkar and Tugga higher for scoring the bulk of their runs up front and shaping the match, rather than reacting to the shape of it late on.

 

[Ab Fan]

You must add the performances of the WSC supertsets where the standard of cricket was more competitive than conventional test cricket.

It was to the advantage of Gavaskar playing a 2nd string West Indies attack at home in 1978-79 ,a 2nd string Australian attack in 1979 and a depleted attack in Australia without Lillee in 1978-79.Gavaskar greately elevate his test average in time of WSC cricket from 1977-79.

Viv Richards in the 1sy year in WSC cricket aggregated 862 runs at an average of 86.2 and averaged over 100 for the world xi.Greg Chappell topped the batting averages in Wsc Supertests from 1977-79.He also in the Carribaen in 5 supertests averaged 69,aggregating 621 runs with 3 centuries.No batsmen in the decade performed better against the Carribaen pace quartet as Greg in that series.Also remember Greg's average of 100 versus Rest of the world in 1972.

Why do you not consider Barry Richards or Ian Chappell in this club?Barry topped the averages in World series cricket while Ian was the best in a crisis.

No doubt Viv was the most impactful.It is not only about stats.

Yes indeed, WSC Super Tests should be added as well.

 

[Bob Marley]

[You don't wash your hands they wash each other, you just stand and watch!]

Viv Richards number one, Miandad number 2!

 

[sunnyside]

There is zero doubt about this question it will always be IVA Richards. The race is pretty close between Border & Gavasker.

 

[gazza619]

Viv. He was a show stopper.

 

[Bewal Express]

For me Richards didn't care about stats as modern players, his was more of I am too good for you and you are not good enough to be on the same field as me. I didn't see Chappell bat and Gavaskar was old when he toured England in 86, and left no impression on me based on those performances.

 

[latecut]

If you have to go by records and impact, then Virender Sehwag has been more impactful than even Viv Richards.

 

[jeetu]

Tough to choose between Gavaskar and Viv slot regarding who was better. One achieved more but other was simply unique. Combining both format Viv is well ahead. So i'll put Viv over Sunny despite it being test only comparison.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Gavaskar for me as test batsman, another thing is Viv is atg but his test numbers are not that great inspite of 51 average, Viv under achieved in test .
Viv averaged around 42 or 43 in last 78 test match, which is around 2/3 of his career.
His numbers are great because of his initial run in first 40 test where he averaged over 60 .
Now it's up to personal preference, can you take a batsman who has a great shock factor but he was averaging around 42 in last 78 test over Gavaskar.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Viv averaged 45 for 15 years.

For all the talks about aggression test cricket is primarily about scoring runs and occupying the crease which Gavaskar did way better over a loner period of time and against better bowling overall.

As exciting as Viv is he is also among the most overrated test batsmen.

He basically hit God mode in 2 year like Mohammed Yousuf but very early in his career. After that he averaged 45 for 15 years of cricket. By now means is that an achievement that should undermine a test opener from a minnow nation averaging 50 plus over his career and against better bowling, not being able to cash in on his own nation’s bowling which was the worst.

Like mentioned above Gavaskar missed out on easy 2000 runs at 70 average and 15-18 test centuries against India.

 

[latecut]

Viv averaged 45 for 15 years.

For all the talks about aggression test cricket is primarily about scoring runs and occupying the crease which Gavaskar did way better over a loner period of time and against better bowling overall.

As exciting as Viv is he is also among the most overrated test batsmen.

He basically hit God mode in 2 year like Mohammed Yousuf but very early in his career. After that he averaged 45 for 15 years of cricket. By now means is that an achievement that should undermine a test opener from a minnow nation averaging 50 plus over his career and against better bowling, not being able to cash in on his own nation’s bowling which was the worst.

Like mentioned above Gavaskar missed out on easy 2000 runs at 70 average and 15-18 test centuries against India.

Very good observation. It is something that does not get revealed from statistics or from watching youtube videos.

