Gavaskar the greatest?! Ha! Ha!
S R Sankaranarayanan
arguments. But wait!. Look closely. Does the record (majestic though
it is) actually justify their claims?
In my view if a batsman makes his runs against all kinds of world class
bowling attacks AWAY FROM HOME with a reasonable amount of consistency
then alone he deserves to be called great.
Consider these facts:
* Gavaskar supposedly has a phenomenal record against the Windies
pace quartets. But caveat!. Look again. Out of the 2500 odd runs
he has scored at an average of 65+ per inng. over 1700 runs were
made at an average of 80+ against men like Holford, Julien, an
ageing Sobers, Jumadeen, Norbert Phillip, Sylvester Clarke, and the likes.
The one true test of Gavaskar against the Windies came in the tour
of WI in 82-83 prior to the World Cup. And what were the results?
A run of pathetic scores. Including a first ball dismissal by Holding
and an innings of 32 in the fourth test that included 5 lives!.
Apart from a 147 n.o. in the Guyana test which was a meaningless
rainwashed test match and where Marshall bowled from half his usual
run up and the one great quality innings of 90 at the Berbice ODI
he did not touch 50. Hardly what anyone can call a great performance.
Even Arun Lal would not have been proud of that record. Anyone who
says that Gavaskar was paid special attention by the pacers should
look at how Gooch and Boycott in 81 -82, Border in 85-86, then
Miandad in 87-88 performed. Being the premier batsman of their
sides would not they also have been paid special attention? Gooch
and Boycott came out with some match saving performances, Border
had over 600 runs in 5 tests, and Miandad had 2 hundreds in 3 tests.
* Gavaskar played Lillee once in that famous 80-81 tour. Scores
were 0,10,23,6,3, 70. Pathetic would be an over statement.
Lillee systematically dismantled Gavaskar's batting and exposed
Gavaskar's famed weakness outside the off-stump. Lillee claimed
Gavaskar's wicket in 4 of the 6 innings.
* gavaskar played Hadlee in the next series. except for the 55
in one innings Gavaskar came out a cropper.
* Gavaskar struggled in the English tours of 81-82 and 85-86. He
had just one 50 albeit he missed an innings at the Oval with an
ankle fracture. Willis had the better of Gavaskar most of the time
with his steeplers rising from a short of a length showing yet
again that Gavaskar's technique was far from perfect.
* The most pathetic of Gavskar's performances is the one in the
World Cup final of 83. 2 runs in 12 balls against 8 of which
he failed to contact with the bat. Garner repeatedly rapped him
on his thigh and waist.
* People claiming Gavaskar to be great may point out the England
tour of 79-80 (including that epic 221 at the Oval) and the folklore
innings during the 83-84 tour of WI to India. I accept that the
English tour performance was perhaps the greatest batting exhibition
by any Indian. The only thing I rate higher is the batting of
Amarnath in that WI tour of 82-83.
But in that WI tour Gavaskar repeatedly failed INdia when needed.
I don't consider the innings at Delhi or that 236 n.o. at Madras
to be the best innings. The innings at Ahmedabad of 90 was a
great innings. He went at one pace from start to finish on a dicey
wicket and scored fours against all of the WI attack.
But 3 good innings on a 6 test tour. Is that what is expected of a great
batsman? Interstingly on result producing pitches on that tour
Gavaskar's scores are 0, 2, 90, 1, 0, 17. People like Binny, Madan lal,
Vengsarkar, Gaikwad had more respectable scores.
* Viv Richards has mauled every attack in both ODI's which goes
without saying, and Tests. Unlike often contested Richards did
not fail miserably against Thommo and Lillee in that 75-76 series.
Infact he finished that series strongly with a 90 and 100 at adelaide.
A failure by Richards' standards but a success by Gavaskars. On a later
tour in 79-80 Richards' 153 at Adelaide on practically one leg is
rated by Lillee and Chappell as the greatest innings they have seen.
* Richards, and not Gavaskar, is rated by Imran as the greatest of
the modern era Batsman.
