Record, that is.
This last calendar year Ricky Ponting made lots of runs, just over 1500 in 11 tests. To employ litotes - pretty good, not bad. He's second on the All-Time list.
First however, is a loose park tonker - cough - named Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards. The Master Blaster scored 1710 - also from 11 tests - in 1976. Do the math(s) and that's a full 200 more than Punter.
I know comparisons are odious, but let's face the facts - Viv wasn't playin' against no minnows. Sorry, "emerging nations".
The Bangers, Zims, pie propelling Windies and a second rate Indian attack hardly stack up against Lillee, Thommo, Walker, Gilmour, Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Venkataraghavan, Snow, Hendrick, Old and Underwood.
It's all the more amazing when you consider the Windies were flogged by Australia in 1975/76. Never the less, in the three 1976 tests Viv managed a consistent - but hardly number shattering - 44 & 2 in Sydney, 30 & 101 in Adelaide and 50 & 98 in Melbourne.
For the record Viv then played four home tests against India. He made 142 in Barbados. 130 & 20 at Queen's Park Oval in Port of Spain. 177 & 23 again at Queen's Park in the "infamous" test where Clive Lloyd vowed never again to declare and leave a gettable target. India chased down 405. In the fourth he got 64 at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica. Mon.
As an aside, get a load of India's second innings.....
Gavaskar c Julien b Holding 2
Vengsarkar lbw b Jumadeen 21
Amarnath st Murray b Jumadeen 60
Madan Lal b Holding 8
Venkataraghavan b Holding 0
Kirmani not out 0
Gaekwad absent hurt
Viswanath absent hurt
Patel absent hurt
Bedi absent hurt
Chandrasekhar absent hurt
Extras 6
Total 97
Yow. Zah. That's a whole lotta hurt.
Then it was off to England and a series against the Artful Bath Dodgers. 232 & 68 at Trent Bridge. He missed the Lords Test. 4 & 135 at Old Trafford. 66 & 38 at Headingley. 291 at the Oval.
All in all, a pretty respectable year, Viv.
Viv was undoubtedly the 'Black Bradman' and i witnessed a few of his murderous assaults towards the end of his career. Punter, Haydos and Stevie w can only stand back and admire...at the moment.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 30 December 2003 at 20:49
India were running scared of the short ball and would not come out to play.I notice that the great Indian Ump Venkat was blown away by "whispering death" Holding for bugger all.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 30 December 2003 at 21:29
Gee, I dunno, Tone. 5 tests against England? There's some easy runs there. Mind you he did well. He's a great of the game but I'd still prefer Haydos or Punter to Viv.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 30 December 2003 at 22:38
Ahhh.... top clogging Tone. Just what a man wants to see when he logs on from hols in Spain. And Happy New Year by the way.
PS I like Hawkeye though- the fact that they´re using the same technology as missile ballistics is good enough for me!!
Posted by: Carrot | 30 December 2003 at 23:33
Couldn't have put it better myself, Tony. Ponting = Pretender when he's stacked up against the greats of yesteryear.
Posted by: The Hack | 31 December 2003 at 10:14
Brett, I remember one time he went ballistic at the MCG in an ODI. Circa 1980/81. Vicious.
Yeah, but Scott, look at their bowlers, John Snow, Mike Hendrick, Chris Old and Deadly Underwood. All good bowlers capable of keeping the brakes on. And I was only talking about 2003 v 1976 anyway. Haydos and the Punt are really putting the numbers up lately. But as we commented to each other a couple days back, there are easy runs to be had at the moment.
Carrot! Good to hear from you. Spain hey? Lucky bugger, never been there myself. I'm in S'Syddey for my hols. Not exactly exotic, but relaxing never the less. Good for clogging.
I don't think the comparison between Hawk for Ballistics and Hawk for Balls stands up.
With missile control, the missile is being guided by sophisticated - and quantifiable - technology. The missile in turn is sending Hawk feedback signals indicating trajectory, speed and errors which are slotted into the guidance parameters so adjustments to flight control can be made.
