Was Sir Viv Richards the most flawless player ever?

[street cricketer]

This thread is purely about Sir Viv. So please don't include the names of others in this discussion.

Now I don't want to talk about stats. But purely from the perspective of the quality of a player, was Richards the most flawless player ever barring Bradman? I mean, he ticks all the boxes whether in ODIs, Tests or anything else.

I want to ask this question purely to those who have watched him play. Did he ever have a weakness or a minor chink in his game? Some players are weak against fast bowling, some against spin bowling, some against the short ball, some during pressure situations, some against dibbly dobblers, etc. Like that did Viv have any weakness at all in his game? Or was he the most flawless player ever barring Sir Bradman?

Your thoughts? [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

 

[Indiafan]

He would have averaged a tad more in tests if he was

 

[Hawkeye]

Don't think any player could be completely flawless.

But yes, you could say best among his peers or other cricketers.

Like in ODIs he has absolutely no comparison. He could've been better in Tests in terms of numbers.

For the likes of AB, who is the closest in terms of ability and talent to Viv, it'll still take quite a while to reach Kings level.

 

[Hasan123]

Be interested to hear the opinions of those who watched him regularly

 

[Indian_Supporter]

Sachin was technically better than Viv though later was more destructive.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Prince_]

Sachin was technically better than Viv though later was more destructive.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

This.

I was watching the replay of a test match between England and West indies on TV where Viv scored a quick 50 but got out while he was attempting to play a flashy cover drive without moving his feet.

Didn't look that flawless to be honest.

 

[street cricketer]

This.

I was watching the replay of a test match between England and West indies on TV where Viv scored a quick 50 but got out while he was attempting to play a flashy cover drive without moving his feet.

Didn't look that flawless to be honest.

Which begs the question, is "having the perfect technique" a bit overrated when you have incredible timing ability and shot power?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

OP is asking about flawless as in weakness against anything.

Technique wise many many batsmen are better than Viv.

Viv's natural ability used to overpower his flaws in technique.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Which begs the question, is "having the perfect technique" a bit overrated when you have incredible timing ability and shot power?

Not really.

Pure natural ability works great TILL it works.

Once it ends, you are done cos you have nothing to reconstruct your batting and continue.

If you have natural ability then technique does not matter.

If not, it matters a lot.

Technique allows you to prolong your career.

 

[90MPH]

I would definitely say the most fearless and destructive batsman.

Infact the bowlers would fear him when running upto the crease. And remember this guy didn't wear a helmet.

 

[#GreenRoars]

Which begs the question, is "having the perfect technique" a bit overrated when you have incredible timing ability and shot power?

Yes, perfect technique is over rated term. Some batsmen are still good if they have good hand eye co-ordination, like Viru pa g .

 

[Hasan123]

Which begs the question, is "having the perfect technique" a bit overrated when you have incredible timing ability and shot power?

I can remember a few weeks ago i was telling u on another thread technique is all about finding a way to score runs which is comfortable and suits you

 

[Prince_]

OP is asking about flawless as in weakness against anything.

Technique wise many many batsmen are better than Viv.

Viv's natural ability used to overpower his flaws in technique.

Yup, just like shewag. Actually I think when in form shewag was even better.

The only test batsman I truely admire

Swing - no swing, bounce - no bounce, spin - no spin.............. DOESN'T MATTER


He would just clear out the front leg and whack it over the bowlers head :

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yup, just like shewag. Actually I think when in form shewag was even better.

The only test batsman I truely admire

Swing - no swing, bounce - no bounce, spin - no spin.............. DOESN'T MATTER


He would just clear out the front leg and whack it over the bowlers head :

Sehwag was amazing but in form Viv was unprecedented dude.

That's what I hear from those who watched him.

Watching his Youtube videos looks scary.

 

[Prince_]

Which begs the question, is "having the perfect technique" a bit overrated when you have incredible timing ability and shot power?

Highly overrated bro.



Its good if a batsman has the defense of G. Boycott or dravid



But when u have natural talent to overcome those deficiencies, then who cares

 

[Zeshan547]

Sehwag better than viv, now i have heard it all, people are really getting carried away.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Basically we just have to wait till those who watched Viv come and answer this thread.

Mainly

MMHS
Robert
Junaids
[MENTION=1451]Indian[/MENTION] Willow
[MENTION=135445]Strike Rate[/MENTION]

 

[gattaca]

Have heard had issues with genuine pace. He had to visit physcologist. He mentioned in interview he was nervous facing Bedi and Indian spinners.