* Those who say Richards never had to face his own pace attack
I say Gavaskar never had to take on Bedi, Chandra, and Co. in tests.
Just because he played one great innings of 97 at Bangalore on
spinning track does not mean he would have scored that much
each time he played against them.
In fact Richards seems to have done enough in the WI domestic cricket
for Holding to rate him as the best he has seen.
* Any past or present great who has seen Richards and Gavaskar always
rates Richards higher. Eg. Trueman, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Botham,
Marshall, Holding, etc.
* Richards stands tall as the greatest post war batsman. In fact I would
rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
had been as consistently persisted with as some of the others (Shastri)
he would have matched Gavaskar and could have even outshone him. His
performance in that tour of WI & Pak were too strong to prove that his
string of zip code like scores in the 83-84 WI series were just an
aberration. At one time both LLoyd and Imran rated him as the best in the world
against fast bowling. Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
from anyone at any point in his career.
* I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
SRS
SAIRAJU TALLAVARJULA
>People use Gavaskar's phenomenal record as a thrustpoint of their
>arguments.
> Hardly what anyone can call a great performance.
>Even Arun Lal would not have been proud of that record.
>
>rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
> Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
>from anyone at any point in his career.
>
>* I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
>your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
>It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
>
___________________________________________________________________
If some one claims number of centuries, or number of runs
is a sole measure of greatness, then you are right in your attcks.
But by the same token you should not point out number of
times he failed to make 50, number of times he did not
prove, and use them as sole measures of lack of greatness.
You say Viv and Miandad are better. They are in some aspects
of the game, and they are next to him in some others! But
you can not simply say `Gavaskar is no good'. Speaking of
accolades, do you mean that Gavaskar did not get any?
Well, one time Allan Davidson was describing Gavaskar's
game, and he mentioned what he would try to get Sunny out.
Now, if Sunny is no body, why would one of the finest
new ball bowlers that the game had seen, try to analyze?
Despite what the bowlers said, do you think they did
not worry about Gavaskar? Do you remember the joy on
their faces when they got his wicket? Why ??
You may like some one else, but you got to admit
Gavaskar was world class!
>
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Singular integral equations, and phase-space local minima are my guests
while I crunch many a night on my beloved terminal.
Hang 3S007' (oops! its upside down.) stallav_
tz...@beethoven.helios.nd.edu
>pace quartets. But caveat!. Look again. Out of the 2500 odd runs
>he has scored at an average of 65+ per inng. over 1700 runs were
>made at an average of 80+ against men like Holford, Julien, an
>ageing Sobers, Jumadeen, Norbert Phillip, Sylvester Clarke, and the likes.
This guy is a darned good bowler, just ask the Pakistanis.
I think his career was cut short due to South African connections.
>
> <List of Gavaskar failures deleted >
>* I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
>your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
>It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
>
Very simple. You have simply described a list of instances where
Gavaskar failed, and listed the instances where the others
(Border, Richards etc) have succeeded. You forget that the other
batsmen (all except Bradman) have had their share of failures.
It would be very difficult to build a case to 'prove' the
superiority of Richards over Gavaskar or the other way round.
Sure, Gavaskar cannot take apart the bowling like a Richards in
full flow. However, neither can Richards match Gavaskar's
consistency and staying power. Richards often gifted his
wicket away from a poor shot early on. I remember that he was
out to *Madanlal* in *Antigua* for 1.
It is best to view them (Richards, Border, Gavaskar and Miandad)
as equals. Each had their own distinctive styles, strengths and
weaknesses.
Ming the Merciless
Narayana Venkateswaran
> The only thing I rate higher is the batting of
>Amarnath in that WI tour of 82-83.
>
>* Richards stands tall as the greatest post war batsman. In fact I would
>rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
>had been as consistently persisted with as some of the others (Shastri)
>he would have matched Gavaskar and could have even outshone him. His
>performance in that tour of WI & Pak were too strong to prove that his
>string of zip code like scores in the 83-84 WI series were just an
>aberration. At one time both LLoyd and Imran rated him as the best in the world
>against fast bowling. Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
>from anyone at any point in his career.