Another thing to note is- Gavaskar was the Only world class batsman in the team, alongwith Vishwanath. So the burden of doing bulk of scoring for his team was always on him and Vishwanath. Richards (and also Greg Chappel) had the luxury of playing with several other world class batsmen, so they were nowhere under same pressure as Gavaskar. So Gavaskar was not in a position to play with the same freedom as Richandrs or Greg Chappel.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Another WI legend Sir Gary Sobers during his knighthood celebrations called Gavaskar the greatest batsman he had ever seen, above the likes of Viv, Chappell, Sachin, Lara etc. Now if a WIndian (a special person here) rates someone else above Viv and Lara there must be some weight in his words. I have never heard any high profile cricketer call Chappell 'greatest', King Viv gets such accolades but that is when you include ODI and we all know his legendary reputation in the shorter format.

 

[Robert]

Very good observation. It is something that does not get revealed from statistics or from watching youtube videos.

Another thing to note is- Gavaskar was the Only world class batsman in the team, alongwith Vishwanath. So the burden of doing bulk of scoring for his team was always on him and Vishwanath. Richards (and also Greg Chappel) had the luxury of playing with several other world class batsmen, so they were nowhere under same pressure as Gavaskar. So Gavaskar was not in a position to play with the same freedom as Richandrs or Greg Chappel.

I think you are doing Amanarth, Vengsarkar and Azharuddin a disservice. There is some historical revisionism by Indians going on here. India were not minnows in Gavaskar’s time, especially after the emergence of Kapil Dev.

Ask any bowler of the time who they did not want to bowl at and they will say Richards. Ask any team who they would want in their side and they will tell you the same. Richards was a man who transcended numbers.

 

[Napa]

I think you are doing Amanarth, Vengsarkar and Azharuddin a disservice. There is some historical revisionism by Indians going on here. India were not minnows in Gavaskar’s time, especially after the emergence of Kapil Dev.

<b>Ask any bowler of the time who they did not want to bowl at and they will say Richards. Ask any team who they would want in their side and they will tell you the same.</b> Richards was a man who transcended numbers.

These assertions are easy to make but impossible to validate. They sound like statements fans would make. Rationally there is no reason why a bowler would prefer bowling to a batsman with a higher average who would score more runs against them (Gavaskar) instead of a batsman with a lower average (Richards).

That is without accounting for the fact that Gavaskar was an opener.

 

[Tusker]

These assertions are easy to make but impossible to validate. They sound like statements fans would make. Rationally there is no reason why a bowler would prefer bowling to a batsman with a higher average who would score more runs against them (Gavaskar) instead of a batsman with a lower average (Richards).

That is without accounting for the fact that Gavaskar was an opener.

And did not have the luxury of avoiding the WI fast bowlers. He did however avoid the great Indian bowling attack of the 70s and 80s .

 

[Robert]

These assertions are easy to make but impossible to validate. They sound like statements fans would make. Rationally there is no reason why a bowler would prefer bowling to a batsman with a higher average who would score more runs against them (Gavaskar) instead of a batsman with a lower average (Richards).

Once again, stats are only the beginning of understanding. You are making quantitative analysis only, missing out on the qualitative. Read what Imran wrote about bowling to Richards and Gavaskar to understand better the Antiguan’s psychological impact on the opposition.

 

[Reverse Sweep]

Richards by miles.

Gavaskar played on favourable pitches.

Chappell missed several difficult series.

Richards was at his best when the West Indies were at risk of defeat: from January 1976 until he retired in September 1991 his team did not lose a single series* because Viv would simply not get out when his team needed him - think of how he saved the home series v Pakistan in 1988.

I’ve never seen another batsman who just refused to lose like Viv Richards. Probably the only other one in history was Trevor Bailey, who didn’t even have half his talent.

* You simply cannot count the 1-0 defeat by 1 wicket in New Zealand in 1980-81 - the match winner was a particularly patriotic umpire!

It was 79/80 and Viv didn't play in that series due to injury. Michael Holding should've been banned for a year and Colin Croft for life from all cricket for their behaviour on that tour.

 

[Napa]

Once again, stats are only the beginning of understanding. You are making quantitative analysis only, missing out on the qualitative. Read what Imran wrote about bowling to Richards and Gavaskar to understand better the Antiguan’s psychological impact on the opposition.

