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

[Richard]

Richard, do some research

I have, many times.

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

Colin Croft, Wayne Daniel et al are not amongst the greatest seamers in history. The only 4 who are were those who played often - Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall.

in the nineties they had 2

Absolute crap, you're seriously underrating either Courtney Walsh or Ian Bishop there (I assume you'd not be stupid enough to do such a thing with Ambrose...). WI between 76 and 86 had 3, sometimes 4, top-class seamers. In the 90s they had 3, sometimes 2.

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

Rubbish, England knocked plenty of teams over in the 1990s often enough (and it would've been more but for dropped catches). Fraser, Cork, Gough et al were actually rather good bowlers.

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

No, I don't need to. I know it doesn't count to anything.

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

And I'm not talking exclusively about the end of the 1990s, I'm talking about the entire 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

Nonsense, with Doull, Nash, Cairns and Vettori their attack was almost as good.

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.

Which Kumble wasn't... he was supported by another reasonable seamer.

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.

And good spinners can bowl with a new-ball without great difficulty even today.

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

Nonsense, there were fine bowlers from both and Murali emerged first in the early, not late, 1990s.

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.

I assure you most wicketkeepers stand-up to bowlers who bowl at anything less than 82-83mph.

 

[Richard]

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

You've examined those old 1900s newsreels which filmed the occasional delivery from the boundary, have you? And you've made an extensive study of techniques by doing so?

Didn't think so.

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

Rubbish, he's selected because he could spin the ball at a pace most spinners can only dream of.

 

[archie mac]

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

Okay lets go again, but this is the last time!

1. Bradman on the flat tracks of India, with mainly spin bowling, I think the answer would be carnage.

2.The players of today have never played on a sticky, game over before they could adapt. Not to mention no helmets, no sixes for mi****s, back foot no ball rule etc

3. Like I said I will give you that one, but some of the catches they drop these days, would have me believe that catching has not improved greatly.

4. SF Barnes, the man that all of his contemporaries attest could bowl a ball on a regular basis that pitched leg stump and hit the top of off stump. A man who was still claming loads of wickets at a good level of cricket when in his sixties. The kids would be needed to help unbuckle/buckle the pads of all the ingoing/outgoing batsman

 

[Slow Love™]

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

Completely agree.

I don't know really why people assume that people can't be motivated by other things than playing for their country. Packer's cricket was marketed as the best vs the best, and as an added pull it allowed people to see players that were suspected to be among the best who were barred from representing their country. All I've ever heard about the quality of the cricket (I was only around 7-8 years old and too young to appreciate it at the time) was that it was excellent.

 

[Richard]

Why does such a thing mean the games should be treated as Test-cricket?

It shouldn't.

 

[archie mac]

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

I was only talking the 100, tbf, as I imagine that is an explosive thing much like fast bowling. And with better shoes, better training and better grounds to run on, I still think he would come close

 

[archie mac]

Maybe timelines were different in Australia and England, then.

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

Fair enough

 

[Slow Love™]

Why does such a thing mean the games should be treated as Test-cricket?

It shouldn't.

It comes down to whether you are simply a stickler for orthodoxy or not. You paint the picture as though the cricketing establishment of the time was some sacred cow that couldn't do wrong, and then Packer came along and made a mockery of everything. The entire thing happened because the players felt they were being screwed out of the profits by the governing body (and the boards) in spite of the fact that they were the main attraction. If it was good enough for a man like Richie Benaud to support, it's good enough for me.

But besides that, I think that particular players of that era are a bit shortchanged when it comes to their records against some pretty amazing competition. It seems there are very few reasons outside of bitterness and rigid stuffiness to exclude those records, and very good reasons to include them, if the object of the statistics is to give some kind of accurate indication as to a player's career/worth in a five day test format.

 

[social]

Okay lets go again, but this is the last time!

1. Bradman on the flat tracks of India, with mainly spin bowling, I think the answer would be carnage.

2.The players of today have never played on a sticky, game over before they could adapt. Not to mention no helmets, no sixes for mi****s, back foot no ball rule etc

3. Like I said I will give you that one, but some of the catches they drop these days, would have me believe that catching has not improved greatly.

