KP Or King Viv

I am old enough to have seen the great Viv Richards and of course the great Kevin Pietersen. When watching, I see some similarities, like the ability to dominate, take on the best fast bowlers and of course their records.

Now, some say Viv was the best since Bradman, but imo, like Pietersen, he was a little inconsistent at times, 1976 apart, and also got out in a arrogant type fashion.

This may sound like a nonsense question to some, but for me, they are pretty equal. So, who is the best between these two great batsmen?

Not a great deal in it, from what I have seen.

This is where we need to be careful that the rose tinted glasses don't come out, as it is so easy to lavish praise on those from the past, particularly when you bear in mind most of the great fast bowlers of the day played in Viv's side.

Both seriously special batsmen and probably stand alone as a duo when it comes to having the ability to not just succeed against world class fast bowling but to absolutely take it apart.

All I can say is thank the cricketing Gods (Sachin?) that we've been gifted the pair of them. It makes the sport a hell of a lot more exciting.

I was going to mention Pietersen's poor record against spin, then remembered his knocks in India and Sri-Lanka.

I do believe Viv was better overall against the spinners though. Better footwork, I'd say.

Richards, for me, was one of the greatest players of all time. Able to take bowling apart more imperiously than virtually any player in history. A batting average of above 50 (and one which fell towards the end of his career because he went on a little too long), doesn't suggest any particular inconsistency to me either.
Add in that he probably faced bowling attacks at least as good as most of those around today (even though he didn't face his own bowlers), on pitches that helped the bowler a bit more than some of the current roads, and that he was, arguably, the greatest ODI batsman ever, and I think he's way above KP.
Richards would be in my all-time world XI. KP wouldn't even make the third team (probably not even the top 5 XIs).

hoggy

Richards was prone to lapses just like our own master blaster. I do think like fists mentioned that we sometimes wear rose tinted glasses. Especially when it comes to boyhood hero's which Viv was to me, and maybe you?

Fists of Fury wrote:
This is where we need to be careful that the rose tinted glasses don't come out, as it is so easy to lavish praise on those from the past, particularly when you bear in mind most of the great fast bowlers of the day played in Viv's side.

Lillee, Thomson, Willis, Botham, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Kapil Dev.
Just some of the fast bowlers faced by Viv

Hoggy's post (no disrespect intended) is exactly what I spoke of. I imagine all those of a similar age would say the same.

Both average similar amounts, both have the ability to tear any attack apart. Not much in it for me.

kapil Dev?

C'mon hoggy, he was hardly great

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:
This is where we need to be careful that the rose tinted glasses don't come out, as it is so easy to lavish praise on those from the past, particularly when you bear in mind most of the great fast bowlers of the day played in Viv's side.

Lillee, Thomson, Willis, Botham, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Kapil Dev.
Just some of the fast bowlers faced by Viv

Wasn't saying he didn't face great bowlers, Hoggy. Just that he mercifully avoided his own boys.

Certainly compares with McGrath, Steyn, Muralitharan, Warne, Lee, Ajmal, Akhtar, Kumble.

Both have faced fine bowlers and often won.

How on Earth does Kapil Dev repeatedly have his name mentioned in the bowler greatness talk? His record reads like Ishant Sharma's would if he played 130 tests. And that was on " on
pitches that helped the bowler a bit
more than some of the current roads" (Hoggy's words). A little off topic, but can that myth just die!

Stella wrote:hoggy

Richards was prone to lapses just like our own master blaster. I do think like fists mentioned that we sometimes wear rose tinted glasses. Especially when it comes to boyhood hero's which Viv was to me, and maybe you?

Richards was not a grind runs out batsman I agree, but I'd argue that he was more consistent than KP, as his record attests, and probably less likely to give it away.
I also agree that we might view past heroes with rose tinted glasses, but that doesn't mean that if we say they were better, that's what we're doing.
Richards had a greater ability, in my view, to dominate bowling attacks than any other batsman I've seen (with the possible exception of his namesake Barry), was good against pace and spin, and played in a period that was not as batsman friendly as the last decade has been.
I'm not trying to run down KP, who's a very good batsman, but I.V.A. belongs among the greatest of all time IMO.