You have gone from saying "ask any bowler" to "what Imran wrote".

If I were a bowler, I would prefer bowling to someone who is likely to score less runs against me, rather than bowling to someone who is likely to score more runs against me.

If you wish to contradict the above, you have to explain why Richards runs were more valuable than Gavaskar's? Did Richards score his runs when runs were more important, and did Gavaskar score against minnows or in lost causes? I don't think so. Gavaskar almost single-handedly carried India to the #1 Test ranking way in the early 1970s. The Indian Test team was a lost cause in the 1990s after Gavaskar's retirement.

A opener who negotiates the new ball and protects the remaining batsmen from it, is critical to the success of a Test team. Gavaskar was all that and much more.

 

[Tusker]

Once again, stats are only the beginning of understanding. You are making quantitative analysis only, missing out on the qualitative. Read what Imran wrote about bowling to Richards and Gavaskar to understand better the Antiguan’s psychological impact on the opposition.

Similar things are said for Sehwag and Gilly ... do you think they were better than Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar?

 

[Robert]

You have gone from saying "ask any bowler" to "what Imran wrote".

If I were a bowler, I would prefer bowling to someone who is likely to score less runs against me, rather than bowling to someone who is likely to score more runs against me.

If you wish to contradict the above, you have to explain why Richards runs were more valuable than Gavaskar's? Did Richards score his runs when runs were more important, and did Gavaskar score against minnows or in lost causes? I don't think so. Gavaskar almost single-handedly carried India to the #1 Test ranking way in the early 1970s. The Indian Test team was a lost cause in the 1990s after Gavaskar's retirement.

India were #1 in the early seventies? They beat England home and away but it was rather more to do with the Unholy Trinity than Gavaskar, I would say. There were also some chaps named Vishy and Engineer who were a bit useful. Then India lost to England home and away.

Gavaskar retired and a few years later in 1992 England lost 0-3 to India who had Sidhu, Azhar and a young boy named Sachin something.

Anyhoo.

You're a bowler bowling at Gavaskar. You know you need a really good ball to get him out and really good catchers too. You know he will bat all day otherwise and be 100* plus at the close and will come back tomorrow and start again. You know if you bowl a bad ball he will hit it for four and keep hitting it all day. But you also know that if you bowl well you will have some control over the passage of play. You get to the end of the day and you think - that was tough, but I bowled well and Sunny never got away from me.

On another day you bowl at Richards. He can bat all day too. If you bowl a bad ball at him he will put it away, probably for six. But then you bowl a really good one at him instead and he smashes it for four. You bowl him another really good one in the same spot, and he smashes that for four as well, to a different part of the boundary. You give everything you have, bowling good ball after good ball, exhausting yourself and he keeps hitting you for fours and sixes with all the time in the world, no helmet on, sauntering up the wicket and chewing his gum. You have no control, the fielders are running around and the skipper is looking panicked. On and on this goes. Richards eventually mishits one and you think you have got him but it has so much power behind it that it goes throught the fielder's hands for four more. You get to the end of play and think - I feel powerless, my confidence is in tatters, as though I am a child bowling at a grown man, I am totally outclassed - and Richards is on 160* with power to add.

That's the difference.

 

[Tusker]

India were #1 in the early seventies? They beat England home and away but it was rather more to do with the Unholy Trinity than Gavaskar, I would say. There were also some chaps named Vishy and Engineer who were a bit useful. Then India lost to England home and away.

Gavaskar retired and a few years later in 1992 England lost 0-3 to India who had Sidhu, Azhar and a young boy named Sachin something.

Anyhoo.

You're a bowler bowling at Gavaskar. You know you need a really good ball to get him out and really good catchers too. You know he will bat all day otherwise and be 100* plus at the close and will come back tomorrow and start again. You know if you bowl a bad ball he will hit it for four and keep hitting it all day. But you also know that if you bowl well you will have some control over the passage of play. You get to the end of the day and you think - that was tough, but I bowled well and Sunny never got away from me.

