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

[vic_orthdox]

Says who...Given the same facilities, I have no doubt in mind that they would be equally competitive.

Exactly.

 

[archie mac]

I am not sure how you can think the vastly improved fitness levels, training, film study etc has not had a massive impact on the game.

Sprinters from the 1930 would not be competitive in today's olympics if you transported them, why is cricket different?

They have hardly taken any time off J. Owens time from the 1936 games, give him better shoes, better ground to run on and better training, and I think he would still be a big chance of victory

 

[social]

Well the batsman could adapt to stick wickets, no helmets, the use of resin and still prospered, so I think they would have little to no trouble. Besides they have been tourning India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) since the 1920s

When the wrong-un came in during the early 1900s they soon found a method to combat it, and also the change in the LBW law circa 1936, why would they be not able to cope with these new methods?



I will give you this one, but I think you will find they were diving in the 60s maybe not in the 40s, but even then the grounds were bigger the bats not as good, and surely they could still catch



A certain SL captain comes to mind



They would have to just learn, I don't think any series has attracted the amount of newspaper copy as did the Bodyline tour





I will just leave this one

1. They "might" be able to adapt but there is no certainty - remember that Bradman never played on the sub-continent and touring teams were still playing on matting there as late as the 1950s.

2. Even if they were good enough, by the time they got used to doosras (let alone Murali's action) or reverse swing, series would be lost and career figures ruined

3. Fielding, by and large, was a joke until the 60s. Even footage of IVA Richards in the '75 World Cup final looks remarkably commonplace

4. Can u imagine S.F. Barnes trundling in to bowl his medium pacers on a drop-ip pitch with Hayden, Gilchrist, KP etc down the other end - they couldnt get enough kids in the street to throw the balls back

 

[social]

They have hardly taken any time off J. Owens time from the 1936 games, give him better shoes, better ground to run on and better training, and I think he would still be a big chance of victory

More than .5 second in the 100, 1.5 seconds in the 200 and 3 feet in the long jump - that's a different league I'm afraid

 

[shanebondfan]

greg chappell bites

there r plenty of batsmen with averages better than his and as a nzer i despise him 4 da underarm bowling incident

 

[Matt79]

A couple of things:
- everything I've read by the players involved in WSC says that they still very much felt that they were representing their country. Sobers didn't play, but commented that he felt that WSC was the one thing that actually created a decent feeling of team unity etc for the Windies team.

- re the tired old "medium pacers bowling to keepers standing ten feet behind the stumps". Les Ames copped a stack of abuse from the Australian crowds when he came out here because he stood a long, long, long way back from the wicket. He did so because he reasoned he had no chance of taking Larwood standing up and that noone would be dumb enough to charge Larwood, so he might as well get the edges that were flying halfway to the boundary, rather than attempt some kind of miraculous stumping.

People didn't stand up to Gregory or MacDonald either.

 

[Slow Love™]

Says who...Given the same facilities, I have no doubt in mind that they would be equally competitive.

Yeah, I think that very often people don't understand the argument being made here. I think that if you transported an athlete from the 30's at the peak of their career to now and expected them to compete at a similar level to those of our time, you'd be dreaming. I've always interpreted the hypothesis as being that they have the same access from the beginning to contemporary resources, training, etc. So it's really a question of natural ability vs natural ability. In some ways, it's amazing what some sportsmen of the past were able to achieve without the great advantages in technology, injury treatment, training regimes, etc, and without the time to devote to sport full time.

Anyhow, on the subject of the thread, I rate Greg Chappell extremely highly. Played in a very competitive era full of people still regarded as superstars of the game, through a period of frequent, effective intimidatory bowling and no helmets, was glorious to watch, and he exited the game with a great average, particularly in his time. I thought he was pretty stiff not to make the all-time Aussie ODI team, really - bit of a handy bowler in that format, too, on his day.

 

[honestbharani]

IMO anyone who seriously attempts to separate Chappell and Richards is crazy.

The two were near enough exact contemporaries and broadly speaking their achievements were very similar.

Only difference was Richards was an in-your-face sort of chappie, Chappell much less so.

And as so often, that can make you look a better player than you are.

For mine, the top group of batsmen number any large number...

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

Chappell and Richards are both in the next tier down.

you can also say that Chappell had to face tougher bowling, given that Viv didn't have to play his own bowlers in tests.


Sorta like Dravid/Ponting, isn't it?

 

[Richard]

that might be the case, but an average of 35 runs per wicket in tests, to go with unseen before or since scoring in Australian domestic cant be written off simply because of better batsmen. It would either suggest that in the main, pitches werent as bad as you think, or the bowling was shocking and the batting was spectacular on very bad pitches.

