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

[Sanz]

False. His career died after his injury in 79. He went to South Africa in 85/86, long after his career had already died.

I think you need to educate yourself before rejecting others comments as 'FALSE'. Kallicharan last played for WI in 1981 and in the same year he went on to play Cricket for Transvaal. Infact he was also the SouthAfrican Cricketer of the Year in the year 1983 where he had great success.

And that is only a testament to Kalli's brilliant talent. Even with his injuries and struggles in international cricket, Tendulkar still scored bucketloads when he played domestic cricket in India during this period.

Now you are only clutching at straws. If you think that the Standard of County Cricket in the 80s is anywhere close to the Domestic Cricket in India in last few years, then I guess you have no clue about cricket in 80s. Secondly Where is tendulkar scoring bucket Load of Runs in Domestic Cricket now a days ? He has played only one Ranji game in last few years and scored a century against Ranadeb Bose and co., got cheaply out in the second inning. In the Challenger ODIs he was a failure in 3 games he played. So to claim that he is scoring bucketloads in domestic cricket is ridiculously incorrect.

 

[thierry henry]

No, not really. WI could field 4 bowlers between 1975 and early 90s who could walk into any other team. No other team had that sort of bowling depth.

Marshall, Holding, Garner and Ambrose were as good as any fast bowler who's ever bowled, with Marshall and Ambrose regularly featuring in people's top 5 and all four in the top 10 ever.
That alone is more might than Pak/RSA/AUS could muster in the last 30 years.

Now add in the 'support crew' of Roberts, Croft, Bishop, Walsh, Clarke,Patterson, Daniel, Davis, etc. and its by lightyears, the best secondary bowling subset for any team in cricket's history. Hell, just 4 bowlers from the support crew of the Windies would easily be the best bowling unit today.

Clarke was as good as anyone today who's name isnt Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock. But he didn't get chances regularly enough to make much of a dent thanks to the WI awesome bowling depth.
In the early 80s, Holding commented that the Windies bowler's biggest fear was getting injured - for nomatter how good you are, the WI had enough depth and class players to muscle you out of the team if you'r out for a few years.

ok, let's say Patterson/Davis/Moseley/Clarke. You're gonna tell me that this is better than any bowling attack of the last 20 years? Based on what? It's your right to have that opinion, but I think it's unfounded and ridiculous. You can't take greats like Wasim/Waqar/Ambrose/Walsh/Pollock/Donald, and just speculate that an attack of occasional internationals would have been better.

 

[burr]

G Chappell is one of those batsman, from an Aussie perspective, that I would have loved to have been playing in my era. From all accounts he was one of the great classical batsman. It's the highest accolade to Ponting that he will (in all likelihood) be rated above Chappell come the end.

 

[social]

ok, let's say Patterson/Davis/Moseley/Clarke. You're gonna tell me that this is better than any bowling attack of the last 20 years? Based on what? It's your right to have that opinion, but I think it's unfounded and ridiculous. You can't take greats like Wasim/Waqar/Ambrose/Walsh/Pollock/Donald, and just speculate that an attack of occasional internationals would have been better.

I think you'll find he stipulated "today."

 

[Burgey]

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

Yep, they'd be my top three to watch as well.

From what I've heard of the players of yesteryear, Alan Kippax was apparently a great stylist too.

Such a difficult thing to hypothesise on how past players would have gone vs current ones. Interesting that so many people say those of yesteryear would not do as well, yet are happy to say that the great teams of the past are better than the Aussies of today. I would have thought that if the players from the past wouldn't do well in today's game, ergo the teams they played in would have struggled against today's players.

 

[thierry henry]

I think you'll find he stipulated "today."

Yes social. But you yourself stipulated in an earlier post that "any 4" of those bowlers would beat any attack since.

 

[thierry henry]

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

Not just better...they actually made the best attacks since "look like school boys"

 

[thierry henry]

Patterson/Davis/Moseley/Clarke make Wasim/Waqar look like schoolboys then, social. True or false?

 

[honestbharani]

I think you need to educate yourself before rejecting others comments as 'FALSE'. Kallicharan last played for WI in 1981 and in the same year he went on to play Cricket for Transvaal. Infact he was also the SouthAfrican Cricketer of the Year in the year 1983 where he had great success.




Now you are only clutching at straws. If you think that the Standard of County Cricket in the 80s is anywhere close to the Domestic Cricket in India in last few years, then I guess you have no clue about cricket in 80s. Secondly Where is tendulkar scoring bucket Load of Runs in Domestic Cricket now a days ? He has played only one Ranji game in last few years and scored a century against Ranadeb Bose and co., got cheaply out in the second inning. In the Challenger ODIs he was a failure in 3 games he played. So to claim that he is scoring bucketloads in domestic cricket is ridiculously incorrect.

Actually, he was a big hit in the Challenger ODIs, Sanz. I kinda remember because I watched almost all the games live since it was held in Chennai.

 

[archie mac]

Yep, they'd be my top three to watch as well.