On another day you bowl at Richards. He can bat all day too. If you bowl a bad ball at him he will put it away, probably for six. But then you bowl a really good one at him instead and he smashes it for four. You bowl him another really good one in the same spot, and he smashes that for four as well, to a different part of the boundary. You give everything you have, bowling good ball after good ball, exhausting yourself and he keeps hitting you for fours and sixes with all the time in the world, no helmet on, sauntering up the wicket and chewing his gum. You have no control, the fielders are running around and the skipper is looking panicked. On and on this goes. Richards eventually mishits one and you think you have got him but it has so much power behind it that it goes throught the fielder's hands for four more. You get to the end of play and think - I feel powerless, my confidence is in tatters, as though I am a child bowling at a grown man, I am totally outclassed - and Richards is on 160* with power to add.

That's the difference.

The same is true for Sehwag who actually has a faar better strike rate than Viv in Tests and three bigger innings than Vivs best ... will you then accept Sehwag as a better batsman than Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc ?

Fun fact: Sunny and Kapil are the only 2 batsmen to have scored a run-a-ball Test hundred against WI fast bowlers in 1983. Viv Richards did nothing remotely close to that against quality bowlers.

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

 

[Napa]

India were #1 in the early seventies? They beat England home and away but it was rather more to do with the Unholy Trinity than Gavaskar, I would say. There were also some chaps named Vishy and Engineer who were a bit useful. Then India lost to England home and away.

Gavaskar retired and a few years later in 1992 England lost 0-3 to India who had Sidhu, Azhar and a young boy named Sachin something.

Indeed India was ranked #1 from April 1973 to June 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

In the 1990s, India was bad, it was just that England was even worse.

Anyhoo.

You're a bowler bowling at Gavaskar. You know you need a really good ball to get him out and really good catchers too. You know he will bat all day otherwise and be 100* plus at the close and will come back tomorrow and start again. You know if you bowl a bad ball he will hit it for four and keep hitting it all day. But you also know that if you bowl well you will have some control over the passage of play. You get to the end of the day and you think - that was tough, but I bowled well and Sunny never got away from me.

On another day you bowl at Richards. He can bat all day too. If you bowl a bad ball at him he will put it away, probably for six. But then you bowl a really good one at him instead and he smashes it for four. You bowl him another really good one in the same spot, and he smashes that for four as well, to a different part of the boundary. You give everything you have, bowling good ball after good ball, exhausting yourself and he keeps hitting you for fours and sixes with all the time in the world, no helmet on, sauntering up the wicket and chewing his gum. You have no control, the fielders are running around and the skipper is looking panicked. On and on this goes. Richards eventually mishits one and you think you have got him but it has so much power behind it that it goes throught the fielder's hands for four more. You get to the end of play and think - I feel powerless, my confidence is in tatters, as though I am a child bowling at a grown man, I am totally outclassed - and Richards is on 160* with power to add.

That's the difference.

It appears you are saying that Richards strike rate was higher than Gavaskar's, which may be true. However a lower S/R from the opening batsman was actually a better thing for the Indian team as it meant that Gavaskar batted more balls at an average than Richards and wore the opening bowlers down more.

Irrespective of whether a good ball was hit for a four or not, if I was a bowler, I would be more demoralized by a batsman who scored more and batted longer. I would feel less powerless against a batsman who may hit a good ball for a boundary but get out sooner.

Gets out sooner, that is the critical point. A bowler feels more powerless against a batsman who isn't able to occupy the wicket as long.

 

[Napa]

The same is true for Sehwag who actually has a faar better strike rate than Viv in Tests and three bigger innings than Vivs best ... will you then accept Sehwag as a better batsman than Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc ?

Fun fact: Sunny and Kapil are the only 2 batsmen to have scored a run-a-ball Test hundred against WI fast bowlers in 1983. Viv Richards did nothing remotely close to that against quality bowlers.


[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

Quite honestly, given that Gavaskar's average was higher than Richards, AND Gavaskar was an opener means they do not belong in the same conversation.

If India had an opener anywhere close to Gavaskar in the recent SA and England series, instead of Dhawan, Rahul, Vijay etc., India would have won both series. The importance of the opener protecting the remaining batsmen cannot be overestimated.