With the ball, there's no guidance control. Hawk is trying to pick up the flight of an inanimate non-metallic object over a short distance of 22 yards. I don't believe it can do this directly and be accurate so it would also track the movement via the TV picture which means it's merely an estimated projection of ball direction. Exactly what the umpire's and viewer's vision are doing.
On the other hand, if the ball could send back signals, well, that would be another story indeed.
It's a neat "indicative aide" though.
Never the less, my biggest beef is with the Channel Nine commentators who talk of it in such definitive tones that it gives rise to the impression that it's infallible. Thus perpetuating a lie to the viewer. They need to make it much clearer that Hawk is only an estimation in exactly the same way the umpire's perspective is.
Lately it's been interesting to listen to the commentators reactions as Hawk has made some obvious mistakes.
Hack - M.B? Ha Ha - I'm not sure I meant Ponting's a pretender, I just don't reckon anyone should start saying his year is something super-special in the overall scheme of things cricket. Pundits - commentators especially - tend to shift into hyperbolic overdrive when met with large statistics. I reckon a good pundit ought to be able to weight the stats too.
Posted by: Tony.T | 31 December 2003 at 13:34
I am a good pundit, and I can weight the stats. Ponting has scored 18 tons in the last 5 years. Hayden has 16 in the last 3. Weight that.
I'm sorry to be committing heresy, but these guys absolutely shit over the Windies, even at their peak.
It's like our bowlers. You won't realise how good they are till they are gone.
Posted by: Scott | 31 December 2003 at 19:11
Yeah, Scott. I reckon you're a good pundit, and I reckon you can weight the stats. Unfortunately, in this case you're completely missing my point. That is, I'm comparing 1976 Richards to 2003 Ponting. Not the last three years. There is no way in the world that what Ponting faced last year is any where near as imposing as what Richards faced in 1976. And that's certainly not to ignore Ponting has had a "prolific" 2003.
That said, I also mentioned I wasn't suggesting Ponting is a pretender. Far from it. He's had a fantastic three years, as has Matt the Bat. In fact, Ponting's the best batsman in the world at the moment, Hayden's not far off and Australia are fantastic.
And I reckon The Windies circa 1984 are better than the Aussies circa 2003. The only Windy weakness is spinning. I think this was their team...
Haynes
Greenridge
Richards
Richardson
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh
Not bad.
Like I said, though. Comparisons are odious.
And fun.
Posted by: Tony.T | 01 January 2004 at 16:40
I'd back the Aussies of 2002 maybe to slice and dice that line up.
But we'll never know for sure.
I reckon your living in the past. This is forgivable in a Melbourne fan though.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 02 January 2004 at 00:57
Aussie 2003 would genuinely whip the Windies 80's sides-no probo. Warnie, Pigeon and Dizzy would sort 'em out twice over and our batting line up is slightly superior. But it is a contest that i would love to have seen- as long as it was at the wacca though.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 02 January 2004 at 23:10
Two words for ya:
Murray.
Bennett.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 03 January 2004 at 00:20
Living In The Past - top Jethro Tull album. And it's all us Melbourne fans have at the moment. I still reckon you guys are over-rating Australia's recent record.
I liked Murray Bennett, Big. Gave some hope to all us park cricketers.
Posted by: Tony.T | 03 January 2004 at 16:20
I've heard living in the past single- great flute in that..top song. That's Ian Anderson is it not?? Murray Bennett? Long Forgotten. And i am a top park cricketer- have been called the new Shane. Shane who i don't know.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 03 January 2004 at 20:59
Shane Bourne?
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 January 2004 at 13:44
>>>I liked Murray Bennett, Big. Gave some hope to all us park cricketers.
He wore photochromatic prescription glasses for fuck's sake!!!
The man was a legend!
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 09 January 2004 at 16:30
"photochromatic prescription glasses"
Sounds impressive, unlike Murray's tweakers. They turned heaps......off the bat.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 January 2004 at 17:53
What about the "legend" that WAS Bob Holland ? I bet he gave hope to all ageing leg spin practicioners everywhere.But he was slow in field- i've seen milk turn quicker.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 11 January 2004 at 00:09
Got it in one, Brett. Top bowler, crap fielder.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 January 2004 at 13:54