For me, IVA Richards is a level up from KP, although I do think it's a worthwhile comparison, in terms of style, arrogance and occasional moments of stupidity.

At Test level their records are not that dissimilar - averages of just over 50 v just over 48, 20-odd centuries each. I rate Viv a bit higher because he acheived these figures using equipment and on pitches that were less batsman friendly, although he did not have to face the best bowling attack of his time (at least at Test level).

The area where there is a big difference in in ODI cricket - KP is clearly a good ODI batsman, but Viv was the first great ODI batsman, and his record in terms of average and strike rate still stands up to comparison with all that have come since (KP averages 41 at a strike rate of 86, Viv managed 47 at 90).

Dread to think what prime Viv would do in ODIs with the current regulations and modern powerful bats...

For me IVA by quite some distance. Yes he had scary quicks on his side, but there were some mighty fine bowlers elsewhere in the world - certainly better than the bowlers Pietersen has faced (of thos mentioned, Pietersen faced most of them some way past their prime).

Richards was clearly better than his team mates in performance (including greats like Greenidge and Haynes) and head and shoulders above otyhe batsmen round the world (including Chappell, Boycott and Gavaskar).

Pietersen on the other hand has played in an age dominated by the bat and arguably has been behind Cook and Trott as england's best batsman.

KP was very, very good, but in my view will not be remembered in 30 years as one of the greats of this era.

kingraf wrote:How on Earth does Kapil Dev repeatedly have his name mentioned in the bowler greatness talk? His record reads like Ishant Sharma's would if he played 130 tests. And that was on " on
pitches that helped the bowler a bit
more than some of the current roads" (Hoggy's words). A little off topic, but can that myth just die!

OK, fair enough, I might have been stretching it a bit there with regard to Dev being a 'great' fast bowler, although I reckon Indian fans would rank Kapil a whole lot higher than Ishant.

Pietersen faced Warne in Ashes 2005, Warne took 40 wickets that series. Faced McGrath in 2006/07, as good as he was. Faced Steyn in 2009/10, Steyn took 60 wickets in eleven tests that season. Murali was at his peak then. He has also faced a Vernom Philander who had taken 50 wickets in seven tests. I actually argue KP has faced better opposition then Vivian (Never has a feminine name been so macho). You may disagreee,but that isnt my problem!!!

With that said, Viv was better. Second only to Lara.

LondonTiger wrote:For me IVA by quite some distance. Yes he had scary quicks on his side, but there were some mighty fine bowlers elsewhere in the world - certainly better than the bowlers Pietersen has faced (of thos mentioned, Pietersen faced most of them some way past their prime).

Richards was clearly better than his team mates in performance (including greats like Greenidge and Haynes) and head and shoulders above otyhe batsmen round the world (including Chappell, Boycott and Gavaskar).

Pietersen on the other hand has played in an age dominated by the bat and arguably has been behind Cook and Trott as england's best batsman.

KP was very, very good, but in my view will not be remembered in 30 years as one of the greats of this era.

Really? Very harsh. If he finishes with let's say 9k-10k runs at 48-50 with 28-30 centuries then I think he is an absolute shoe-in.

At his best, he is probably the best batsman playing right now. Unfortunately, injuries, personality issues and the odd lapse are proving a little disruptive of late. Others are more consistent (not exactly by stats, but in terms of being less likely to 'give it away'), but to compare him with Cook and Trott is an insult to his ability.

kingraf wrote:Pietersen faced Warne in Ashes 2005, Warne took 40 wickets that series. Faced McGrath in 2006/07, as good as he was. Faced Steyn in 2009/10, Steyn took 60 wickets in eleven tests that season. Murali was at his peak then. He has also faced a Vernom Philander who had taken 50 wickets in seven tests. I actually argue KP has faced better opposition then Vivian (Never has a feminine name been so macho). You may disagreee,but that isnt my problem!!!

