Richie Richardson: YOU SUCK!
Introl Industrial Control Systems
Bouqets to the Australian's and two fingers to Richie Richardson
and his team. After being thoroughly thrashed, all RR could
manage to say is "I can't believe we lost because this is the
weakest Australian side I've ever played against" (or something
to that effect). Charming RR. As expected, WI have been most
gracious and sporting in defeat. Maybe its due to a lack of
practice, and hence I'm sure they'll improve over the next few
years.
So lets look at this weak Australian side:
1) Best Aussie opening partnership since Lawry and Simpson if
not better.
2) Best Aussie number 3 batsman since Ian Chappell.
3) Number 4 batsman has been the best performed Aussie bat against
WI over the last three series. (In fact, Australia have
beaten WI 4 times in the last three series, and Mark Waugh has
scored hundreds in all but one of those wins. i.e. The first
test of this series).
4) Number 5 batsman rated as the 4th best batsman in the world
before this series, a player who has murdered every nation
he's played against in the last 2 years, and who has a Test
average in excess of 45)
5) A wicket-keeper batsman equal to or better than any previous
Australian ones. (Whose 74* set up that 1st test win)
6) The best spin bowler in the world at the moment, and Australias
best spin bowler for decades.
The only area Australia are "weak", is the fast bowling and thats
only because McDermott and Fleming are injured. Meanwhile, McGrath
has shown that he is a likely candidate for 200+ Test wickets. Time
will show that this attack wasn't so weak because McGrath was in it.
RR has played Australia in the following series. 1984 (3-0 WI),
1984-85 (3-1 WI), 1988-89 (3-1 WI), 1991 (2-1 WI), 1992-93 (2-1 WI)
and 1995 (2-1 Aust). Its clear that the current team is weaker than
all of the other sides isn't it? I mean just look at the stellar
names of the 80's. Murray Bennett, Bob Holland, Andrew Hilditch,
Wayne Philips, Mike Veletta, Rod McCurdy, Dave Gilbert ... the
list goes on. RR's got a point doesn't he!!! :-)
IMO, the 1991 and 1992-93 teams were as good as the current one
as far as talent and skill goes. (The fast bowling was probably
better because of the prescence of McDermott and Merv Hughes). The
main difference now is that the current team is more disciplined
and more positive under Mark Taylor than it ever was under Allan
Border.
The other difference in this series is that WI are the weakest that
they've been at any stage in the last 15 years. Right now they have
3 batsmen (Lara, Richardson, and Adams) and two bowlers (Walsh and
Ambrose). The rest of the team is crap. Stuart Williams is hopeless
(Sherwyn Campbell looks much better to me), Carl Hooper is a full-on
fairy who'll never amount to anything at Test level (He wouldn't be
playing Test cricket if he were Australian), and the Benjamin's are
just trundlers. Junior "Thank God for Steve Rhodes or I'd be the
worst keeper in Test cricket" Murray also leaves a lot to be
desired.
Well I just re-read this, and I guess it's obvious I'm a little
pissed off. Too bad. All-in-all its been a great series and Aust
deserved to win. WI are still a very good team, but they are not
head and shoulders above the rest. It will be interesting to see
how they perform in England. (I wouldn't want to be in Atherton's
position. The poor Pom's might feel the brunt of the WI's anger).
As for Australia, I'm hoping for a series win over Pakistan this
summer before I start calling them the best team in the world.
I'm also looking forward to the 1996-97 series against WI because
RR has given the Aussies plenty of motivation. (WI will need to
unearth some new bowling talent if they want to win that one).
Greg Breen
Perth, Western Australia
John Hall
int...@cougar.multiline.com.au
"Introl Industrial Control Systems" writes:
>
> Bouqets to the Australian's and two fingers to Richie Richardson
> and his team. After being thoroughly thrashed, all RR could
> manage to say is "I can't believe we lost because this is the
> weakest Australian side I've ever played against" (or something
> to that effect). Charming RR.
It seems very out of character for RR. I guess he's been under an
awful lot of pressure. Anyway, very well done Australia.
--
John Hall, | When I was younger I thought
Cranleigh, | I knew all the answers.
Surrey, England | Now I realise I don't even
| understand most of the questions.
Yashovardh Potlapalli
>In article <3o9ecs$m...@cougar.multiline.com.au>
> int...@cougar.multiline.com.au
> "Introl Industrial Control Systems" writes:
>
>>
>> Bouqets to the Australian's and two fingers to Richie Richardson
>> and his team. After being thoroughly thrashed, all RR could
>> manage to say is "I can't believe we lost because this is the
>> weakest Australian side I've ever played against" (or something
>> to that effect). Charming RR.
