Greg Chappell - just how good do people think he was?

[Neil Pickup]

Whatever. Deal with it!

 

[cover drive man]

ARGHHH! This punctuation thing has gone on long enough.

 

[Neil Pickup]

ARGHHH! This punctuation thing has gone on long enough.

There's a very very simple way of ending it. But let's keep it to other threads...

 

[Richard]

Whatever. Deal with it!

You've just ruined one of the most hilarious phrases of my lifetime.

 

[archie mac]

well I never said treat them the same...but it is still a part of his record as a cricketer, and the standard of bowling was fierce in those Supertests by most accounts

Fully agree they should at least be given FC status, some of the toughest cricket I have ever watched. Sped up the use of the helmet.

What a joke that they can't be given FC status but that rubbish that was called a Super Test at the SCG was given Test Status

 

[Richard]

I'd say it'd be a joke for either to be given Test status, though I wouldn't have been unhappy with the "Super" Test being given First-Class status.

Why should Packer games be given Test or First-Class status when they were private enterprises (and FTR I feel exactly the same about some of the early "Tests")?

They were the complete anthesis of what Test and First-Class cricket is about.

Oh, yeah, and WRT helmets - I'd say it was Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding that sped-up their use!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bradman, Headley, Weekes, Woodfull, Hutton, etc. etc.

In this sort of company?

 

[Richard]

Bill Woodfull has to be one of the most underrated Test batsmen of all-time.

Look at his average in the 1920s on dirt-tracks.

Even Ponsford gets considered way more often than Woodfull in my experience and he was just a flat-tracks-of-the-1930s-bully.

 

[social]

Absolutely brilliant player - he and Richards were the Lara and Tendulkar of the mid 70s - early 80s

However, the former pair played against much better attacks.

BTW, with all respect, playing a group of medium pacers on uncovered wickets with a bad technique hardly qualifies the likes of Woodful etc for discussion in these quarters

 

[Richard]

Absolutely brilliant player - he and Richards were the Lara and Tendulkar of the mid 70s - early 80s

However, the former pair played against much better attacks.

That's nonsense - it'd be quite possible to argue that the attacks of the 1990s were superior to the 2nd half of the 1970s and the first of the 1980s.

To argue that those of the 70s and 80s were undeniably better beggars belief.

BTW, with all respect, playing a group of medium pacers on uncovered wickets with a bad technique hardly qualifies the likes of Woodful etc for discussion in these quarters

Even though we don't have any evidence that bowlers there were exclusively such a thing... and you might want to go and look at how the pitches of the day - especially in Australia - played of times, the Khaled Mahmuds of this World could be wholly dangerous bowlers on some such surfaces.

 

[Swervy]

That's nonsense - it'd be quite possible to argue that the attacks of the 1990s were superior to the 2nd half of the 1970s and the first of the 1980s.

To argue that those of the 70s and 80s were undeniably better beggars belief.

Even though we don't have any evidence that bowlers there were exclusively such a thing... and you might want to go and look at how the pitches of the day - especially in Australia - played of times, the Khaled Mahmuds of this World could be wholly dangerous bowlers on some such surfaces.

hahah..like this suggests..


Highest First Class Scores
1107 Victoria v New South Wales Melbourne 1926-27
1059 Victoria v Tasmania Melbourne 1922-23

 

[Richard]

Now try a few Test-matches...

And try looking at the massive changeability of pitches of that day.

 

[vic_orthdox]

hahah..like this suggests..


Highest First Class Scores
1107 Victoria v New South Wales Melbourne 1926-27
1059 Victoria v Tasmania Melbourne 1922-23

Victoria.

 

[Richard]

Were decidedly unorthdox in the volume of their scoring...

 

[Swervy]

Now try a few Test-matches...

And try looking at the massive changeability of pitches of that day.

oh like the average 35 runs per wicket taken

or that there were only about 6 completeed inning in the twenties in Australia under the score of 200.

yep..bad bad pitches

 

[social]

That's nonsense - it'd be quite possible to argue that the attacks of the 1990s were superior to the 2nd half of the 1970s and the first of the 1980s.

To argue that those of the 70s and 80s were undeniably better beggars belief.

Even though we don't have any evidence that bowlers there were exclusively such a thing... and you might want to go and look at how the pitches of the day - especially in Australia - played of times, the Khaled Mahmuds of this World could be wholly dangerous bowlers on some such surfaces.

The only country whose attack wasnt undeniably better in the 70s and 80s in Oz in late 90s. Everyone else's attack is miles better

In regard to former players, have a look at video clips. The keeper and slips are standing back about 10 yards to the "quick" bowlers and the batsmen would be considered clueless if they played today - u might as well call it a different sport

 

[archie mac]

I'd say it'd be a joke for either to be given Test status, though I wouldn't have been unhappy with the "Super" Test being given First-Class status.

Why should Packer games be given Test or First-Class status when they were private enterprises (and FTR I feel exactly the same about some of the early "Tests")?

They were the complete anthesis of what Test and First-Class cricket is about.

Oh, yeah, and WRT helmets - I'd say it was Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding that sped-up their use!

The best players playing against each other, with no quarter asked or given? Sounds like Test cricket to me

Just because a board does not consider it FC does not interest me, the quality of the cricket should count, and certainly a 1000 times more deserving then Banga V Zims

 

[archie mac]

oh like the average 35 runs per wicket taken

or that there were only about 6 completeed inning in the twenties in Australia under the score of 200.

yep..bad bad pitches

Well then a player like O'Reilly who averaged about 16 ( from memory) in the SS must have been the greatest bowler of all time (I know he played in the 30s but I imagine the scoring was still very good)

 

[Swervy]

The best players playing against each other, with no quarter asked or given? Sounds like Test cricket to me

Just because a board does not consider it FC does not interest me, the quality of the cricket should count, and certainly a 1000 times more deserving then Banga V Zims

exactly

 

[Richard]

The only country whose attack wasnt undeniably better in the 70s and 80s in Oz in late 90s. Everyone else's attack is miles better

That's crap.

West Indies in the 1970s and 80s (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, etc.) might have been better than the 1990s (Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh) but they were still hardly shabby.

England had Snow, Willis, Old, Hendrick, Botham, etc. in the 1970s and Fraser, Gough, Cork, Caddick, Headley, etc. in the 1990s. Probably stronger in the former.

South Africa didn't even play in the 1970s and 80s and in the 1990s had class like Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan, Pollock, Klusener, Kallis, etc.

India in the 1970s and 80s had Kapil Dev and not much else and in the 1990s had Srinath and Kumble. Far better in the latter.

Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s had Sarfraz, Imran and Qadir - in the 1990s they had Wasim, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain. Better in the latter.

Sri Lanka had Vaas and Murali in the 1990s and didn't play in the 1970s and had pretty average attacks in the 80s.

New Zealand had Collinge (at home at least), Hadlee and Chatfield in the 1970s and 80s and Morrison, Doull, Cairns and Nash in the 1990s. Nothing in it.

Zimbabwe didn't even play in the 1970s and 1980s and had Brandes, Streak, both Strangs, Olonga, etc. in the 1990s. Hardly the worst ever fielded.

All-in-all, I'd say the 1990s was probably the strongest decade for bowling in history.

In regard to former players, have a look at video clips. The keeper and slips are standing back about 10 yards to the "quick" bowlers and the batsmen would be considered clueless if they played today - u might as well call it a different sport

Err, there is hardly any footage of the 1920s and before - most of the best stuff starts in the 1930s.

There are countless pieces of evidence to suggest wicketkeepers were far more willing back then than today to stand-up to the stumps.