With that said, Viv was better. Second only to Lara.

I think you're right, Kingraf. KP's opposition in terms of bowlers looks stronger to me, too. Good post.

And yes, BC Lara the best of the West Indian batsmen for me.

Viv and Pietersen are worthy comparable's, as they do what not many can or have. No point comparing them to a Cook, Trott, or a Border/Miandad.

I get the 'it was harder in Viv's day' as averages prove, but there have been are some fine/great bowlers in KP's era.

Viv was the best batsman in his era, many of his peers have said this. KP, is probably on the lower rungs of the top ten currently. He is surpassed (active players), by Cook, Amla, Kallis, Clarke, Sachin, Maybe Trott, Shiv Chanderpaul (remember him), and probably just above AB.

Not sure averages do prove that, Stella.

Easy to say it was harder due to pitches and bats, but fielders were also generally inept and far less athletic. They also never had technology to work out a batsmans weakness. Swings and roundabouts as to which era is hardest.

kingraf wrote:Viv was the best batsman in his era, many of his peers have said this. KP, is probably on the lower rungs of the top ten currently. He is surpassed (active players), by Cook, Amla, Kallis, Clarke, Sachin, Maybe Trott, Shiv Chanderpaul (remember him), and probably just above AB.

If each of those is at their absolute best, I think he is better than all of them except for Sachin. I appreciate that what you are capable of and what you actually do are two vastly different things, though.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not sure averages do prove that, Stella.

Easy to say it was harder due to pitches and bats, but fielders were also generally inept and far less athletic. They also never had technology to work out a batsmans weakness. Swings and roundabouts as to which era is hardest.

There were not many who averaged above 50 in the late 70's early 80's. Chappell, Miandad, Border, Viv?

Now, Clarke, Sanga, Amla, Tendulkar, Kallis, Chanderpaul, maybe a couple more? Plus a few average a tad below. A 45 average was deemed good enough for the nearly great category back then........not now.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are part of the reason for that, no doubt.

Clarke scored 235 off 250 balls against us. Amla has a 300* as well, at their absolute best, they are better than KP. But I can see an argument being made both ways. Though I think Clarke is pretty much talent supreme. Talent, though is in the eye of the beholder. Best use stats and achievements, otherwise I can just as well roll out Herschille Gibbs and say he deserves a spot in this argument

You can contain them even at their best. You can't contain a KP or a Viv at their best. That's why I rate them higher, but you're spot on when you say talent is in the eye of the beholder.

Fists of Fury wrote:Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are part of the reason for that, no doubt.

They do help!

Of course Richards would also have had the opportunity to feast on Sri Lanka, and India at home.

For me Viv was technically more solid, even more dominant when in the mood, and more consistent than KP.
He was widely acknowledged as the best batsman of his era, in which he faced a number of great bowlers on pitches that often offered them something, and he was, possibly, the greatest ODI batsman of all-time.
For all those reasons I'd rank him higher than KP.

kingraf wrote:Of course Richards would also have had the opportunity to feast on Sri Lanka, and India at home.

And England in the 80's  

Hoggy_Bear wrote:For me Viv was technically more solid, even more dominant when in the mood, and more consistent than KP.
He was widely acknowledged as the best batsman of his era, in which he faced a number of great bowlers on pitches that often offered them something, and he was, possibly, the greatest ODI batsman of all-time.
For all those reasons I'd rank him higher than KP.

Technically better, yes, and of course, more correct. I think I'd sway with Viv, as he was the best of his era, whereas Pietersen is among them, although 'on his day' arguably better than the current crop.

KP plays some innings that do make you doubt his case.

But then he plays something like Headingley, something like Mumbai. Those are rare innings. Absolutely nobody else playing cricket today could play innings like those. That's why I rank him so highly, and he's almost certainly my favourite to watch.

If you want runs regularly ground out in the same manner then look at Cook, Trott, Amla. If you want spectacular pyrotechnics mixed with sheer class then look at KP. It doesn't always happen, much as it didn't always happen for Viv, but when it does it is unrivalled.