>
>It seems very out of character for RR. I guess he's been under an
>awful lot of pressure. Anyway, very well done Australia.
Could it be that Richardson has never been in a team that lost a test
series and is too stunned to make any reasonable response?
This leads to an interesting fact: At the beginning of the Aus-WI series,
the WI team contained no member who was in a team that had lost a series
(remember Haynes wasnt named in the 14). This begs the question when was
the last time a team consisted of no player who had lost a test series?
Aslam, Travis, John?
Yasho.
PS: Of course, if Richie was in the 1979(?) WI tour of NZ, then the above
is not valid.
--
Yashovardhan Potlapalli
J. Sreedhar
>In article <3o9ecs$m...@cougar.multiline.com.au>
> int...@cougar.multiline.com.au
> "Introl Industrial Control Systems" writes:
>>
>> Bouqets to the Australian's and two fingers to Richie Richardson
>> and his team. After being thoroughly thrashed, all RR could
>> manage to say is "I can't believe we lost because this is the
>> weakest Australian side I've ever played against" (or something
>> to that effect). Charming RR.
>It seems very out of character for RR. I guess he's been under an
>awful lot of pressure. Anyway, very well done Australia.
--John Hall
Yes!! The 15 year old record obviously was on their
minds a lot. In India, and at the start of this series too,
I heard many of the WI players saying that none of them
wants to be part of the team to lose this proud record.
Also, maybe RR *still* thinks this is the "weakest Australian side
he has ever played against". Just goes to show the extent of
his shock/disbelief. Imagine what stronger Aus teams would have
done to his team (given their lack-lustre performance).
With the "weight" of the record finally off their shoulders,
WI should be able to play more naturally now. Watch out, Eng!!!
-supRboy
Maxton Esbrand
Introl Industrial Control Systems (int...@cougar.multiline.com.au) wrote:
: Bouqets to the Australian's and two fingers to Richie Richardson
: and his team. After being thoroughly thrashed, all RR could
: manage to say is "I can't believe we lost because this is the
: weakest Australian side I've ever played against" (or something
: to that effect).
Please excuse Richie for he is in shock and not responsible for the crap
he spoke,the current Aussie team is obviously the best team since the early
80's team of (G.S. Chappell, Kim Hughes,D.K. Lillee,Rod Marsh & Co). This
current WI team is actually the weakest in the last 15-20 years except for
the Packer era when the official WI team was a second string XI led by A.I.
kallicharran,but out of this second string XI emerged M.D. Marshall,
Larry Gomes,Sylvester Clarke and Jeff Dujon. Current players such as
Arthurton, Hooper, Williams,Kenny & Winston Benjamin are consistent
underperformers who probably would not of retained their place if
the WICBC had a different set of administrators.
Rod Stark
>From: dri...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Phil Shead)
>Subject: Re: Richie Richardson: YOU SUCK!
>Date: 5 May 1995 07:37:58 GMT
>In article <pban3.14...@cc.monash.edu.au> pb...@cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>In article <3ochid$l...@sol.ccs.deakin.edu.au> dri...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Phil Shead)
>writes:
>>>In article <3objtc$h...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> ypo...@eos.ncsu.edu (Yashovardh
>Potlapalli) writes:
>>>>Could it be that Richardson has never been in a team that lost a test
>>>>series and is too stunned to make any reasonable response?
>>> Could it be that Richardson was saying the truth as he saw
>>>it? Rather as Taylor did after the Pakistan series when he said
>>>Australia should have won?
>>That is a pretty good point - Taylor and all the Australians did maintain they
>>were unlucky to lose the Pakistan series. However, Taylor did not call the
>>Pakistan cricket team weak and he did have some evidence to substantiate his
>>claim - after all they came so close to winning! The WEst Indies however,
>>were defeated miserably - by ten wicckets and then by one innings and fifty
>>six runs. Richardson has no evidence whatsoever to back his claims that
>>Australia is the weaker team. WI was outplayed in all aspects of the series.
>
> He did not say it was the weaker team, he said it was the weakest Australian
>team he had played against, and I know a lot of people thinking similar
>things after both Fleming and McDermott went home. And considering the
>teams in 90/1 and 92/3 the most recent certainly seem stronger.
It sounds to me that RR was actually trying to comment on how disappointed he
was with the West Indies' performance and phrased it in a somewhat
undiplomatic manner.
Phil Shead
>>It seems very out of character for RR. I guess he's been under an
>>awful lot of pressure. Anyway, very well done Australia.