Test match scoring actually dipped in the 1930s compared to the 20's, but I wouldnt actually put that down to a huge down turn in batting ability around the world (if pitches were better, it would suggest that the standard of bowling was better as time went on towrads the second world war, and anecdotal evidence that I have read would suggest this to be the case)

Not to be rude, but you neeed to do some more reading Richard, in Aust the pitches in the 1920s were some of the best ever, the use of Bulli soil (this ran out eventually) made them a batsman's dream, however when it rained they became a nightmare.

I have a feeling that Aust. pitches were covered in the 1920s for SS matches, I could be wrong but I remember reading something like that somewhere

Maybe timelines were different in Australia and England, then.

Such advances in England took place in 1930, I know that for certain.

 

[Richard]

As far as the players were concerned they were representing their country and I know the Aust. considered themselves the real Aussie cricket team, and the other lot (ACB Team) as the 2nd side. Also all of the players to a man consider those matches the toughest cricket that they ever played.

Again I don't care who they played for it was quality cricket between two teams playing for their countries.

Maybe the players considered that to be the case, but it wasn't, all they were playing for was Kerry Packer. If you're not reprisenting your cricket board, you're not reprisenting your country, and there's no way around that.

I can remember another game India V SA where Shaun Pollock scored a ton, and it was not given Test status because the ICC did not have a match ref. Again who cares

That was quite right. India had made specific effort (with support from SA) to defy the Match Ref which is not on. That match had to have Test-status withdrawn.

 

[Richard]

Chappell retired in '83, Lara/Tendulkar at their peak in late 90s
So?

WI had arguably the strongest attack in history during Chappell's era - no comparison

There is comparison - their bowlers in the 1990s were not enormously worse.

Eng - no comparison

Again - yes, there is. England's attack might have been better in the 70s than the 90s but not by an ocean.

SA played WSC (possibly the highest standard of cricket ever played) - Proctor, Van der Bijl, Le Roux, Hobson, Rice - beats anything they've put out since

So? Packer cricket is nothing - highest standard of cricket ever absolute bull****, and even if it was it doesn't count to anything.

Pakistan - Imran, Sarfraz and Qadir at their peak

Apart from the fact that those 3 were never at their peak at the same time, even if they had been it'd not be an attack to match Waqar, Wasim and Mushtaq.

NZ - Hadlee and nothing more needs to be said

It does. One man does not make a bowling-attack. NZ's attack in the 1990s was not enormously inferior to that of the 70s and 80s.

India - had 4 of the greatest spinners ever playing in the one team and ball tampering was allowed

India's spin-quartet were only any use at home (and were only around until the mid-1970s - in the 1990s they had a stronger all-round attack.

What, incidentally, does ball-tampering matter?

The rest are irrelevant

No, they're not, they all contribute.

As for standing up, it's true that w/k used that practice more in days gone by BUT it's only possible against medium pacers

No, it's not, good wicketkeepers could do it against quicker bowlers and still do. Even these days we see plenty of wicketkeepers standing-up to medium-fast and sometimes fast-medium bowlers.

 

[Richard]

vastly more countries playing in a variety of different conditions (whilst quantity does not equal quality, it is foolhardy to suggest that all players of yester-year could adapt to, say, sub-continental conditions);

There was more variety in 3 countries in the 1930s than there are in 8 today.

deliveries that were unheard of 35 years ago (doosra and reverse swing);

Err, because such deliveries weren't needed - bowlers had enough in the pitch, ball and laws as they were.

infinitely improved fielding (diving in the field was frowned upon in the 60s);

That doesn't mean there weren't outstanding fielders.

massively improved fitness (Colin Cowdrey, Colin Milburn, Warwick Armstrong etc would not get a game today unless they lost shed-loads of weight);

You've missed the Mark Cosgroves of this World? And the fact that it doesn't actually impact on talent (Cowdrey's testament to that) to be a bit podgy.

professionalism - it's anyone's guess as to how former players would react to the scrutiny today's players find themselves under 9e.g. W.g. standing his ground and refusing to walk;

Err, how about it wouldn't have happened? Players play according to the era they're in.

 

[Richard]

Can u imagine S.F. Barnes trundling in to bowl his medium pacers on a drop-ip pitch with Hayden, Gilchrist, KP etc down the other end - they couldnt get enough kids in the street to throw the balls back

Err... you evidently don't know much about the bowler in question - he was a wristspinner who bowled at a slow seamer's pace.

Were such a bowler to exist today there's a good chance most of the batsmen in their current state wouldn't have a clue.

 

[Richard]

everything I've read by the players involved in WSC says that they still very much felt that they were representing their country.

That doesn't matter - the fact of the matter is, they weren't. They turned their backs on their country to earn a better wage. Not that I think many would do a different thing, but nonetheless that's the way it was.