 

[Prince_]

Sehwag was amazing but in form Viv was unprecedented dude.

That's what I hear from those who watched him.

Watching his Youtube videos looks scary.

Sif, u r destroying the fun bro

 

[jeetu]

I didn't saw Viv Richards play in 70's when he was at his best. But i did see him play some good innings in 80's. He wasn't flawless but he had one of the best hand eye coordination which more than made up. He wasn't at his best in 1983/84 tour vs India where his skipper Clive Lloyd out-shined him. Richards on his next tour to India played much better than last tour and won his team Delhi test with run a ball 4th inning century. It wasn't the easiest of pitch to score runs on but he did it with ease.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63466.html

 

[IcedEarth]

Viv was probably the gretest ever player of genuine, intimidating pace. Even better than Bradman. I think he was not the greatest against spin. Chandra and Qadir were the two main spinners in his day - I am not sure whether Prasanna has bowled to him and I don't rate Bedi - and he had considerable trouble facing them. We never know what a top rated spinner like Murali or Warne would do to him, or what would be his fate on a era with Murali, Warne, Kumble, Sqlain. Mushtaq and Hogg putting their mark in ODIs firmly.

 

[Robert]

Or was he the most flawless player ever barring Sir Bradman?

Your thoughts? [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

He found top quality leg-spin a bit puzzling - Chandresekhar and Qadir.

Even Bradman had trouble on sticky dogs.

Sunil Gavaskar had an exemplary technique and temperament.

 

[Justcrazy]

In my books is best ever. The manner in which he walked in was just awesome. The real king.

 

[Sandeep]

I heard Viv struggled massively against the only good leg spinner of his generation, Abdul Qadir. I read he averages something around 16 whenever he played against him.. If that is the case, how would he have faced the finest leg spinner of all time Shane Warne?

 

[Junaids]

Was he flawless?

Absolutely not. His first autobiography was called "Hitting Across The Line" because he used his amazing hand-eye coordination to take a big step across his stumps then on-drive for four even deliveries outside off-stump!

Viv Richards was less technically correct than some of his peers, which is why Somerset replaced a 30 year old Viv with Martin Crowe, who was technically superior.

But I once heard Barry Richards interviewed about why he often didn't score runs against weak opposition. Barry Richards replied that what distinguishes the best batsmen is how they perform when they are up against the best bowlers.

And that is where King Viv excelled. His hunger for runs came in the form of wanting to avenge colonial and racial humiliations by proving that the West Indies were the best ever team. Often against minnows like India, the weak 1980's Aussies or New Zealand he could hardly be bothered to concentrate.

But against the toughest opposition ( Pakistan, Lillee's Australia and England) he was determined to not just win, but to dominate and to humiliate the opposition. Most great players struggle in those toughest matches - I should have mentioned Packer's SuperTests too - but Viv thrived.

I would get moderated or arrested if I wrote what Bob Willis sledged him with in 1984. Viv just replied by humiliating England's fastest bowler and ending his career.

He wasn't just the best Test batsman of my lifetime (I never saw Barry Richards play his Tests or SuperTests) but he was also the one who terrified me when he came to the crease.

 

[TestMatch]

.

No cricketer is flawless. All have weaknesses.

Viv was an entertainer. He didn't play to pad his stats.

He buckled down and played carefully when absolutely necessary, but mostly loved to entertain.

He'd average about 55-56 if he didn't spend his last 5 years playing T20 cricket during Test matches.

I heard Viv struggled massively against the only good leg spinner of his generation, Abdul Qadir

Maybe so, but there was also a statistical study which showed that he averaged better vs spinners than pacemen.

 

[Justcrazy]

Technically there are others who were better than him , but he created more impact . You would pay to watch him.

 

[The Last Of The Stars]

I think a pitched up out swinger, outside the off stump, was his weakness.

 

[Junaids]

I heard Viv struggled massively against the only good leg spinner of his generation, Abdul Qadir. I read he averages something around 16 whenever he played against him.. If that is the case, how would he have faced the finest leg spinner of all time Shane Warne?

Only really in one Test, the Faisalabad 53 all out of 1986-87.

Like any right-handed batsman he found leg-spin the hardest form of spin to bat against. But in the key Test series of his career, the World Championship decider at home to Pakistan in 1987-88, he scored two centuries in two Tests against Imran, Wasim Akram and Qadir to level the series.

 

[Junaids]

Correction.