>Could it be that Richardson has never been in a team that lost a test
Phil Shead
>In article <3ochid$l...@sol.ccs.deakin.edu.au> dri...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Phil Shead) writes:
pb...@cc.monash.edu.au
>In article <3objtc$h...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> ypo...@eos.ncsu.edu (Yashovardh Potlapalli) writes:
>>In article <799616...@jhall.demon.co.uk> Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk writes:
>>>It seems very out of character for RR. I guess he's been under an
>>>awful lot of pressure. Anyway, very well done Australia.
>>Could it be that Richardson has never been in a team that lost a test
Venkatesh Sridharan
: That is a pretty good point - Taylor and all the Australians did maintain they
: were unlucky to lose the Pakistan series. However, Taylor did not call the
: Pakistan cricket team weak and he did have some evidence to substantiate his
: claim - after all they came so close to winning! The WEst Indies however,
: were defeated miserably - by ten wicckets and then by one innings and fifty
: six runs. Richardson has no evidence whatsoever to back his claims that
: Australia is the weaker team. WI was outplayed in all aspects of the series.
-------
First, all Richardson said was that the other Aussie teams he had played
against were stronger than this one.
Second, are you implying that a team *cannot* lose to a "weaker" (on paper,
obviously) team ?
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
Meth
: First, all Richardson said was that the other Aussie teams he had played
: against were stronger than this one.
: Second, are you implying that a team *cannot* lose to a "weaker" (on paper,
: obviously) team ?
That may be what he was IMPLYING, but what he SAID was that the team that BEAT
his bunch of losers was the WORST Australian Team he had EVER played against.
So what exactly does that say about his team??
As far a I am concerned Richie can go stick that oversized hat right up his
butt!!!!!!!!!
Meth.
Joshua Saunders
: In article <pban3.14...@cc.monash.edu.au> pb...@cc.monash.edu.au writes:
: >In article <3ochid$l...@sol.ccs.deakin.edu.au> dri...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Phil Shead) writes:
: >>In article <3objtc$h...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> ypo...@eos.ncsu.edu (Yashovardh Potlapalli) writes:
: >>>Could it be that Richardson has never been in a team that lost a test
: >>>series and is too stunned to make any reasonable response?
: >> Could it be that Richardson was saying the truth as he saw
: >>it? Rather as Taylor did after the Pakistan series when he said
: >>Australia should have won?
: >That is a pretty good point - Taylor and all the Australians did maintain they
: >were unlucky to lose the Pakistan series. However, Taylor did not call the
: >Pakistan cricket team weak and he did have some evidence to substantiate his
: >claim - after all they came so close to winning! The WEst Indies however,
: >were defeated miserably - by ten wicckets and then by one innings and fifty
: >six runs. Richardson has no evidence whatsoever to back his claims that
: >Australia is the weaker team. WI was outplayed in all aspects of the series.
:
: He did not say it was the weaker team, he said it was the weakest Australian
: team he had played against, and I know a lot of people thinking similar
: things after both Fleming and McDermott went home. And considering the
: teams in 90/1 and 92/3 the most recent certainly seem stronger.
Phil, Phil, Phil...
Richie also played against the 84 and 85 versions, you know the Kim
Hughes captained teams. In exactly what way were the 90/91 and 92/3
teams stronger? Fast bowling?
Well the 3 fast bowlers we had in this series took 41 wickets at ~21.
Granted, Hughes and McDermott would have been better ON PAPER, but a
paper team can easily become a paper tiger. Billy and Merv never did that
well anyway, certainly not averaging 21 in a series against WI.
As to the batting, well it was stronger than any team RR has played
against from Australia. More mature, if nothing else.
But you would never believe it till Martyn, Langer and Hayden were part
of the team. For mine, that would weaken the batting. Silly me.
Cheers, Josh
--
*************************************************************************
*Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au *
*Volvo - it's Swedish for "asleep at the wheel" *
*IRCnick: rogan *
*************************************************************************
Shamim A Naqvi
>
> Richie also played against the 84 and 85 versions, you know the Kim
> Hughes captained teams. In exactly what way were the 90/91 and 92/3
> teams stronger? Fast bowling?
>
> Well the 3 fast bowlers we had in this series took 41 wickets at ~21.
> Granted, Hughes and McDermott would have been better ON PAPER, but a
> paper team can easily become a paper tiger. Billy and Merv never did that
> well anyway, certainly not averaging 21 in a series against WI.
>
Perhaps RR meant to say that the current Aussie team was the weakest
*on paper* that he had played against. In that respect I could see
some sense in the statement because on paper Reiffel, McGrath and
Julian are not big names, certainly not before the tour. The batting,
I agree with Josh, was stronger with the exception of a middle order
money player like Border. That is again on paper because Steve Waugh
held up the middle magnificiently.
