Message Board Archives

Winningest captain of WI, most dominant batter in the world, ever, undisputed
Lara was a captain, great batter, not so great captain, not known for team leadership - more self-driven performance, superstar
Ever read this kind of idle bacchanal chatter about other great successful leaders?
The real pussy here might be BCL

In reply to DirtyDan

that usually happens when you inherit a team of superstars


have you ever read a book at all in your entire life? Have you not read what Shane Warne wrote about Steve Waugh? What Gideon Haigh wrote about the treatment of Kim Hughes by the Chappells, lillee and rod marsh? Just because half of the WI stars still afraid of viv doesn't mean that everyone is and it indicates that lara never was

In reply to Jumpstart

In reply to DirtyDan

Lara shudda be captain of the West Indies team that Viv and LLloyd had,now you can KYS.Lara jealous what he's the greatest batsman that ever walked onto a cricket ground,

In reply to granite

GREATEST IN YUH TRINI SKUNTS. SHAMELESS SCUMBAG. HE IS ONE OF THE WORST EVER IN MODERN ERA. EVEN SAEED ANWAR 1000 TIMES BETTER THAN FAILARA.

DEDING WID LAF HALF BRAIN EEDIOT.

In reply to Jumpstart

I don't think Viv Richards was our winningest captain solely because he inherited a team of superstars. Soon after Richards took over Gomes, Holding and Garner retired. Richards had many players who didn't play with Lloyd. He had Carl Hooper, Phil Simmonds, Keith Arthurton, Patrick Patterson, Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop to name a few.

[b]In reply to Fivestar[/b

In reply to Fivestar

I would take the swap anytime Roberts, Holding, Bird and Croft for Malco, Patterson, Bishop and Ambrose.

In reply to Fivestar

Carl hooper never averaged over 40 so he doh belong in any convo about actual delivery, potential yes, delivery no.Kieth Athurton( Binary Man)was a political choice and didn’t deserve to be anywhere near that side. Wes Hall was speaking during the 3rd test of the 1991 Australia series at Kensington to Channel Nine and stated the WI middle order had been very weak for the past six years but that we still seemed to have the bowlers to defend small totals. We know how many times Dujon and Gus Loagie( who himself was fortunate) had to come in and do repair work to keep the WI in the game in the late 80s/early 90s. And as I stated, it’s not like they’re weren’t better options. Brian Lara averaged over 60 in the 92-95 period with 5 centuries. Jimmy Adams averaged over 70 with four centuries. Both were in WI dressing rooms for long periods of time before they actually played a test, inexplicably. Carlisle Best was selected very infrequently and only got a decent run in the England series in 1990, where he made a hundred and in Pakistan where the batsmen all struggled except Haynes and Hooper in the last test. And Lara made 44 in his first innings as a test batsman in the last test of that series. Lara’s next test would be the 1992 series vs South Africa, and that would be Jimmy’s first. Both scored half centuries that were invaluable to the eventual result

On the subject of the rest of the guys, Malcolm Marshall( followed closely by Imran Khan )has the best fast bowler for virtually the entirety of the 1980s. And from what Curtly and Ian Bishop have said, he spent a whole lot of time with the bowlers imparting his skills to them. Malcolm Marshall was a product of Lloyd’s team. Also, the best performers of Viv’s era were the older players, players who made their appearance under Clive. Haynes averaged close to 50 from 87–95, Gordon Greenidge scored a majestic double ton to clinch the 1991 Frank Worrell trophy( a series Viv didn’t make anything in), Richardson was a 100 machine from 88-91. Maco topped every Series wicket chart from 1984-1990, with the exception of the 1988 Pakistan series, where Imran edged him. Even then, he was largely responsible for keeping the series at
1-1. I would be incorrect if Indidnt mention Viv’s feats themselves, the hundred vs NZ at Kensington 1985, the 100 at Perth in 88, the hundred cs India in 89 even though aside from kapil, Ravi shastri tabs Manjrekar, that side was not good. The only exceptions were Bishop and Ambrose. Bishop was exceptional from 89-90 before he got injured for the first time. Even then, he mostly credits Marshall for his early success. Ambrose is Ambrose, he’d have been great in any era. It is ironic that two people who had early success under Richards as well call him a hindrance more than a help. Both Patterson and Carlisle best have not so savory tales about their interactions with him. Patterson said that he never felt welcomed in a WI dressing room by certain players and once while bowling to Viv on his final tour, had him in trouble and Viv got angry and stormed out the nets. Patterson said the inference he got was that and I’m quoting him directly, “ I wasn’t supposed to bowl to the Master like that”. Best openly accused Viv of catering to a LI clique at his expense