Viv Richards came back from missing the First Test in 1987-88 with West Indies losing 1-0 at home to Pakistan.

His scores were:

49 out of 174 all out
123 out of 391 all out
67 out of 306 all out
39 out of 268-8

That tells you everything about the guy.

 

[Robert]

Imran said he suffered nightmares about the guy. He and Sir Viv were gunslingers in the dreams, and Sir Viv kept out-drawing him.

 

[street cricketer]

Was he flawless?

Absolutely not. His first autobiography was called "Hitting Across The Line" because he used his amazing hand-eye coordination to take a big step across his stumps then on-drive for four even deliveries outside off-stump!

Viv Richards was less technically correct than some of his peers, which is why Somerset replaced a 30 year old Viv with Martin Crowe, who was technically superior.

But I once heard Barry Richards interviewed about why he often didn't score runs against weak opposition. Barry Richards replied that what distinguishes the best batsmen is how they perform when they are up against the best bowlers.

And that is where King Viv excelled. His hunger for runs came in the form of wanting to avenge colonial and racial humiliations by proving that the West Indies were the best ever team. Often against minnows like India, the weak 1980's Aussies or New Zealand he could hardly be bothered to concentrate.

But against the toughest opposition ( Pakistan, Lillee's Australia and England) he was determined to not just win, but to dominate and to humiliate the opposition. Most great players struggle in those toughest matches - I should have mentioned Packer's SuperTests too - but Viv thrived.

I would get moderated or arrested if I wrote what Bob Willis sledged him with in 1984. Viv just replied by humiliating England's fastest bowler and ending his career.

He wasn't just the best Test batsman of my lifetime (I never saw Barry Richards play his Tests or SuperTests) but he was also the one who terrified me when he came to the crease.

Funnily enough, he said that he was very nervous in his first tour to India when facing the 4 spinners (who were probably at the fag end of their careers) for the first time. When Viv made his debut in the 70s, India were a better team than Pakistan and the 4th best team after Australia, England and the West Indies. I think India won a test series at the west indies in the 70s too once. They went to minnow status in the 80s probably after their main weapon (the spin quartet) retired.

He also said that he was similarly anxious facing Lillee and Thommo in an interview, perhaps showing that beneath that herculean confidence and his unperturbed demeanor and chewing gum, he was human like us afterall. He said how his father asked him to overcome those and get the better of them if he truly wants to become the complete Test player. And sure enough, he did it.

 

[Prince_]

Not trolling, but I think an inform shewag in flat pitches was more fearsome and destructive than an inform Viv


But ofcourse Viv was much more consistent in humiliatung bowlers as he used to smack all types of bowlers regardless of pitch and conditions.

 

[Robert]

He also said that he was similarly anxious facing Lillee and Thommo in an interview, perhaps showing that beneath that herculean confidence and his unperturbed demeanor and chewing gum, he was human like us afterall. He said how his father asked him to overcome those and get the better of them if he truly wants to become the complete Test player. And sure enough, he did it.

He overcame Thommo, but Lillee got him out a lot of times. Lillee was another champion who raised his game against the very best. I consider them equals.

 

[Robert]

I think a pitched up out swinger, outside the off stump, was his weakness.

Ian Botham, who at the time was the best swing bowler in the world, bowled him one of those. Richards stepped outside off-stump and hit it through midwicket for four. Botham looked at him in amazement and said "That was a good ball. How did you hit it over there? That's not fair!" In response, Richards carried on chewing and grinned.

 

[IcedEarth]

He overcame Thommo, but Lillee got him out a lot of times. Lillee was another champion who raised his game against the very best. I consider them equals.

Lillee never bowled in unfamiliar conditions to get that title.

 

[Robert]

Lillee never bowled in unfamiliar conditions to get that title.

He's got it from me. And more importantly, Imran Khan:

The bowler who really stands out is Dennis Lillee, and I had the the great fortune to play against him when he was at his best, in 1976-7, on my first trip to Australia.

The first Test was played on a very slow pitch at Adelaide, and I was immediately impressed by Lillee, who kept on bowling long spells even though he was getting nothing out of the wicket. Early on he lost his opening partner, Jeff Thomson, who injured himself in the field, and from then on, he had to carry the attack. When he realized that there was no alternative but for him to keep on bowling, he cut his run up and started varying his pace: he would try anything to take wickets. In the second innings of that match, he bowled nearly fifty eight ball overs, taking 5 for 163. I thought very highly of his single-minded attitude, he was always attacking, and trying to think of ways to get the batsman out.