 

[Robert]

Indeed India was ranked #1 from April 1973 to June 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

In the 1990s, India was bad, it was just that England was even worse.

It appears you are saying that Richards strike rate was higher than Gavaskar's, which may be true. However a lower S/R from the opening batsman was actually a better thing for the Indian team as it meant that Gavaskar batted more balls at an average than Richards and wore the opening bowlers down more.

Irrespective of whether a good ball was hit for a four or not, if I was a bowler, I would be more demoralized by a batsman who scored more and batted longer. I would feel less powerless against a batsman who may hit a good ball for a boundary but get out sooner.

Gets out sooner, that is the critical point. A bowler feels more powerless against a batsman who isn't able to occupy the wicket as long.

I am not just talking about strike rate and crease occupation time. Again, you are thinking in numbers only. There is a psychological side to cricket which cannot be quantified but is crucial nevertheless. Richards would demoralise the opposition just by stepping onto the field and their performance level would drop. Botham had the Australians half beaten before he did a thing. Same with Warne and England. These players transcend the numbers.

 

[Robert]

Quite honestly, given that Gavaskar's average was higher than Richards, AND Gavaskar was an opener means they do not belong in the same conversation.

If India had an opener anywhere close to Gavaskar in the recent SA and England series, instead of Dhawan, Rahul, Vijay etc., India would have won both series. The importance of the opener protecting the remaining batsmen cannot be overestimated.

But to continue the Gavaskar-Richards comparison one would have to lose the Richards figure (Kohli) so India would still lose. Indeed, they would be even less likely to win as the Gavaskar figure would take longer to score and get India into a winning position.

 

[Tusker]

Quite honestly, given that Gavaskar's average was higher than Richards, AND Gavaskar was an opener means they do not belong in the same conversation.

If India had an opener anywhere close to Gavaskar in the recent SA and England series, instead of Dhawan, Rahul, Vijay etc., India would have won both series. The importance of the opener protecting the remaining batsmen cannot be overestimated.

yup good point

 

[Harsh Thakor]

India were #1 in the early seventies? They beat England home and away but it was rather more to do with the Unholy Trinity than Gavaskar, I would say. There were also some chaps named Vishy and Engineer who were a bit useful. Then India lost to England home and away.

Gavaskar retired and a few years later in 1992 England lost 0-3 to India who had Sidhu, Azhar and a young boy named Sachin something.

Anyhoo.

You're a bowler bowling at Gavaskar. You know you need a really good ball to get him out and really good catchers too. You know he will bat all day otherwise and be 100* plus at the close and will come back tomorrow and start again. You know if you bowl a bad ball he will hit it for four and keep hitting it all day. But you also know that if you bowl well you will have some control over the passage of play. You get to the end of the day and you think - that was tough, but I bowled well and Sunny never got away from me.

On another day you bowl at Richards. He can bat all day too. If you bowl a bad ball at him he will put it away, probably for six. But then you bowl a really good one at him instead and he smashes it for four. You bowl him another really good one in the same spot, and he smashes that for four as well, to a different part of the boundary. You give everything you have, bowling good ball after good ball, exhausting yourself and he keeps hitting you for fours and sixes with all the time in the world, no helmet on, sauntering up the wicket and chewing his gum. You have no control, the fielders are running around and the skipper is looking panicked. On and on this goes. Richards eventually mishits one and you think you have got him but it has so much power behind it that it goes throught the fielder's hands for four more. You get to the end of play and think - I feel powerless, my confidence is in tatters, as though I am a child bowling at a grown man, I am totally outclassed - and Richards is on 160* with power to add.

That's the difference.

Absolutely.Richards simply struck terror in the opposition like a bomber raiding an airbase.No batsmen arguably ever could turn the complexion of game as Sir Viv.