Lara combines the two for me. That's why he trumps all.

Agreed.

Oh Brian Lara I remember practising for hours outside trying to best combine Brian's back-lift and crouch, with Gilchrist's high bat grip...
Made me vulnerable to the outswinger early on (and the inswinger, and seam, and spin. well everything except bouncers), but once I got my eye in!!!

Prince of Trimidad was supreme

An interesting question, and I'm pleased to see that no one has dismissed it out of hand.

Fists has summed up very well why batsmen in spite of heavier bats, better protective gear, flatter pitches and shorter boundaries don't have it all their own way. I would add another factor into the equation: far more LBWs give to spinners (and indeed I would guess seamers) nowadays, due to the emergence of Hawk-eye. Back in Viv's day, you could pretty much plant your front foot down the wicket and not be given out, whereas I can recall at least twice where Pietersen did just that to Vettori and was (correctly) given out.

As to the difference in quality of bowling, hoggy quotes "Lillee, Thomson, Willis, Botham, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Kapil Dev" - of that lot, Thomson had a few great years then faded badly, ditto Botham who was only a great bowler at the start of his career, Wasim was nowhere near his peak and Kapil Dev was not a great bowler at any stage. Pietersen has faced Warne at (the end of) his prime, McGrath when still potent, Steyn at his prime and Murali at his prime. And he has dismantled each and every one of them.

However I would still rank Viv a notch above, on the basis that he is almost unanimously considered the best bat of his era, whereas few people if any will rank KP there. Perhaps KP is unlucky because he played alongside better batsmen (had Viv had to play alongside Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting and Kallis I doubt he would be unanimously accepted as the best), but there it is.

What KP does have is the ability to do things on a cricket pitch which make you stop what you're doing and watch - more so than any batsman I have ever seen. I would always make a point of trying to watch the game if KP is batting (this is not good for my work), and that to me makes its own point; there are very very few players in my time of watching who have the same effect (Warne bowling, Steyn or Donald in full flow perhaps, Lara and just maybe Ponting when he was at his dominant best). The word "genius" is oft overused, but KP is one, no doubt about that. As fists pointed out, his knocks at Headingley, Mumbai and I would add Sri Lanka (everyone else struggling along at 2-2.5 runs per over, in comes KP to score 150 at a run-a-ball) were very very special.

KP the person I don't have that much time for, but KP the player... I think he'll be remembered a long time after we are.

Good question and good debate.

I won't repeat the many fine points raised (both ways) but will flag a few aspects which I don't think have been brought out much or at all.

Richards had far more desire than Pietersen or almost anyone. Desire for what? Essentially to play and to succeed. Evidence? Watch the film documentary ''Fire In Babylon'' and you'll see the intensity that burned in Richards' eyes when he played and still burns today when he speaks. Feel free to dismiss that view but not until you've seen the film please.

As for Pietersen (and I discussed this with Fists recently), there's nothing like that desire but he has turned round quite a lot of Surrey supporters over the last year or so. Many of them originally saw his interest with the county as merely a means of acquiring a flag of convenience. He still rarely tweets about his county side and is only occasionally seen at the Oval but on the few times he has played for Surrey he's given absolutely everything once he's crossed the white line. In our final home CC match last season against Notts, skipper Batty had a real battle to get the ball off Pietersen when he had been bowling and taken a couple of wickets.

I don't believe Richards is given enough credit today for just how exciting and groundbreaking he was as a one day batsman. I forget the exact circumstances (Hoggy will almost certainly know) but I just about recall an ODI where England's Mike Hendrick bowled the final ball of the innings to him. Hendrick (not a great seamer but more than decent and no slouch) aimed the ball for well outside off stump. Richards contemptuosly walked across his wicket to beyond where the ball had pitched and hoisted it over the leg side for six. Far from unique in the modern era but highly innovative at the time.