>
>SRS
>
At last, a sensible voice in the crowd. No doubt, the 1982-83
display of pace bowling by Amarnath AT Pakistan, AT W. Indies and
in England is unsurpassable.
If only he had as many opportunities as that club-grade-cricketer
Shastri.
n.V.
>
Shyam Prasad Talluri
: People use Gavaskar's phenomenal record as a thrustpoint of their
Gavaskar was rated highly by greats like Sir garfield sobers,
Sir Len Hutton, Sir Don Bradman.
It is collosal waste of time to start another set of articles
to emphasize gavaskar's greatness.
Whatever may be the stroke making of different other players
Gavaskar is a class and a half above the rest....Don Mosey
Concentrate concentrate and a few can do it better than sunny
Gavaskar hios 34 centuries in test cricklet have not exactly
been gift wrapped by the bowlers...... Graham Gooch
I just feel like standing at the wicket , I have never seen
such technical brilliance'''..... Brain Rose
I would recommend an young cricketer to watch Sunny gavaskar
rather than Viv Richards , gavaskar's game is out of
a coaching manual...... Sir Len Hutton.
I can bring about hundreds of comments describing the greatness
of gavaskar.
Shyam Talluri.
: SRS
Mr. Raza Syed
|> In article <C847n...@acsu.buffalo.edu> s...@acsu.buffalo.edu (S R Sankaranarayanan) writes:
|>
|> >People use Gavaskar's phenomenal record as a thrustpoint of their
|> >arguments.
|> > Hardly what anyone can call a great performance.
|> >Even Arun Lal would not have been proud of that record.
|>
|> >
|> >rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
|> > Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
|> >from anyone at any point in his career.
|> >
|> >* I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
|> >your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
|> >It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
|> >
Hey,
You will be sued(sp?) for million dollars for causing serious damage
to the cardiac system of Mr. Talluri ;-)
Seriously I think you dont have to belittle Gavaskar in order to praise
Viv or Miandad and Vice Versa. They all are great and neither of them
should be compared to each other or any other. All three of them have their
own identities and Standards and they dont need other identity or standard
for their recognition.
Since this discussion is about Gavaskar I must say that he was a great
batsman and is a great gentleman.
P.S Though Gavaskar was retired six years ago but still he holds the
record of most discussed personality in RSC second behind him is
Ravi Shastri;-)
--
S.R.Raza.
ra...@surya.engrg.uwo.ca
PVR Narasimha Rao
In article <C84FE...@news2.cis.umn.edu>, venk...@a24.chen.umn.edu (Narayana Venkateswaran) writes:
:) If only he had as many opportunities as that club-grade-cricketer
:) Shastri.
Yes, Shastri is a club grade cricketer. Anyone of a higher caliber would
make 506 against McDermott, Reid, Hughes and Warne in a test at Sydney, not
a paltry 206.
Also, Shastri could make just a 185 and a 110 from 3 tests when he visited
England last. Not good enough for anyone above club grade level.
Hey BTW, I have a feeble memory of replying to the same statement 1.5 years
back from a guy called N.Venkateswaran from Hawaai. By any chance, are you
the same guy? Did you change univs?
PVR
PVR Narasimha Rao
In article <1993Jun4.2...@news.nd.edu>, tz...@beethoven.helios.nd.edu () writes:
:) It would be very difficult to build a case to 'prove' the
:) superiority of Richards over Gavaskar or the other way round.
:) Sure, Gavaskar cannot take apart the bowling like a Richards in
:) full flow. However, neither can Richards match Gavaskar's
:) consistency and staying power. Richards often gifted his
:) It is best to view them (Richards, Border, Gavaskar and Miandad)
:) as equals. Each had their own distinctive styles, strengths and
:) weaknesses.
Very sensible words! There have been too many arguments on Sunny vs Viv of
late.
To me, this analogy looks rather apt:
Sunny is like classical music -- soft, elegant, very tough to master, needs
concentration, systematic, slow and boring to some, but enchanting to those
who can appreciate.