I don't think that Lillee was as much of a natural athlete as some of the other great fast bowlers of my time, like Thomson, Holding or Marshall. He has a much stronger physique than the others, but he was not as loose limbed, and he had to work to keep fit. When I first saw him on television in 1972, his action was that of a real tearaway fast bowlerr - it was obvious that he was putting immense strain on his body. Not surprisingly, he soon went down with an injury, which turned out to be a stress fracture in his back. This threatened to end his career, but he fought back, remodelled his action and, through sheer guts and determination became an even greater bowler. I can probably appreciate the problems he faced better than most, because of suffering a similar stress injury later in my career. Lillee's greatest asset was that he would rise to the occasion, especially in front of those huge crowds at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, getting life out of the dreadful pitches they had there at the time. His determination showed through against Pakistan at Sydney in 1972-3, when there was obviously something wrong with his back: he insisted on bowling, and backed up by the inexperienced Max Walker, bowled Pakistan out when we looked like winning. Most other bowlers in this situation would have given up, and his refusal to do so makes Lillee number one in my book.

 

[The Last Of The Stars]

Ian Botham, who at the time was the best swing bowler in the world, bowled him one of those. Richards stepped outside off-stump and hit it through midwicket for four. Botham looked at him in amazement and said "That was a good ball. How did you hit it over there? That's not fair!" In response, Richards carried on chewing and grinned.

Interesting.

 

[IcedEarth]

I think a pitched up out swinger, outside the off stump, was his weakness.

Pitching on good length and hitting top of off. That's where everyone us weak according to Glenn McGrath. McGrath and Hadlee in tandem agains Viv would have been gold. Hadlee was the most effective fast bowler against Viv in his playing days.

 

[IcedEarth]

He's got it from me. And more importantly, Imran Khan:

The bowler who really stands out is Dennis Lillee, and I had the the great fortune to play against him when he was at his best, in 1976-7, on my first trip to Australia.

The first Test was played on a very slow pitch at Adelaide, and I was immediately impressed by Lillee, who kept on bowling long spells even though he was getting nothing out of the wicket. Early on he lost his opening partner, Jeff Thomson, who injured himself in the field, and from then on, he had to carry the attack. When he realized that there was no alternative but for him to keep on bowling, he cut his run up and started varying his pace: he would try anything to take wickets. In the second innings of that match, he bowled nearly fifty eight ball overs, taking 5 for 163. I thought very highly of his single-minded attitude, he was always attacking, and trying to think of ways to get the batsman out.

I don't think that Lillee was as much of a natural athlete as some of the other great fast bowlers of my time, like Thomson, Holding or Marshall. He has a much stronger physique than the others, but he was not as loose limbed, and he had to work to keep fit. When I first saw him on television in 1972, his action was that of a real tearaway fast bowlerr - it was obvious that he was putting immense strain on his body. Not surprisingly, he soon went down with an injury, which turned out to be a stress fracture in his back. This threatened to end his career, but he fought back, remodelled his action and, through sheer guts and determination became an even greater bowler. I can probably appreciate the problems he faced better than most, because of suffering a similar stress injury later in my career. Lillee's greatest asset was that he would rise to the occasion, especially in front of those huge crowds at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, getting life out of the dreadful pitches they had there at the time. His determination showed through against Pakistan at Sydney in 1972-3, when there was obviously something wrong with his back: he insisted on bowling, and backed up by the inexperienced Max Walker, bowled Pakistan out when we looked like winning. Most other bowlers in this situation would have given up, and his refusal to do so makes Lillee number one in my book.

Still non of them were done on SC wickets, like McGrath did. Imran may be a legend for you, but hard, cold, facts and numbers give information zillion times worth that of opinions.

 

[Hitman]

1. Donald Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Garry Sobers/'King' Viv, Sachin.

As a matter of fact, cricket 'Bible' WISDEN in 2002 rated Sachin the second best Test and ODI batsman ever.

 

[Slog]

1. Donald Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Garry Sobers/'King' Viv, Sachin.

As a matter of fact, cricket 'Bible' WISDEN in 2002 rated Sachin the second best Test and ODI batsman ever.

Why all batsmen?

 

[Smbhayi]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63466.html

That's link make me sad. Raman Lamba

 

[MMHS]

This thread is purely about Sir Viv. So please don't include the names of others in this discussion.