Sobers didn't play, but commented that he felt that WSC was the one thing that actually created a decent feeling of team unity etc for the Windies team.

Funny how they'd been pretty united and successful for the previous 2 years, really...

 

[Jono]

I can remember another game India V SA where Shaun Pollock scored a ton, and it was not given Test status because the ICC did not have a match ref. Again who cares

With all due respect Archie, Pollock and the SA team admitted that the game didn't have the same 'feel', and they didn't treat it as a test match. So they obviously cared.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/108240.html

 

[social]

That doesn't matter - the fact of the matter is, they weren't. They turned their backs on their country to earn a better wage. Not that I think many would do a different thing, but nonetheless that's the way it was.

Funny how they'd been pretty united and successful for the previous 2 years, really...

WSC was undoutedly the highest standard of cricket seen until that point - you had two of the best teams in history (with 90% of their best available), complemented by the best of the rest.

WSC saw the introduction of stump mikes, players wired for sound, and post-innings interviews - all of which had to be abandoned/scaled back due to the heated exchanges on pitch.

WI wanted to assert their authority, OZ wanted to maintain their position and the rest were sick of being beaten or, in the case of SA, establish their credentials.

The fact that records from these games are not "official" is more to do with ill-feeling/traditionalists than quality of play.

 

[social]

Chappell retired in '83, Lara/Tendulkar at their peak in late 90s
So?

There is comparison - their bowlers in the 1990s were not enormously worse.

Again - yes, there is. England's attack might have been better in the 70s than the 90s but not by an ocean.

So? Packer cricket is nothing - highest standard of cricket ever absolute bull****, and even if it was it doesn't count to anything.

Apart from the fact that those 3 were never at their peak at the same time, even if they had been it'd not be an attack to match Waqar, Wasim and Mushtaq.

It does. One man does not make a bowling-attack. NZ's attack in the 1990s was not enormously inferior to that of the 70s and 80s.

India's spin-quartet were only any use at home (and were only around until the mid-1970s - in the 1990s they had a stronger all-round attack.

What, incidentally, does ball-tampering matter?

No, they're not, they all contribute.

No, it's not, good wicketkeepers could do it against quicker bowlers and still do. Even these days we see plenty of wicketkeepers standing-up to medium-fast and sometimes fast-medium bowlers.

Richard, do some research

WI had at least 6 of the greatest fast bowlers in history to choose from in 75-85, in the nineties they had 2

Eng's attack in the 90s was crap as borne out by their results

See my thoughts on WSC above - I watched it, did you?

By the end of the 90s, Wasim was finishing, Waqar was finished and the back-up was not anything to write home about for most of the decade

Hadlee is by far the best ever Kiwi bowler and was backed up by good test cricketers - the only comparable attack they've ever managed to field is with Bond fit

India was largely dependent upon great spinners until the early 80s when Dev surfaced and, even then, he was a one-man band for much of his career.

Ball tampering is significant because it allowed the Indian spinners to literally rub a new ball in the dirt to aid purchase and do away with the openers after an over or two.

By saying irrelevant, I meant that Zimbabwe and SL were largely inconsequential until Murali came into his own in the very late 90s

As for keepers - rubbish. If you want to wear your rose coloured glasses and make out that keepers stand up to anything more than military medium on anything other than the most docile of tracks then be my guest. The facts tell us otherwise.

 

[archie mac]

With all due respect Archie, Pollock and the SA team admitted that the game didn't have the same 'feel', and they didn't treat it as a test match. So they obviously cared.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/108240.html

Okay I was not aware of that, I just thought they played in with no section and still considered it a Test match

 

[social]

Err... you evidently don't know much about the bowler in question - he was a wristspinner who bowled at a slow seamer's pace.

Were such a bowler to exist today there's a good chance most of the batsmen in their current state wouldn't have a clue.

Rubbish - he bowled on crap wickets to batsmen with horrible techniques

He's selected because of a romantic vision whereas in all likelihood he was nothing more than the best in a period where the game was still in its' diapers

The fact that he's selected on the basis of movement and control when people like Imran, Waqar and Marshall had all of that plus another 45 mph is as insulting to them as it is ridiculous

 

[Richard]

WSC was undoutedly the highest standard of cricket seen until that point - you had two of the best teams in history (with 90% of their best available), complemented by the best of the rest.

WSC saw the introduction of stump mikes, players wired for sound, and post-innings interviews - all of which had to be abandoned/scaled back due to the heated exchanges on pitch.

WI wanted to assert their authority, OZ wanted to maintain their position and the rest were sick of being beaten or, in the case of SA, establish their credentials.

The fact that records from these games are not "official" is more to do with ill-feeling/traditionalists than quality of play.

No, it has to do with the fact that they were private games organised by someone who wanted cricket for his TV Network.

The standard is a non-issue.