It is not about statistics only.It is the impact and ability to demoralise the opposition .Lillee and Imran rated Viv as the best batsmen they ever bowled to more difficult than Barry Richards .One mist never forget the advantage Sunil Gavasakar had during Kerry Packer cricket when he notched 4 centuries against West Indies and 5 against Australia against their 2nd string bowling attacks.He was never prolific against Lillee as Viv nor at his best was he the equal of Viv against Imran.Ian Botham rated Viv Richards as the best bat he ever saw and even the Pakistan players of later eras rank him the best ever like Inzamam or Wasim.He received 64 votes for a place in the all-time xi significantly more than Lara or Tendulkar.

Viv's only weakness may have been against spin.Technically many great batsmen were ahead of him like the Chappel brothers,Gavaskar,Boycott,Tendulkar,Barry Richards etc.Still played many a great innings on the sub-continent like his 120 at Multan in 1989 and 108 at Delhi in 1987-88.

Rather than aggregate or average we should analyse impact and in my view in that respect perhaps noone surpassed Viv.From 1976-80 he was the best batsmen after Bradman,including WSC stats.Even when not at his best in the late 80's he was just about the best batsmen in the world before the ascendancy of Miandad.If he wished he may have broken all the batting records.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I think you are doing Amanarth, Vengsarkar and Azharuddin a disservice. There is some historical revisionism by Indians going on here. India were not minnows in Gavaskar’s time, especially after the emergence of Kapil Dev.

Ask any bowler of the time who they did not want to bowl at and they will say Richards. Ask any team who they would want in their side and they will tell you the same. Richards was a man who transcended numbers.

It is like comparing chalk and cheese.To bat for you life Sunny,to win you a game Viv.Also Gavaskar was an opening batsmen.No doubt Gavaskar had to face much more pressure and in the 1970's only Vishwanath supported him.In the 1980's India's batting underwent a renaissance with a big cluster of new stars.

 

[Hitman]

It is not about statistics only.It is the impact and ability to demoralise the opposition .Lillee and Imran rated Viv as the best batsmen they ever bowled to more difficult than Barry Richards .One mist never forget the advantage Sunil Gavasakar had during Kerry Packer cricket when he notched 4 centuries against West Indies and 5 against Australia against their 2nd string bowling attacks.He was never prolific against Lillee as Viv nor at his best was he the equal of Viv against Imran.Ian Botham rated Viv Richards as the best bat he ever saw and even the Pakistan players of later eras rank him the best ever like Inzamam or Wasim.He received 64 votes for a place in the all-time xi significantly more than Lara or Tendulkar.

Which All Time XI?

 

[Swashbuckler]

Absolutely.Richards simply struck terror in the opposition like a bomber raiding an airbase.No batsmen arguably ever could turn the complexion of game as Sir Viv.

It is not about statistics only.It is the impact and ability to demoralise the opposition .Lillee and Imran rated Viv as the best batsmen they ever bowled to more difficult than Barry Richards .One mist never forget the advantage Sunil Gavasakar had during Kerry Packer cricket when he notched 4 centuries against West Indies and 5 against Australia against their 2nd string bowling attacks.He was never prolific against Lillee as Viv nor at his best was he the equal of Viv against Imran.Ian Botham rated Viv Richards as the best bat he ever saw and even the Pakistan players of later eras rank him the best ever like Inzamam or Wasim.He received 64 votes for a place in the all-time xi significantly more than Lara or Tendulkar.

Viv's only weakness may have been against spin.Technically many great batsmen were ahead of him like the Chappel brothers,Gavaskar,Boycott,Tendulkar,Barry Richards etc.Still played many a great innings on the sub-continent like his 120 at Multan in 1989 and 108 at Delhi in 1987-88.

Rather than aggregate or average we should analyse impact and in my view in that respect perhaps noone surpassed Viv.From 1976-80 he was the best batsmen after Bradman,including WSC stats.Even when not at his best in the late 80's he was just about the best batsmen in the world before the ascendancy of Miandad.If he wished he may have broken all the batting records.

No Gavaskar was more prolific against Imran than Viv. In fact Pakistan was a team Viv used to struggle against.

You want to devalue Gavaskar's 100s, same can be done with Viv or any other ATG batsman for that matter. What is so special about his 120 in Multan, a boring draw? Or his 109* in Delhi against the deadly quartet of Arshad Ayub, Maninder Singh, Ravi Shastri, Chetan Sharma on a flattened wicket? You seriously have the nerve to downplay Sunny's 100s and sing ballads about Viv's 100s against popgun attacks?