Viv is like rock music -- pacy, vigorous, spontaneous, ruthless, exciting to
some, but too wham-bang to those who cannot appreciate.
Now, which one do you like? It is subjective and how one's taste evolves is
a complicated matter. No point in fighting and trying to `convince' others.
Not every set can be ordered, as anyone who knows math will tell you.....
:) Ming the Merciless
PVR
Spaceman Spiff
Sankaranarayanan) says:
>
>People use Gavaskar's phenomenal record as a thrustpoint of their
>arguments. But wait!. Look closely. Does the record (majestic though
>it is) actually justify their claims?
>
gavaskar failed against lillee you say. perhaps it was a result of 3 years
of constant test cricket without rest. michael jordan has looked mortal
against the knicks, but there's no argument that he's the best player in
the game today, and arguably the best ever. i'm not saying that gavaskar
is *THE* greatest ever, just that he is one of greatest.
about the failures in WI and Eng in 82-83. again, everyone fails sometime
or the other. even viv richards and miandad have had poor series in their
career. even bradman had a poor run of scores once vs the west indies. of
course, he had a couple of huge 100's in the series, so his average did not
suffer but the windies bowlers definitely tested him.
you personally feel that gavaskar was a fake/sham/whatever. fine, feel that
way. that's your prerogative. however, greats in all cricket playing nations
have declared him one of the best ever. surely they all can't be wrong?
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just then the wind come squalling thru the dark,
but who can the weather command?
Just want to have a little peace to die,
and a friend or two I love at hand.
Ravi Kapadia
In article <C847n...@acsu.buffalo.edu> s...@acsu.buffalo.edu (S R Sankaranarayanan) writes:
OK, Here goes my thesis in the defence of Gavaskar.
>People use Gavaskar's phenomenal record as a thrustpoint of their
>arguments. But wait!. Look closely. Does the record (majestic though
>it is) actually justify their claims?
10,122 reasons justify the claim.
>
>In my view if a batsman makes his runs against all kinds of world class
>bowling attacks AWAY FROM HOME with a reasonable amount of consistency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>then alone he deserves to be called great.
Are you aware that Gavaskar's record away from home
is marginally superior to his record in India?
Did you see the 70 he made in the last innings ?
Here was a man looking desperately for form, against
one of the most skillful fast bowlers ever, on a
wicket that was always a little treacherous.
The sheer determination with which he set out
stay there and make runs, made that an innings to be
cherished ...
>
>* gavaskar played Hadlee in the next series. except for the 55
>in one innings Gavaskar came out a cropper.
>
>* Gavaskar struggled in the English tours of 81-82 and 85-86. He
>had just one 50 albeit he missed an innings at the Oval with an
>ankle fracture. Willis had the better of Gavaskar most of the time
>with his steeplers rising from a short of a length showing yet
>again that Gavaskar's technique was far from perfect.
And Willis when interviewed on TV after the Lord's
test said that thje batsman whose back England was most
happy to see, was Gavaskar ...
>
>* The most pathetic of Gavskar's performances is the one in the
>World Cup final of 83. 2 runs in 12 balls against 8 of which
>he failed to contact with the bat. Garner repeatedly rapped him
>on his thigh and waist.
>
>* People claiming Gavaskar to be great may point out the England
>tour of 79-80 (including that epic 221 at the Oval) and the folklore
>innings during the 83-84 tour of WI to India. I accept that the
>English tour performance was perhaps the greatest batting exhibition
>by any Indian. The only thing I rate higher is the batting of
His 221 was rated by Jim Laker as the finest innings
seen in England since the WWII -- and Laker, you
may be aware, played vs Bradman's 1948 team ...
>Amarnath in that WI tour of 82-83.
>But in that WI tour Gavaskar repeatedly failed INdia when needed.
>I don't consider the innings at Delhi or that 236 n.o. at Madras
>to be the best innings. The innings at Ahmedabad of 90 was a
>great innings. He went at one pace from start to finish on a dicey
>wicket and scored fours against all of the WI attack.
