Richards

This is part two of the interview with legendary West Indies captain Sir Vivian Richards who is currently on tour for the series against England. He is spokesperson for Johnnie Walker's 'Know Your Boundaries Responsible Drinking' campaign.

BE: Who would you consider among the top batsmen from your era to the present?

VR: These would include: Sunil Gavaskar, Javed Miandad, Sachin Tendulkar, Brain Lara, Ricky Ponting, Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

Two of your scores stand out for many Jamaican fans: the highest of 291 and the 192 not out against India in New Delhi in your first Test series; which would you say was the best?

I would not even put them in the picture because at the end of the day you want to associate what you did that gave the team success in the long run. I feel that my best was the match here against India when they gave us 175 to win in 25 overs. Even before 20/20 came in to play, that was a hard task to get especially when there were no limitations to field placings or how many could be in the circle and you could put all the guys on the boundary. Those were the days when sixes were a commodity. We got the runs and won the game. We had confidence and I remember that clearly. Everyone thought it was impossible but we had won in the past and Clive Lloyd said we were going to get those runs and we did.

I gather that you are not among those who feel that the Stanford 20/20 is necessarily a bad thing for the game; do you think it's affecting player concentration for longer games?

Nonsense! If you can play cricket, you are supposed to be able to play any form of the game and if you cannot, you should try to get yourself there. It 's nothing different, it 's just a shortened version of the game. It's the same problem we had when one day cricket started, but it's now here to stay. If you are a professional sportsman, you must make the necessary adjustments or find another job. That 's my plain opinion. Twenty20 is only an adjustment in the game, nothing different. You have to make your strategies for survival in this particular generation; the game is a little faster. We as West Indian cricketers have not yet made the necessary adjustments for the game.

Is billionaire Texan Allen Stanford's involvement good for the game?

It is not just good it's great. But, let's make it clear though; this Twenty20 thing has not been the greatest development package for our young cricketers. With the declining financial circumstances that the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), found itself in, here was an avenue for them to be part of a particular programme which would have involved Twenty20 whether Sir Allen likes cricket or not. These were monies generated from his company that were going into the West Indies mainstream cricket and the board would have had an opportunity to filter that money into the development programme as they saw necessary for the region to advance. That to me is an opportunity missed.

Players must make money too, but money would have been pumped into WICB annually because of the Twenty20, for them to utilise at the sponsorship end. Remember, before Stanford, no money was coming from anywhere else. This would have been the partnership and in my opinion, it would have been a good thing for West Indies cricket to have a steady stream of revenue that would hopefully have been spent wisely. But that's another issue for another time.

What about the new technologies introduced in the game? Where do you stand with them?

I see nothing wrong with new technology. You shouldn't look to cover just one area only; technology should be utilised for every decision and if a batsman is decided out, the same opportunity should be applied to determine if he's not. Experiment with it to make sure everyone gets an equal chance rather than rely on the human element only for some decisions.

Have there been many low points in your career and are there any that stand out?

Yes, losing the 1983 World Cup after winning it for the first two years. Just that one year, we knew how it felt to lose and it was a rude awakening.

In Antigua against England, I was supposed to have led my team out and I went after a journalist in the press box. I still believe in what I did then and I have no regrets about the confrontation in which I told this journalist how I felt. The problem for me was not leading my team out at the time I should have.

And the high points? Was the knighthood among them?

That came way down on the list because I always look at things that we achieved collectively. The high-point is that we were from so many different islands and many thought we would not succeed because we aware so separated and divided, but we put together a unit with many different people from different islands.

Many times, we are all about 'I' and 'me', but we constantly reminded the team about how many folks were depending on us. We had to remember the folks who were depending on us, that was the main reason for playing. When you go back home and everyone is applauding us for a job well done you get a feeling you can't compare to anything else. To have accomplished that was one of the most satisfying things of my life.

Other high points were the fastest 100 on my home soil and knighthood. But all the things I achieved personally were the result of the unified effort.

See conclusion in tomorrow's Gleaner.

barbara.ellington@gleanerjm.com.