[i]In reply to Jumpstart

Best was selected very infrequently and only got a decent run in the England series in 1999, where he made a hundred

A slip of the finger there, I gather

In reply to nissan

Yeah sorry. 1990 lol

In reply to Jumpstart

Which dressing room was Adams before he played for Wi, Jamaica's? Adam's got picked for the one off vs. RSA and debuted immediately no?

In reply to Brerzerk

Adams was in the dressing room when the WI dressing room when WI played England in 1990. In an interview about four years ago with cricinfo, he talked about how cool the senior men were after the Sabina Park loss

In reply to Jumpstart

You seem to be suggesting Viv's team was not as strong as Lloyd's. Yet Viv was our winningest captain. So shouldn't he get some credit for his captaincy?

In reply to Fivestar

Lloyd had stronger oppositions ent

In reply to Fivestar

Viv’s teams were weaker than Lloyd’s. I’m saying that the guys from Lloyd’s team were great enough to keep the success going. The guys played for Lloyd out of deep respect because of how he treated them. As Tony Becca wrote in an excerpt from Fire in Babylon, people played for Viv because they were afraid of the consequences. That is not a sustainable style of management especially when there are members of the team that don’t seem to be carrying their weight and are being picked. I mean it’s a well known fact that Hooper,Loagie and Athurton never averaged above 40. Unacceptable for a middle order. Winston Benjamin never took a five wicket haul but was consistently on Viv’s teams

In reply to Fivestar

Malco was the captain of the team, he set the field for Viv.

In reply to Jumpstart

He inherited something that his dominance helped create. Plus, if one does not have a style that motivates, it does not matter the quality of players inherited, he would not be able to succeed. Viv lead by example; different style from Lloyd but effective.

In reply to Besar

The entire team contributed to WI dominance. I don’t think Lloyd had or tolerated anybody on his team being a passenger. That is like saying Steve Waugh was Australia’s greatest captain despite his predecessors being Allan Border who rescued Australian cricket from near extinction to the cusp of world dominance and Mark Taylor who was the first captain in 21 years to win a series in the WI and the first in 15 years to win a series against the WI anywhere, thus giving them the title of champions of world cricket, a title they'd hold on to for the next 12 years

In reply to Jumpstart

Well well said.

Too many novices in here don't know about cricket in the glorious 80's and into the challenging mid 90's.

Richards inherited a team that needed a captain to spin the coin- the entire team knew what to do.

Too bad Richards did not embrace a youth policy as so many were kept out and the impact finally slammed us like a shipwreck in the mid to late 90's and it has not subsided to this day.

In reply to DirtyDan

I find it amusing how Viv Richards is continually disparaged by his critics.

"He couldn't play pace." "He couldn't play spin". "He couldn't captain." "He couldn't set a field". "He ruined West Indies cricket."

Wait a minute, is this the same Viv Richards Wisden named one of the five greatest cricketers of all time?

In reply to Emir

one of the big complaints about west indian cricket in the early 90s was that the stars, the once in a millennium stars all retired too close to each other. Viv, Maco and Dujon retired after the same series and Greenridge had retired a series earlier. West Indies really missed a trick not picking Desmond Haynes, the most respected man in WI cricket, both internally, regionally and internationally. Superior to no technique, wishy washy Richardson in both technique and tactical acumen. In fact haynes was probably the best tactician in world cricket then, even better than border and imran. BTW, the scorn lara heaps on richardson is thoroughly well deserved. If richards wasn't so insecure, lara and viv would have share many, MANY partnerships together.