>But 3 good innings on a 6 test tour. Is that what is expected of a great
>batsman? Interstingly on result producing pitches on that tour
So let's see how Richards did in that series ...
after all that Holding and Imran said about Richard's being
the best, he scored just one century (that too he was
dropped thrice in the innings), made 67 at Delhi
and failed the rest of the 6 tests --- his average
for that series was @ 34.
Even Arun Lal would have been ashamed to have such
a low average against the Indian attack :-)
>Gavaskar's scores are 0, 2, 90, 1, 0, 17. People like Binny, Madan lal,
>Vengsarkar, Gaikwad had more respectable scores.
>
>* Viv Richards has mauled every attack in both ODI's which goes
>without saying, and Tests. Unlike often contested Richards did
>not fail miserably against Thommo and Lillee in that 75-76 series.
>Infact he finished that series strongly with a 90 and 100 at adelaide.
>A failure by Richards' standards but a success by Gavaskars. On a later
>tour in 79-80 Richards' 153 at Adelaide on practically one leg is
>rated by Lillee and Chappell as the greatest innings they have seen.
>
>* Richards, and not Gavaskar, is rated by Imran as the greatest of
>the modern era Batsman.
Gavaskar's greatness is independent of what other
people viz., Richards, Miandad, Border, etc. achieved.
This is the basic criticism that I have of your
article... really it does not matter what the others
did, no one can detract from Gavaskar's achievements.
If you believe that xyz is better than Gavaskar, that's
your privilege, but that does not diminish the little
master's greatness.
>
>* Those who say Richards never had to face his own pace attack
>I say Gavaskar never had to take on Bedi, Chandra, and Co. in tests.
>Just because he played one great innings of 97 at Bangalore on
>spinning track does not mean he would have scored that much
>each time he played against them.
Yet, the Miandad whom you later consider better than
Gavaskar, played that game, and did not do so well ...
>In fact Richards seems to have done enough in the WI domestic cricket
>for Holding to rate him as the best he has seen.
>
>* Any past or present great who has seen Richards and Gavaskar always
>rates Richards higher. Eg. Trueman, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Botham,
>Marshall, Holding, etc.
For technique, no one ranks higher than Sunny.
>
>* Richards stands tall as the greatest post war batsman. In fact I would
>rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
>had been as consistently persisted with as some of the others (Shastri)
>he would have matched Gavaskar and could have even outshone him. His
Mohinder often dropped out of tests because he was hit
by fast bowlers ... Gavaskar's technique was good enough
(surely an understatement) that he was never injured ...
>performance in that tour of WI & Pak were too strong to prove that his
>string of zip code like scores in the 83-84 WI series were just an
>aberration. At one time both LLoyd and Imran rated him as the best in the world
The fact that Gavaskar never lost his nerve despite
facing the fastest attacks in the world, is a measure
of the man's greatness ... amarnath for all his splendid
performances earlier simply lost it...
>against fast bowling. Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
>from anyone at any point in his career.
No, but while we are on the subject of accolades,
more people have praised Gavaskar's technique as
the best in modern times, than have touted Richards
as the successor to Bradman. In particular Sir Len
Hutton in his autobiography, stated that he would
encourage young players to watch and copy the technique
of Sunil Gavaskar rather than Viv Richards ...
>
>* I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
>your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
>It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
>
>SRS
>
>
>
You have highlighted the failures of Gavaskar's failures,
but have you taken into account his successes ---
against Holding & Roberts in 1976, Thomson & Clark in 1978,
Imran & Sarfaraz in 1979, Willis, Botham & Underwood in 1981,
McDermott & Hughes in 1985-86 ...
While I make no claims that Gavaskar was better than
Richards, Miandad, or Border, I have no doubts
that Gavaskar is among the legends that have graced
the cricket pitch. To me, he was the best !!!