Now I don't want to talk about stats. But purely from the perspective of the quality of a player, was Richards the most flawless player ever barring Bradman? I mean, he ticks all the boxes whether in ODIs, Tests or anything else.

I want to ask this question purely to those who have watched him play. Did he ever have a weakness or a minor chink in his game? Some players are weak against fast bowling, some against spin bowling, some against the short ball, some during pressure situations, some against dibbly dobblers, etc. Like that did Viv have any weakness at all in his game? Or was he the most flawless player ever barring Sir Bradman?

Your thoughts? [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

I won't say flawless, rather he probably was most fluent. Approached & played the game at a different tempo & intensity, besides played to counter punch, therefore he was an executioner, rather than a perfectionist.

It's impossible to compare the players of different generation, therefore I won't compare his technique with perfectionists a generation later (Dravid, Tend'kar, Kallis...) or a generation earlier (Harvey, Weeks, Hanif, Compton, Sobers ..... ), but among his contemporaries, I am sure Barry Richards, Sunny & Kanhai was better technically (probably Grineedge as well), Boycott's defense was definitely better while not only technique, Greg was probably more complete & all-round player. Lara was a complete different level player, who on song probably could match Viv, stroke by stroke, but much more classy, stylish & correct. For his best 5 years, Ponting overshadowed anyone by volume, apart from Bradman - even then he struggled big time against Indian spinners & Saqui.

For a young, aspirated batsman, Viv probably isn't the best role model, neither was Lara or Ponting - I'll recommend Greg Chappel & Tendulkar for that.

 

[Robert]

Still non of them were done on SC wickets, like McGrath did. Imran may be a legend for you, but hard, cold, facts and numbers give information zillion times worth that of opinions.

They are the beginning of understanding, not the end. They give you no information about the context of the games played.

Numbers say that Wasim was not as good as some others I could name, yet nearly everyone who faced him said he was the best.

 

[Robert]

Pitching on good length and hitting top of off. That's where everyone us weak according to Glenn McGrath. McGrath and Hadlee in tandem agains Viv would have been gold. Hadlee was the most effective fast bowler against Viv in his playing days.

Maybe on a greentop in Wellington under cloud with friendly umps. But Hadlee could go into his shell if attacked. The Windies batters all said he was not the same in their yard - he could be got on top of psychologically. That's something else that stats don't tell you. I've seen him bowling at Botham with the new ball, with every man back on the fence.

 

[street cricketer]

I won't say flawless, rather he probably was most fluent. Approached & played the game at a different tempo & intensity, besides played to counter punch, therefore he was an executioner, rather than a perfectionist.

It's impossible to compare the players of different generation, therefore I won't compare his technique with perfectionists a generation later (Dravid, Tend'kar, Kallis...) or a generation earlier (Harvey, Weeks, Hanif, Compton, Sobers ..... ), but among his contemporaries, I am sure Barry Richards, Sunny & Kanhai was better technically (probably Grineedge as well), Boycott's defense was definitely better while not only technique, Greg was probably more complete & all-round player. Lara was a complete different level player, who on song probably could match Viv, stroke by stroke, but much more classy, stylish & correct. For his best 5 years, Ponting overshadowed anyone by volume, apart from Bradman - even then he struggled big time against Indian spinners & Saqui.

For a young, aspirated batsman, Viv probably isn't the best role model, neither was Lara or Ponting - I'll recommend Greg Chappel & Tendulkar for that.

I didn't ask whether Viv had a flaw in his technique. I think there must have been quite a few batsmen who had a better or more perfect technique than what Sir Viv had, as he was known more for his daring and unconventional but demolishing approach rather than the textbook one you normally associate with English batsmen.

I asked in the sense that every batsman however great he may be must be weak at something. For example, Tendulkar wasn't much good in the 4th innings, Lara didn't have much centuries vs great genuine fast bowlers, Ponting was weak against quality spin. Similarly I asked whether Viv had any sort of weakness in his game or was he the only player who was closest to the flawless cricketer ever.

 

[IcedEarth]

Maybe on a greentop in Wellington under cloud with friendly umps. But Hadlee could go into his shell if attacked. The Windies batters all said he was not the same in their yard - he could be got on top of psychologically. That's something else that stats don't tell you. I've seen him bowling at Botham with the new ball, with every man back on the fence.

Ian Botham was a ***** when attacked. But Imran, Hadlee and Kapil were not among four great allrounders of 80s. Hadlee vs Viv confrontations were very few. On batting tracks of WI Viv had advantage while in NZ Hadlee and co cleaned him up cheaply.