--
< Shamim
Hamish Laws
> Richie also played against the 84 and 85 versions, you know the Kim
> Hughes captained teams. In exactly what way were the 90/91 and 92/3
> teams stronger? Fast bowling?
>
Well, I can't entirely remember the 84/85 teams but they did have a few
useful performers. Billy was in his young and fast days but before the
slump. Hogg was doing well or was that after him? Dammit it's too long ago
for me to remember who was in the team and not long enough ago for me to
have read it.
> Well the 3 fast bowlers we had in this series took 41 wickets at ~21.
> Granted, Hughes and McDermott would have been better ON PAPER, but a
> paper team can easily become a paper tiger. Billy and Merv never did that
> well anyway, certainly not averaging 21 in a series against WI.
I believe that Richie said something before the test about the attack
working together very well and bowling very well to a plan (although I'd
have liked to have seen Rackerman in instead of Julian, that may well have
made it a 3-0 result, and I like the guy) On the other hand I'd have liked
to have seen what would have happened if Lara had really gone on with the
job and made 150. The attack _may_ have fallen apart. Note that is a may
not a would have.
>
> As to the batting, well it was stronger than any team RR has played
> against from Australia. More mature, if nothing else.
It looked the strong point on paper but really apart from Steve was
disappointing.
Taylor & Slater disappointing
Boon disappointing
M.Waugh made one score, for the rest aargh! (Although I did finally see
him beaten by a ball when he'd made over 10 a very quick Winston Benjamin
yorker)
S. Waugh player of the series by far
Blewett one 60 does not make a tour
Healy 74(*?) remained the third highest score for the tests and possibly
won the first one.
Reiffel Julien & Warne all stuck around at important times
McGrath hit the ball at least once, a good effort for him with the bat.
Of the batsmen one performed very well and the rest were indifferent at
best. As I recall only Steve averaged above 35.
so on performance the batting wasn't brilliant.
On paper before the series my analysis went roughly
Taylor they worked him out well the last time they played Australia
Slater unproven against a consistantly good attack and a bad hooker.
Boon based on his edges against England he could be slowing down with age.
M.Waugh gets himself out far too often
s.Waugh in the past uncomfortable against good pace bowling
Blewett 2 hundreds against england without Gough, I'm impressed, seriously
he hadn't proved himself against quality opposition.
Healy I don't think he's done that much versus the Windies before
as for the rest of the line up well...
The only person who really performed well above expectations was S.Waugh
and that was enough
--
My dog's a Kleptomaniac
Joshua Saunders
: In article <3on784$8...@inferno.mpx.com.au>, jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
: (Joshua Saunders) wrote:
: > Richie also played against the 84 and 85 versions, you know the Kim
: > Hughes captained teams. In exactly what way were the 90/91 and 92/3
: > teams stronger? Fast bowling?
: >
: Well, I can't entirely remember the 84/85 teams but they did have a few
: useful performers. Billy was in his young and fast days but before the
: slump. Hogg was doing well or was that after him? Dammit it's too long ago
: for me to remember who was in the team and not long enough ago for me to
: have read it.
Billy played in two of the 10 tests played in that era. Hogg played a few
more.
: > Well the 3 fast bowlers we had in this series took 41 wickets at ~21.
: > Granted, Hughes and McDermott would have been better ON PAPER, but a
: > paper team can easily become a paper tiger. Billy and Merv never did that
: > well anyway, certainly not averaging 21 in a series against WI.
: I believe that Richie said something before the test about the attack
: working together very well and bowling very well to a plan (although I'd
: have liked to have seen Rackerman in instead of Julian, that may well have
: made it a 3-0 result, and I like the guy) On the other hand I'd have liked
: to have seen what would have happened if Lara had really gone on with the
: job and made 150. The attack _may_ have fallen apart. Note that is a may
: not a would have.
Well if he has that much respect for the bowling, and the batting is
strong "on paper", I can't see how it is the weakest Australian team he
has played.
: > As to the batting, well it was stronger than any team RR has played
: > against from Australia. More mature, if nothing else.
: It looked the strong point on paper but really apart from Steve was
: disappointing.
True. But you are arguing at cross purposes to me. There are two
possibilities as to what Richie was talking about when he called them the
"weakest side I have played". First - it is the weakest side on paper.
Well the batting isn't. On paper the bowling is still OK - on paper Warne
you'd have taking at least one 5 for, and probably winning a test at some
point.