Ravi
"The No. 1 Gavaskar Fan on the Net"
fai...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
WAS ONE OF THE BEST PLAYER BECAUSE HIS RECORD TELLS US.In article <C85py...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>, ra...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Ravi
Austin C Archer
> I just feel like standing at the wicket , I have never seen
> such technical brilliance'''..... Brain Rose
>
> I would recommend an young cricketer to watch Sunny gavaskar
> rather than Viv Richards , gavaskar's game is out of
> a coaching manual...... Sir Len Hutton.
>>
greatest. However it is a rather faulty argument to say that because
Gavaskar is more orthodox in technique than other players, then he must be
better than them.
The fact is, there are many players who would be considered better models
for young cricketers to emulate than Richards, who loved to play across the
line. That does not make him less of a batsman. Correct technique is a means
to an end, not the end itself. So-called technical faults cannot be an
argument to sustain an evaluation of greatness, merely a partial explanation
of _why_ greatness may have been achieved. The same can be said about
citations of Sunil's much vaunted powers of concentration. It explains, but
does not prove.
Some may argue that Boycott had both technique and concentration in great
measure, but no one (or at least few) will name him in the same breath
as Gavaskar or Richards.
Austin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin C. Archer Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat!
Assistant Professor Internet: arc...@wwc.edu
Education and Psychology Phone: (509)527-2771 (office)
Walla Walla College Opinions expressed are mine only.
College Place, WA 99324
=============================================================
Sanjay Naik
>In article <1uor8c$7...@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> s...@engr.latech.edu (Shyam Prasad Talluri) writes:
>
>> I just feel like standing at the wicket , I have never seen
>> such technical brilliance'''..... Brain Rose
>>
>> I would recommend an young cricketer to watch Sunny gavaskar
>> rather than Viv Richards , gavaskar's game is out of
>> a coaching manual...... Sir Len Hutton.
>>>
>This is not to belittle Gavaskar, who I would readily admit is one of the
>greatest. However it is a rather faulty argument to say that because
>Gavaskar is more orthodox in technique than other players, then he must be
>better than them.
>
< Rest of Austin's interesting analysis deleted >
----> Agreed with your analysis, however, I'm assuming your analysis was based
on Hutton's comment above. That was a tremendous comment Hutton paid to
Gavaskar, coming from one of the greatest batsmen the game has seen.
But strangely as it may seem, I always viewed that comment as an equal
compliment to Richards. I always saw it as "Hey, if you wanna
increase your chances of success, watch Gavaskar bat and take note
of how straight he plays, and how 99.9% of the time he plays a ball
bowled outside the off-stump on the off-side! But don't try and play
like Richards, because you're chances of succeeding are very small!!".
Richards' ability to whip balls pitched on or around the off-stump
to the leg-side were unbelievable and based completely on his amazing
ability to see the ball early. He had a tremendous eye and I felt
that in the last couple of years of his career when mother-nature was
playing its part, he was getting out more often to the shot played
across the line and to the hook shot. He appeared to be gifting
his wicket away, but I believe it was more a case of the reflexes
slowing down. The shots that would have come off earlier now seemed to
be reckless. When England last toured WI, there was a tremendous battle
between Richards and Malcolm which was fun to watch and if I'm not
mistaken, Malcolm had Richards a couple of times, off mis-hooks. Now,
Malcolm was bowling fast and accurately (accuracy is one of his main
problems) but I'm sure the Richards of prime-time would have put him
away each time.
Richards' ability to hit the ball across the line is legendary and
for me that was the only part of his game that was truly unorthodox.
Ofcourse there was that other shot, where he'd make room for himself
by going down the leg-side (before the ball was even delivered) and
then he'd hammer it through the off-side by either driving along the
ground or lofting it. Aside: Talking about lofting the ball, Glenn
Turner was one of the most adept batsmen at lofting the ball in the
one-dayers off spinners. When the field was in close, Turner would hit
the ball in the air over the in-field and into the gaps. This
made it extremely difficult to set a fiel to him. What appeared to be a
risky shot was played very cunningly and with tremendous skill.
Turner played this shot at will and now we see everyone in the
one-day game playing this shot, although it remains one of the
most difficult shots in the game. End of Aside.