One day cricket was very different in Richards' time. Compared to now, tactical considerations were very limited and basic. The term ''strike rate'' was not commonly used and it was rare for television or newspapers to refer to the number of balls each batsman faced. Richards' strike rate is very good anyway but astonishingly so when you take into account that it wasn't something being actively concentrated upon when he played. ODI comparisons between then and now are highly inappropriate and unfair.

I haven't checked any stats but I believe that Richards held his own (and a lot more!) in English county cricket which he played regularly week in, week out for Somerset for several seasons when not with the West Indies. At that time, before central contracts and with most counties having at least one overseas star name, the English domestic game was considerably stronger than now and far more of a challenge for the individual players. That is too often and wrongly overlooked when we attempt to assess players from the past. Richards would have come up there against such West Indian quicks as Marshall, Roberts, Holding and Daniel although admittedly not hunting together as a pack.

I've only said more about Richards because I have the (dis)advantage of age to comment upon his time with first hand recollections unlike many younger posters here. In conclusion, I feel that as long as people talk about and remember cricket they'll remember Richards and Pietersen. However, for all Fists' (understandable) concern about rose tinted spectacles, I don't think many who saw both would place Richards below Pietersen. Pietersen still has some time on his side to change that but I'm not convinced he has the overwhelming desire possessed by Richards that would be so necessary for him to do so.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not sure averages do prove that, Stella.

Easy to say it was harder due to pitches and bats, but fielders were also generally inept and far less athletic. They also never had technology to work out a batsmans weakness. Swings and roundabouts as to which era is hardest.

Actually it does.

I read an article on cricinfo where they did this comparison.  They said the averages have to be adjusted down by about 4 now (both batting and bowling).  I am trying to find the article, but my googling have let me down so far.  Don't really know how to search for it because batting, averages and era is used in almost all of their articles.

But that said, KP is entertaining that is probably why people want to compare him to say Viv. But I don't think he is as good. He might be talented, but that doesn't really equate to greatness. Herschelle was probably seen as South Africa's greatest batting talent since readmission, but if you look at the stats he doesn't really fall into our greatest batsmen because talent isn't everything. Gary Kirsten said on a few occasions that he probably had the least amount of talent of any SA batsman and his record is just as good as Gibbs.

My point is, talented batsmen does have their good knocks - which I think actually ofsets their averages to look better than what they mean to the team. I mean, if you score a few 300s and and you average 50 and say another player only have knocks within 100-150 range and averages the same, the latter probably directly contributed to more victories than the former.

Some brilliant points all round here.

Great topic, Stella. Enjoyed this one.

Not sure about the adjustment theory. Four runs is a lot. What you do to the batsmen you do to the bowler. that puts Philander at 13!!

The county argument rings true. Barry Richards only claim to greatness is based on his county record. Its a great pity too, as it would have been interesting to see him and Pollock duking it out vs the Great West Indians. But "no normal sport, in abnormal societies" and all that

Fists of Fury wrote:Some brilliant points all round here.

Great topic, Stella. Enjoyed this one.

Cheers me to. Yes, some very good points by Mike, Hoggy etc, which is unsurprising.

kingraf wrote:Not sure about the adjustment theory. Four runs is a lot. What you do to the batsmen you do to the bowler. that puts Philander at 13!!

The county argument rings true. Barry Richards only claim to greatness is based on his county record. Its a great pity too, as it would have been interesting to see him and Pollock duking it out vs the Great West Indians. But "no normal sport, in abnormal societies" and all that

Most of the better bowlers average late 20's these days, Steyn and Philander (short career) apart. This would lay claim to the 'adjustment theory'.

kingraf wrote:Not sure about the adjustment theory. Four runs is a lot. What you do to the batsmen you do to the bowler. that puts Philander at 13!!

The county argument rings true. Barry Richards only claim to greatness is based on his county record. Its a great pity too, as it would have been interesting to see him and Pollock duking it out vs the Great West Indians. But "no normal sport, in abnormal societies" and all that

I am sure you can't really just pull it down like that, and I also don't think you can just say hey this era the average is 4 more than all the other averages so just minus four. But what was interresting is that the averages were the same for all the decades up until the 80 then it climbed steadily to now. So their must be something there.