Second - it literally was the weakest team he has played - based on
performance. Well he had a lot of respect for the bowling, as you noted
above. The batting may have been a bit underwhelming, but we only
actually batted worse than WI in Trinidad.
: Of the batsmen one performed very well and the rest were indifferent at
: best. As I recall only Steve averaged above 35.
MWaugh averaged 40. How many WI batsmen averaged above 35? Lara averaged
44. By way of comparison, it should be noted that SWaugh averaged FAR
above 35. 107, in point of fact.
: so on performance the batting wasn't brilliant.
But the bowling was. There is no "out" clause for Richardson.
Cheers, Josh
--
*************************************************************************
*Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au *
*"Josh, you are a pissant" - Tim Boden-Library *
*IRCnick: rogan *
*************************************************************************
Stephen Devaux
Saunders) writes:
>
>Hamish Laws (h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au) wrote:
>: In article <3on784$8...@inferno.mpx.com.au>, jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
>: (Joshua Saunders) wrote:
>Well if he has that much respect for the bowling, and the batting is
>strong "on paper", I can't see how it is the weakest Australian team
he
>has played.
>
>True. But you are arguing at cross purposes to me. There are two
>possibilities as to what Richie was talking about when he called them
the
>"weakest side I have played". First - it is the weakest side on paper.
>Well the batting isn't. On paper the bowling is still OK - on paper
Warne
>you'd have taking at least one 5 for, and probably winning a test at
some
>point.
>
>Second - it literally was the weakest team he has played - based on
>performance. Well he had a lot of respect for the bowling, as you
noted
>above. The batting may have been a bit underwhelming, but we only
>actually batted worse than WI in Trinidad.
>
>MWaugh averaged 40. How many WI batsmen averaged above 35? Lara
averaged
>44. By way of comparison, it should be noted that SWaugh averaged FAR
>above 35. 107, in point of fact.
>
>: so on performance the batting wasn't brilliant.
>
>But the bowling was. There is no "out" clause for Richardson.
>
This whole thread has finally gotten to me. I really don't understand
WHAT Aussies are complaining about! If RR truly believes that Aus was
a weak team, and that the team he conspired with the selectors to put
on the field was stronger, then Aussies should be happy at this
delusion, and fervently hope that RR remains WI captain for the next 16
years. That way Aus have a chance to break the WI record for longest
run as World Champs (which, BTW, I feel thay are, having kayoed the
reigning world champs; it's the only objective way of bestowing the
title).
The outrage over RR's comments should be coming from WI fans. His
statements show that he doesn't have a CLUE as to what went wrong: that
his (I believe) insistence on keeping Arthurton and Nureyev (not to
mention either/both Benjamins) in the side over Campbell and
Chanderpaul (could it be that Richie has somehting against the initials
S.C.?) destroyed the WI chances.
If Richie continues this folly in England, I think it will be time
for either electric shock treatment or the Leslie Hylton treatment
(previously suggested for J.K. Holt).
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Uday Rajan
Stephen Devaux <sde...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This whole thread has finally gotten to me. I really don't understand
>WHAT Aussies are complaining about!
> The outrage over RR's comments should be coming from WI fans.
Yes, this thread is getting a litte tiresome, so let me make it
more so. I am neither Australian nor from the West Indies (I do
clasify as West Indian, tho :-) ), but here's my two cents on this. If
RR had said "This Australian team is the weakest I have every played,
but ...", where the but was completed with some acknowledgement about
being outplayed in the series and some kind words for the Aussie team,
his comments would have been much less controversial. Perhaps that's
what he meant, and just left out the "but" part.
OTOH, as it stands, it's easy to interpret his statement
as "This Australian team is the weakest that I have ever played
against, and although they beat us, it is impossible for me to have
even the slightest respect for their abilities". Which is simply
ungracious, whether true or not, and is probably delusional as well,
as Steve points out.
RR, when he became captain, had a reputation for graciousness,
and there was some talk about him removing the harsh edge that the WI
had acquired under Richards. I would like to believe that he did not
mean to be ungracious in his statements, and that he was really
commenting on the poor performance by the WI. However, he has left
that open to doubt.
Nigel Fowler
: has played.
Especially when his side lost to it. What sort of moronic statement was that -
his team just got beaten by a side, and he says that the other side is useless -
what does that say about his side????
Nigel
Darius A. Lecointe
> Especially when his side lost to it. What sort of moronic statement
> was that - his team just got beaten by a side, and he says that the
> other side is useless - what does that say about his side????
>
does not always win. Do you find it difficult to comprehend this?
Underestimate a weak team and you will find that a strong side may
lose to a weak side on the basis of stupid errors.