Going back to Richards, personally I feel he was far more orthodox then
people give him credit for and I believe this is unfair to both Richards
and players like Gavaskar/Boycott. People like to say he was unorthodox
as if being orthodox was somehow being sissy. Richards had (or should
I say 'has') a beautiful stance, none of the baseball stuff, a nice
backlift and he's very still and balanced at the crease, no shuffling,
no jerky movements. His driving, cutting, pulling etc. was pleasing to
the eye. I guess the unorthodoxy lay in the fact that he made it look
so easy and often he seemed to be just flicking balls on the leg-side
which disappeared somewhere into the stands, or sometimes he
seemed to be dealing in brute-force or savegery. There was certainly no
slogging involved, just pure timing. I had the pleasure of seeing Kalli
bat a lot and his drives, cuts and flicks would scorch the grass as
it whacked into the advertisement boards. Shot of a powerful man ? I'm
sure Kalli was a tough cookie, but he was a teeny-weenie ;-) I guess
I'm in a minority when I say that I feel Richards was more orthodox
then unorthodox, but I think Hutton was saying to young kids , don't
play that shot across the line. That's something you can't practice,
you either have it in your repetoire or you don't. I think, it's
safe to say that most coaches would advise a youngster against playing
that ahot. At the same time we should be grateful that somebody didn't
try and stop Richards from playing that shot when he was very young.
As for Boycott, I wonder what kind of batting records he would have set
if he hadn't gone into self-exile. I don't think his final figures did
him justice - he finished with an average around 48 (?). He should
definitely have finished with 50 or more and I was pleased to see
Richards squeeze in to the 50 league with his final innings. Anything
less would have been a shame. The irony with Boycott was that he was
so obssessed with numbers that his stats would surely have been better
if he wasn't so hell-bent on not getting out. He just didn't hit the
ball as frequently as someone like Gavaskar (the closest comparison)
did. Unlike Boycott, Gavaskar rarely got bogged down and kike Hadlee
writes in his auto, Gavaskar was more of an extrovert (he would
sometimes launch an unexpected attack) than an introvert. However, I
feel Boycott adapted to the 1-day game better than Gavaskar. Boycott
hit a superlative 146 (?) in the Gillette cup final way back in the
60s. This was a very high score at the time and I guess it still is, it
was well-paced, and he dominated. He hit a hundred in a 1-day intl.
many years before Gavaskar, in a WSC game in Australia. The problem
with him was that he was just too afraid to let himself go more often.
I think it was more a case of that than being unable to score freely.
Boycott was never going to be able to bat like Richards, but he could
have been a greater success in both tests and 1-dayers. Finally, I
just don't buy the line that goes, "if Richards would have batted like
Gavaskar/Boycott, then he would have scored a lot more runs, centuries
etc.". I daresay he would have been a big flop and vice-versa.
Just my opinions.
>
>Austin
>
Bye,
Sanjay Naik.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Aamer A. Khan, (psst)
> [deleted]
> * Richards, and not Gavaskar, is rated by Imran as the greatest of
> the modern era Batsman.
>
I know he has said time and again that Gavasker was the most difficult man
to dismiss!
[deleted]
> * Any past or present great who has seen Richards and Gavaskar always
> rates Richards higher. Eg. Trueman, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Botham,
> Marshall, Holding, etc.
>
I have also seen articles in the Cricketer (Pakistani) where Lillee
has admitted in personal interviewes that Gavasker is the hardest to dismiss.
I am not comparing "Greatness" that is an opinion based on many factors but
I think in Gavasker vs Richards you are comparing Apples and Oranges! Richards
is the stroke player (And definitely the best I have seen Salim Malik is a bad
second!) Gavasker is the GOD of CONCENTRATION and GRIT he definitely has those
two going for him.
> * Richards stands tall as the greatest post war batsman. In fact I would
> rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
> had been as consistently persisted with as some of the others (Shastri)
> he would have matched Gavaskar and could have even outshone him. His
> performance in that tour of WI & Pak were too strong to prove that his
> string of zip code like scores in the 83-84 WI series were just an
> aberration. At one time both LLoyd and Imran rated him as the best in the world
> against fast bowling. Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
> from anyone at any point in his career.