I couldn't find the article, but I did my own search.

It is only 2 runs more per average on batting
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2013;spanmin1=01+Jan+1960;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

And similar for bowling
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=1+Jan+1960;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

But I do remember the author removing some countries for comparison reasons, that is probably why he got to 4.

I'm never really sure about people trying to prove things using averages TBH. It could be that recent times have simply had comparitively better batsmen and less good bowlers.

On the other hand of the adjustment theory, Swann averages 28 which compares favourably with orthodox finger spinners such as Gibbs, Bedi. I'm not sure what Anderson's average is since his re-emergence, but it's probably mid-twenties rather than high twenties. Herath averages just a fraction more than Gibbs and Bedi, yet I'm not sure many would argue he is in the same class.

(as an aside, an interesting topic would be whether Swann will finish his career as England's best ever spinner)

How many truly world class bowlers are there playing cricket today anyway? Steyn, Anderson, Swann, possibly Philander and Roach in time, Ajmal obviously, but really who else? Perhaps it is just an era where the average bowlers are less good, or do less well, but the truly world class bowlers seem to come through all the same.

I like guildford's point about Richards desire. You do see that fire occasionally with Pietersen, but not all the time. Similarly the point about Richards clearly being the superior ODI batsman (although KP isn't bad).

kingraf wrote:
The county argument rings true. Barry Richards only claim to greatness is based on his county record. Its a great pity too, as it would have been interesting to see him and Pollock duking it out vs the Great West Indians. But "no normal sport, in abnormal societies" and all that

Barry Richards is the best batsmen I have seen live, bar none. An excellent mix of top rate technique in both defence and attack and a wide range of shots. Now admittedly he only managed 4 tests before isolation, but 2 centuries and 2 50s showed the potential.

Yes he was a star in county Cricket, at a time when County Cricket was atr it's strongest - facing bowlers like Holding, Garner, Proctor as well as the English mob of Snow, Underwood, Willis, Botham etc clearly outperforming his esteemed team mate at Hampshire, Gordon Greenidge. He was also a massive star in Sheffield Shield Cricket in the one season he was allowed there - averaging well over 100 and scoring over 300 in one day on a bouncy Perth wicket with DK Lillee bowling at him. That season he again was clearly better than his team mate Greg Chappell.

A truly marvellous player.

Never saw Barry bat, unfortunately. I did read that he often got bored once he made it to fifty, and would give his wicket away cheaply at times. Not sure if that's true?

No idea but Root> Bradman!

mystiroakey wrote:No idea but Root> Bradman!

Maybe, he has more test wickets.

Stella wrote:Never saw Barry bat, unfortunately. I did read that he often got bored once he made it to fifty, and would give his wicket away cheaply at times. Not sure if that's true?

From memory there were times when the match was rather meaningless when he may well decide to flash the bat a bit and give spectators some fun. However when it was important he would temper that and make big runs. Two centuries in just 4 tests (2 centuries in 5 World Series of Cricket "Tests" as well) and a highest first class score of 350 (scored against Lille amongst others) does show he could concentrate.

Heck at 40+ he even managed to score runs against the rebel West Indies XI.

I am convinced he would have been a massive star - had SA not been banned from cricket.

guildfordbat wrote:I don't believe Richards is given enough credit today for just how exciting and groundbreaking he was as a one day batsman. I forget the exact circumstances (Hoggy will almost certainly know) but I just about recall an ODI where England's Mike Hendrick bowled the final ball of the innings to him. Hendrick (not a great seamer but more than decent and no slouch) aimed the ball for well outside off stump. Richards contemptuosly walked across his wicket to beyond where the ball had pitched and hoisted it over the leg side for six. Far from unique in the modern era but highly innovative at the time.

I presume you're talking about the 1979 WC final Guildford.
Footage of that innings (including the 6 off Hendrick from the final ball), along with some other great Richards innings can be seen here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/sir-viv-richards-greatest-hits-753396