 

[IcedEarth]

They are the beginning of understanding, not the end. They give you no information about the context of the games played.

Numbers say that Wasim was not as good as some others I could name, yet nearly everyone who faced him said he was the best.

What matters is who gets more wickets. looking good or missing edge 100 times is inferior to actually getting the edge single time and getting caught.

 

[Belawal2014]

What was Viv's average against Pakistan and Immy?

 

[blue_champion]

Viv Richards was one of the greatest all times but on this forum he is treated as the best thing since slice bread.

Yeah he would be a top 10 all time bats of all time but he falls under the category of players who had supreme hand eye coordination say like Sehwag and with age reflexes slowed down.

Sunny was the most flawless bat ever and don't go by his tuk tuk game, he had all the shots in the book and he could attack when mattered too.

 

[BD-fan]

Viv Richards was one of the greatest all times but on this forum he is treated as the best thing since slice bread.

Yeah he would be a top 10 all time bats of all time but he falls under the category of players who had supreme hand eye coordination say like Sehwag and with age reflexes slowed down....

[MENTION=140308]blue_champion[/MENTION]

Have you seen/listen Viv bat live? If not, then you have no clue on how much power he had and not just hand-eye coordination.

Also, he had unbelievable balance. His courage was unmatched. A faint heart can't face non-stop Holding, Roberts, Croft, Marshall, Garner with out a helmet in the nets. That is why the game came so easy to him. What he faced in matches was second best.

+++
He is the best thing since Sobers. And I was a huge Sunny fan. There is no comparison.

 

[MMHS]

I didn't ask whether Viv had a flaw in his technique. I think there must have been quite a few batsmen who had a better or more perfect technique than what Sir Viv had, as he was known more for his daring and unconventional but demolishing approach rather than the textbook one you normally associate with English batsmen.

I asked in the sense that every batsman however great he may be must be weak at something. For example, Tendulkar wasn't much good in the 4th innings, Lara didn't have much centuries vs great genuine fast bowlers, Ponting was weak against quality spin. Similarly I asked whether Viv had any sort of weakness in his game or was he the only player who was closest to the flawless cricketer ever.

Yes, he had a very balanced game indeed. In terms of weakness, may be he wasn't that dominant against leggi & accurate seemers (like Hadlee) on green tops.

Again, it's impossible to compare of players in different era, but barring Bradman (whose stats are 50% better than 2nd man), I think, Vic Trumper & Jack Hobbs were similarly balanced in their contemporary era.

 

[Robert]

What matters is who gets more wickets. looking good or missing edge 100 times is inferior to actually getting the edge single time and getting caught.

Fair comment - it is possible that Wasim did too much with the ball to take wickets at times. I remember a match in 1992 when he must have beaten Gooch twice every over for ten or twelve overs, yet Gooch still scored a century.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

High praise on commentary today for Sir Viv.
Also commentators said they asked Bob Willis who was the best batsman he ever bowled to and he answered Viv Richards was 'by far' the best batsman he ever bowled to.

My greatest cricketing regret in life is not to watch Sir Viv live

 

[PakLFC]

Don't know about "flawless" but for sure the most attacking batsman I have ever seen.

 

[thehub]

Lol at Viv being most flawless batsman. Funny thing is most of the folks commented here have not watched Viv play. But jumping to the conclusion. Viv had a lot of flaws in his technics. He put the front foot across pretty much every time ball was pitched on good length or full. Not many great or smart bowlers he played against. Later stage of career, once his hand and eye coordination went down, he struggled to score due to his flaws in technic.

 

[squarecut]

Viv Richards was by no means flawless. He used to dominate bowlers by collaring them, so that they lost confidence and would begin to bowl to his strengths.

 

[squarecut]

That way he was like a brute version of Sehwag- one who had great hand eye co ordination and he would destroy bowing attacks. If Viv Richards is considered flawless in technique, then so should Sehwag be.

 

[squarecut]

One should be able to praise a person without feeling the urge to bring others down. Running down others to praise someone is not the best way to go about it.

 

[Napa]

If Richards was flawless, the WI would have won a hat-trick of WCs in 1983 when facing a low total of 183.

However, Richards was not flawless, could not take the WI to victory, and the WI never won a WC again (a real WC, T20s don't count).

 

[The_Odd_One]

His technique was not flawless but he had incredible hand eye coordination that enabled him to destroy bowling attacks.