>
> * I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
> your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
> It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
>
Believe me I am not blinded by patriotisim! I have seen Gavaskar play
the best with incredible ease. He had a much more difficult job as compared to
Richards. He was always the opener facing the new ball (Richards is did not
open!) against all the best in the world (Richards never faced Marshall & Co!).
I would say similar things if you compare Miandad and Gavasker (though Miandad
is not as good a stroke player as Richards he is the ultimate "fighter").
Sunil in my books is still the best batsmen from the sub-continent and
definitely the best opening batsmen by far in the world.
Aamer Khan
R. Bharat Rao
|> > [deleted]
|> > * Richards, and not Gavaskar, is rated by Imran as the greatest of
|> > the modern era Batsman.
OK, all this greatest BS is going too far -- both of them are
defintely great, and while one could passionately pick one over the
other, the very fact that so many people consider the comparison a
reasonable one, indicates that both of them are great ... by this I
mean, that if you believe is the greatest bat who walked the earth
(post 1950 of course:-), then the fact that you consider the
comparison a reasonable one, even though you emphatically come out in
support of Richards indicates that Gavaskar is pretty darn good (and
the same way around for Gavaskar lovers).
Its as simple as this -- if you said "Gavaskar is the greatest
post-war batsman" (or equally that "Richards is the ..") you may get a
lot of disagreement, but no one would laugh at you (This note
excepted:-) and think that the claim was utterly without any basis
whatsoever -- so if you can say that both of them must be pretty darn
good -- and why don;t we just leave it at that..
Comparisons between two batsmen who are reasonably close are always
very hard to make, and it comes down to subjective reasons as to whom
you pick -- I can say with some confidence that Richards was a better
bat than Yashpal Sharma or Gavaskar was better than Mohsin Khan, but
comparisons between these two great bats are always going to be close...
|> > * Any past or present great who has seen Richards and Gavaskar always
|> > rates Richards higher. Eg. Trueman, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Botham,
|> > Marshall, Holding, etc.
|> >
|> > * Richards stands tall as the greatest post war batsman. In fact I would
|> > rate Miandad over Gavaskar as the greatest from Asia. In fact if Mohinder
|> > had been as consistently persisted with as some of the others (Shastri)
|> > he would have matched Gavaskar and could have even outshone him. His
|> > performance in that tour of WI & Pak were too strong to prove that his
|> > string of zip code like scores in the 83-84 WI series were just an
|> > aberration. At one time both LLoyd and Imran rated him as the best in the world
|> > against fast bowling. Gavaskar in my memory, never won that accolade
|> > from anyone at any point in his career.
I freely admit that at his peak (at Pak and WI) Mohinder was simply
unbelievable -- defintely had far superior tours than Gavaskar, and
may well have been the best at that time. But I wish that you
wouldn;t exhibit such tunnel vision; you can;t focus on his two superb
tours and turn a total blind eye to his ignominous failures against
the same WI team, that too at home. A player must be evalauted over
his career; or I could just concentrate on Bob Massie's or Narender
Hirwani's debut Tests and say that either was the greatest bowler of
all time... a strike rate of 16 wickets/Test is not too shabby.
After all, if you want to look just at 2 series of the many Mohinder
played to judge him as a player, I can further narrow that focus and
look just at one Test of the many (few?) that Hirwani and Massie
played (reductio ad absurdum??:-)....
|> > * I expect a lot of vicious responses to this article. Pray consider
|> > your thoughts before you put them down. Do not be blinded by patriotism
|> > It would be interesting to see how you guys rebut me.
If you don;t want people to get upset and emotionally sidetracked,
perhaps you might have considered a less inflammatory subject title
for your article -- the "Ha! Ha!" hardly indicates the desire to have
a rational argument.....
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao E-mail:bha...@learning.scr.siemens.com
Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F) (609)452-0227(H)