In reply to Fivestar

where has anybody questioned Viv's batsmanship?


that same list was widely criticized by many pundits for including Tendulkar, who wasn't even the world's #1 ranked batsman at the time of publishing(BTW it was Brian Lara as a result of pillaging the world's best attack in 1999). that being said, viv's name deserved to be there

In reply to Fivestar

Don't be a jackass- no one, nowhere on the world, have ever questioned the great, magnificently great Richards as a batter or for his batting or for his out-cricket

If you can comprehend, we are discussing his leadership and the accusations by many of the way he treated other young and aspiring stars and his general demeanor towards many people.

There is lots of evidence against him.

I hear General Patton used to berate his men. Even Bill Belichik.

General Viv brought the best out of his troops.

Opponents were scared. No eye-pass. Respectability. No skin-teeth. Sledging? I will meet you behind pavilion and let's see. Or I'll pay you a dressing room visit.

Colonialists? Talk Nah!

In reply to DirtyDan

Excellent description .that would be a very good way to describe viv's management style.....very colonial. not totally unexpected because viv's father was a prison warden and antigua still had the brutality of the sugar plantations as an economic staple as recently as the early 1960s

In reply to Emir

Really? How long have you been posting on this website? Check some of the topics here regarding great West Indian batsmen or The West Indies All Time Eleven and then come back and talk to me.

In reply to Fivestar

The only thing I remember posted on this website that was remotely crictical of Viv Richards’ batting was Sousa McKenzie and the “hitting across the line” debate.

And even then, it’s pretty unanimous on this messsage board that Viv Richards is not only a great batsman, not only is he in every “all time WI XI” of every poster on the topic, but he is also seen as in the top 3 of best ever West Indian batsmen.

Not sure what site you getting your information from but it would be wonderful if you could perhaps cite some specific examples of alleged criticism of Viv Richards the batsman on this message board.

Thanks

In reply to imusic

Dude whole argument was totally vacuous from the start and made no sense. So he’s looking to exaggerate to get traction

In reply to imusic

It seems you guys have very poor memories so let me help you out. One of the arguments, in the past, against Viv on this site was he couldn't play spin because he was Chandrasekhar's bunny. I challenged the poster by pointing out they met in a series twice. In the first Viv averaged 50 and in the second he averaged 90. Do you guys honestly think I have nothing better to do than make up things that never happened?

In reply to Jumpstart

When dotish arguments are made on any topic, such as the one the "Fivestar" poster is making, the ignore button is the best. Comprehension isn't her strong suit.

In reply to Fivestar

Chandrasekar only troubled Viv in one series, how could he be his bunny?. Dais like saying Lara was Andre Nel’s bunny when four times out of the 8 times Lara was out to bel he was past a hundred, once past 200

In reply to Jumpstart

Once again, you are agreeing with me.

In reply to Fivestar

people here commented how Chandra was the one bowler that troubled Viv

none of that amounted to a question about Viv's greatness

as far as i can remember

In reply to Emir

A dotish argument is to suggest West Indies Test cricket is poor because 30 years ago Viv Richards "only picked guys from the Leeward Islands." West Indies Test Cricket is poor because we do not have strong teams like we used to. Your idiotic name calling will not change that.

In reply to doosra

With all do respect, you are wrong.

In reply to Fivestar

shall we dig the archives?

In reply to Fivestar

genius, i never saids that viv had any weaknesses against a particular type of bowling. faulty technique, which affected him when his eyes started to go yes, but not weaknesses against specific styles of bowling. i never said viv had issues with chandrasekar

In reply to doosra

Sure, let's did up the archives, I am quite confident. Great cricketers continually get their greatness questioned. Recently, for example, there was a topic about Jimmy Anderson. You guessed it, someone suggested he wasn't great.

In reply to Jumpstart

Let me do this nice and slow. I stated a poster in the past suggested Richards was Chandrasekar's bunny. I inferred that was incorrect because Richards averaged 50 and then 90 in the two series they met. You then stated Richards was not Chandrasekar's bunny. I am not the genius you make me out to be. So, based on what I outlined, did you agree with me or disagree with me?