4. SF Barnes, the man that all of his contemporaries attest could bowl a ball on a regular basis that pitched leg stump and hit the top of off stump. A man who was still claming loads of wickets at a good level of cricket when in his sixties. The kids would be needed to help unbuckle/buckle the pads of all the ingoing/outgoing batsman

1. Bradman is the only player I'd pick from the pre-war era in an all-time X1 - not because the images of him batting are particularly impressive (IMO they're far from it) but because his record is so outstanding that it cannot be ignored.

BTW, who would guess that a current player with a test average of nearly 60 would average in the teens in India?

2. The whole point is that players of yesteryear would have to lift their game to play faster bowlers supported by better fieldsmen.

Your point is akin to questioning how good Federer would be with a wooden racquet

3. In terms of balls that go to hand, you might have a point BUT todays cricketers are infinitely more athletic and take umpteen catches that in days gone by would be 4 straight from the bat

4. Give me a break!

The only cricketer of pre-war days that I've heard having a remote handle on reality is Bradman!

When asked on "The Bradman Tapes (Diaries?)" how he would cope with the WI pace battery, he replied "I dont know, we never had to face such a thing!"

Sums it up really

 

[Burgey]

Quoting Social"

Apart from the fact that those 3 (Imran, Sarfraz & Qadir) 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.

Wasim = legend, one of the most talented cricketers in years.
Mushtaq = good on his day, not a patch on Warne or Kumble. Fine wrong'un though.
Waqar = rarely has a more over-rated bowler visited anitpodean shores. Hardly ever broke into a sweat here, let alone broke the back of a batting line up. Always saw wonderful footage of him bowling superbly overseas, but he must have left it at customs because he did diddly out here.

G Chappell was an awesome player. One of the very best. If anyone batted more elegantly than him, I'd like to see it. He made Mark Waugh look awkward at the crease.

 

[social]

I was only talking the 100, tbf, as I imagine that is an explosive thing much like fast bowling. And with better shoes, better training and better grounds to run on, I still think he would come close

Guys like Gregory, Larwood, Tyson etc would've been genuinely quick in any era and could be expected to do well

But medium pace is medium pace and todays bats, grounds and pitches would force bowlers of this type to add 20ks or die.

You only need to examine the no. of world-class medium pacers in the last 30 years for proof of this - there arent any

 

[archie mac]

1. Bradman is the only player I'd pick from the pre-war era in an all-time X1 - not because the images of him batting are particularly impressive (IMO they're far from it) but because his record is so outstanding that it cannot be ignored.

BTW, who would guess that a current player with a test average of nearly 60 would average in the teens in India?

2. The whole point is that players of yesteryear would have to lift their game to play faster bowlers supported by better fieldsmen.

Your point is akin to questioning how good Federer would be with a wooden racquet

3. In terms of balls that go to hand, you might have a point BUT todays cricketers are infinitely more athletic and take umpteen catches that in days gone by would be 4 straight from the bat

4. Give me a break!

The only cricketer of pre-war days that I've heard having a remote handle on reality is Bradman!

When asked on "The Bradman Tapes (Diaries?)" how he would cope with the WI pace battery, he replied "I dont know, we never had to face such a thing!"

Sums it up really

What I am saying is that it would be just as hard for players to go back in time, but given a little time to get use to things they would adapt, just like players from past eras playing today.

SF Barnes the greatest bowler in the history of the game, how is that for a break

I think Bradman may have been modest, they don't have Bodyline field these days and he was still the best even with that form of attack. I heard Bradman say, that he still thought he would average more then anyone else in the modern game, but he didnot think he would be as far ahead as he was in his day.

An example is that no one hits 400 in Baseball anymore because there is not such a huge gap between the best and the worst. Not that I know much about Baseball but I read this somewhere or other

 

[archie mac]

Guys like Gregory, Larwood, Tyson etc would've been genuinely quick in any era and could be expected to do well

But medium pace is medium pace and todays bats, grounds and pitches would force bowlers of this type to add 20ks or die.

You only need to examine the no. of world-class medium pacers in the last 30 years for proof of this - there arent any

Not that I know, but I imagine that Barnes was about the pace of Kumble.

You are right about the lack of medium pace bowlers these days, I think the art of swing has been lost a little, but it was only 20 years ago that people like GSC were saying that leg spin had no place in modern cricket

 

[social]

Quoting Social"

Apart from the fact that those 3 (Imran, Sarfraz & Qadir) 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.