Talking about peer reviews are you aware of the fact that during his knighthood celebrations party Sir Gary Sobers called Gavaskar the greatest batsman of all time? Won't be tough to search about similar reviews about Sunny from other greats. FYI Wasim picked Sunny as his most prized wicket and not his bunny Viv.

Sure overall Viv was the best because he was the ODI GOAT but OP specifically asked about test cricket.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Rather than aggregate or average we should analyse impact and in my view in that respect perhaps noone surpassed Viv.From 1976-80 he was the best batsmen after Bradman,including WSC stats.Even when not at his best in the late 80's he was just about the best batsmen in the world before the ascendancy of Miandad.If he wished he may have broken all the batting records.

Ifs and buts LOL...If Rohit Sharma wished he could have been the numero uno batsman of this era. If Mark Waugh wished he could have left Sachin/Lara in the dust. If Safin wished he could have single handedly stopped the emergence of Federer and become record GS holder. See how convenient these ifs are? There is a difference between potential and results, no one put a gun to Viv's head and asked him to give up his shots at records. If he couldn't translate his potential to superhuman feats his loss and there can't be special concession while evaluating his legacy. Sure you can call him an unfulfilled talent but nothing more than that, he won't get extra marks based on possibilities. I don't see a similar argument when talking about Kapil who was probably the most talented batsman out of the quartet, if he can't get leeway neither can Viv.

 

[Tusker]

No Gavaskar was more prolific against Imran than Viv. In fact Pakistan was a team Viv used to struggle against.

You want to devalue Gavaskar's 100s, same can be done with Viv or any other ATG batsman for that matter. What is so special about his 120 in Multan, a boring draw? Or his 109* in Delhi against the deadly quartet of Arshad Ayub, Maninder Singh, Ravi Shastri, Chetan Sharma on a flattened wicket? You seriously have the nerve to downplay Sunny's 100s and sing ballads about Viv's 100s against popgun attacks?

Talking about peer reviews are you aware of the fact that during his knighthood celebrations party Sir Gary Sobers called Gavaskar the greatest batsman of all time? Won't be tough to search about similar reviews about Sunny from other greats. FYI Wasim picked Sunny as his most prized wicket and not his bunny Viv.

Sure overall Viv was the best because he was the ODI GOAT but OP specifically asked about test cricket.

Also Viv never had to deal with the best bowlers of his time who were all WI bowlers.

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] you didn't get back to me with regards to the conquest of SC conditions by Greg Chappell. Kindly read post#35 and give your views. Having a facts based discussion will be more appropriate when dealing with these 3 titans of our sport.

 

[Hitman]

Ifs and buts LOL...If Rohit Sharma wished he could have been the numero uno batsman of this era. If Mark Waugh wished he could have left Sachin/Lara in the dust. If Safin wished he could have single handedly stopped the emergence of Federer and become record GS holder. See how convenient these ifs are? There is a difference between potential and results, no one put a gun to Viv's head and asked him to give up his shots at records. If he couldn't translate his potential to superhuman feats his loss and there can't be special concession while evaluating his legacy. Sure you can call him an unfulfilled talent but nothing more than that, he won't get extra marks based on possibilities. I don't see a similar argument when talking about Kapil who was probably the most talented batsman out of the quartet, if he can't get leeway neither can Viv.

Hasn't that always been the most convenient cop out for fans who need to justify their favorite players having inferior numbers than others? Oh, he was a team man and played for his team, never bothered about numbers

 

[Swashbuckler]

Also Viv never had to deal with the best bowlers of his time who were all WI bowlers.

Agree, I made that point in post#20 but somehow the usual suspects don't want to talk about all that, probably beneath their air of superiority. Instead the usual whattaboutery and WSC/Packer circus exhos. I mean are these guys even serious? Comparing international cricket with carnival stuff. It is like tennis fans arguing for their heroes based on IPTL/Laver Cup laughathons and not Grand Slams and Masters series/Olympics/WTFs.