Wasim = legend, one of the most talented cricketers in years.
Mushtaq = good on his day, not a patch on Warne or Kumble. Fine wrong'un though.
Waqar = rarely has a more over-rated bowler visited anitpodean shores. Hardly ever broke into a sweat here, let alone broke the back of a batting line up. Always saw wonderful footage of him bowling superbly overseas, but he must have left it at customs because he did diddly out here.

G Chappell was an awesome player. One of the very best. If anyone batted more elegantly than him, I'd like to see it. He made Mark Waugh look awkward at the crease.

Not the 3 main bowlers as such, but the attack as a whole

Personally, I rate Wasim as highly as anyone - quick, moved it both ways throughout the innings and left-handed. I'd put him in any world x1

Waqar must have had something but his best didnt coincide with tours to Oz

Mushtaq was average

In the 90's, back-up was average and they paid the price at the highest level.

 

[social]

Not that I know, but I imagine that Barnes was about the pace of Kumble.

You are right about the lack of medium pace bowlers these days, I think the art of swing has been lost a little, but it was only 20 years ago that people like GSC were saying that leg spin had no place in modern cricket

I was going to compare him to Kumble as we can only go from what we've read.

That being the case, he'd have to change his mode of bowling to elevate himself above Murali and Warne.

Unfortunately, we cant go by "what ifs"

Larwood etc were quick and wouldnt need to change but we cant assume that Barnes could slow down and spin it more etc to stop todays players treating him like a medium pacer anywhere bar the sub-continent

 

[social]

What I am saying is that it would be just as hard for players to go back in time, but given a little time to get use to things they would adapt, just like players from past eras playing today.

SF Barnes the greatest bowler in the history of the game, how is that for a break

I think Bradman may have been modest, they don't have Bodyline field these days and he was still the best even with that form of attack. I heard Bradman say, that he still thought he would average more then anyone else in the modern game, but he didnot think he would be as far ahead as he was in his day.

An example is that no one hits 400 in Baseball anymore because there is not such a huge gap between the best and the worst. Not that I know much about Baseball but I read this somewhere or other

Bradman also said that Tendulkar's style most resembled his but from what I've seen, I resemble the Don more and I was left handed!

 

[archie mac]

G Chappell was an awesome player. One of the very best. If anyone batted more elegantly than him, I'd like to see it. He made Mark Waugh look awkward at the crease.

I watched both of them many, many times, and I would give the award to MEW, but only just, both pretty batsman, throw in David Gower and I would be in batting heaven

 

[archie mac]

Bradman also said that Tendulkar's style most resembled his but from what I've seen, I resemble the Don more and I was left handed!

Who are you?

 

[social]

I have, many times.

Colin Croft, Wayne Daniel et al are not amongst the greatest seamers in history. The only 4 who are were those who played often - Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall.

Absolute crap, you're seriously underrating either Courtney Walsh or Ian Bishop there (I assume you'd not be stupid enough to do such a thing with Ambrose...). WI between 76 and 86 had 3, sometimes 4, top-class seamers. In the 90s they had 3, sometimes 2.



I assure you most wicketkeepers stand-up to bowlers who bowl at anything less than 82-83mph.

Richard, Richard, Richard

From 75-85, WI could call on Roberts, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Croft (the fiercest of the lot and whose career was terminated by back injury not form), Clarke (the quickest but a nut-case who threw a brick at a spectator), Daniel, Patrick Patterson (ask Mike Gatting for a reference), Winston Davis, Ezra Mosely (lightning but a chucker and a nut-case) etc

Any 4 combined were the mose awesome pace lineup in history (particularly when umlimited bouncers and no mimimum overs were in place) and made the 90s look like school boys

As for w/ks, 82 mph is 131 kph - so what you are saying is, quite frankly, bull****

 

[silentstriker]

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

But we are not talking of them being born in this era and growing up, we are asking if we transport them as adults. Because the other way of looking at it 'give them the same training' is completely ludicrous as we have NO CLUE what that would do. Maybe it would burn them out, maybe the new coaching would force them to change their basic techniques and render them useless, or a million other things.

You can only judge the final product.