From what I've heard of the players of yesteryear, Alan Kippax was apparently a great stylist too.

.

Norm O'Neil was also said to be very good to watch, although I never had the pleasure of watching him bat.

 

[social]

Patterson/Davis/Moseley/Clarke make Wasim/Waqar look like schoolboys then, social. True or false?

So Ive nominated 4 * 90 mph plus bowlers against your 2 great bowlers.

Who's your back-up?

Or are you going to make the same mistake as the 76/77 full-strength Pakistani team (Imran, Sarfraz, Majid Khan, the Mohammeds) that toured the Carribean to face Roberts alone but ended up having their butts handed to them

Hint: choose 2 spinners

However, the fact remains that if we're arguing about the relative merits of one of the greatest attacks in history vs SELECTIONS 7 - 10 OF ONE COUNTRY IN ONE DECADE then you've already lost

 

[Jono]

I must say, I went through most of these posts and this is the most confusing thread I've read through in a long time.

 

[Slow Love™]

There's no good reason to compartmentalise games which were played under a private entrepreneur with Test-cricket.

I'm not saying the players were wrong to want more money (that wasn't why it came about though, and you know it - you really, really have an inflated opinion of Kerry Packer, the archetype of the self-centred media moghul, if you think he cared about improving the lives of the players of the time - he organised WSC because the ACB refused to grant him coverage to Test-cricket, and had they granted in 1975 it'd never have happened at all), I've never blamed those who signed-up (and nor did any of their contemporaries - Knott and Underwood were welcomed back with open arms).

The game of cricket would, as everyone knows, be better off had Kerry Packer not inherited Nine in my estimation.

Actually I don't have a high opinion of Kerry Packer at all - by many accounts he was just the typical idiosyncratic, badly-tempered billionaire magnate. And I've actually found it bizarre that Ch 9's dedication to showing the cricket has actually gotten better since his death, despite his alleged love for the game.

But that's not really the point I'm making. Given you don't (and I think most cricket followers don't) have a problem with the players wanting more appropriate recompense for their efforts and the money they were bringing in, it's not really about Packer, the stats are about those players. And certainly, the vast majority of those involved have comfortably moved into cricket orthodoxy, as commentators, coaches, officials, etc. It seems like such an exciting and inspiring part of cricket's history is to forever be consigned to the shadows, simply because the governing body got the fright of its life.

TBH I appreciate that "official status" is official status, and the only arbiters of that are the custodians of the official game - in some instances I agree with official status not being granted, ie rebel tours of South Africa, the Denness affair, etc (though I don't really see the problem with the World XI vs Aus stuff last year in that context, as you appear to). Ultimately only the governing body can decree the status, and it's at their whim. I do actually have a hope though that someday in the future the stats will be incorporated.

Anyhow, at the very least, I wouldn't mind seeing the WSC stats available at a site like Cricinfo though, for the relevant players' info page.

 

[social]

Actually I don't have a high opinion of Kerry Packer at all - by many accounts he was just the typical idiosyncratic, badly-tempered billionaire magnate. And I've actually found it bizarre that Ch 9's dedication to showing the cricket has actually gotten better since his death, despite his alleged love for the game.

But that's not really the point I'm making. Given you don't (and I think most cricket followers don't) have a problem with the players wanting more appropriate recompense for their efforts and the money they were bringing in, it's not really about Packer, the stats are about those players. And certainly, the vast majority of those involved have comfortably moved into cricket orthodoxy, as commentators, coaches, officials, etc. It seems like such an exciting and inspiring part of cricket's history is to forever be consigned to the shadows, simply because the governing body got the fright of its life.

TBH I appreciate that "official status" is official status, and the only arbiters of that are the custodians of the official game - in some instances I agree with official status not being granted, ie rebel tours of South Africa, the Denness affair, etc (though I don't really see the problem with the World XI vs Aus stuff last year in that context, as you appear to). Ultimately only the governing body can decree the status, and it's at their whim. I do actually have a hope though that someday in the future the stats will be incorporated.

Anyhow, at the very least, I wouldn't mind seeing the WSC stats available at a site like Cricinfo though, for the relevant players' info page.

Totally agree.

Fortunately, most things that Packer did ultimately proved to be good for the game.

However, you'd have to be completely naive to think that that was his sole, let alone primary, motivation.

Notwithstanding the above, the players compating in WSC were, with few exceptions, the best of the best and there's no doubt in most peoples' mind that "Packer's players" gave their best and so it should be recorded.

 

[C_C]

ok, let's say Patterson/Davis/Moseley/Clarke. You're gonna tell me that this is better than any bowling attack of the last 20 years?

No, but it'd have been the best bowling attack right now in test cricket.
And it'd not be far off the Donald-Pollock-X-Y or Wasim-Waqar-X-Y pace lineup.
Clarke i'd pick to walk into any team of any era that's ever been fielded barring his own.

 

[Sanz]

Actually, he was a big hit in the Challenger ODIs, Sanz. I kinda remember because I watched almost all the games live since it was held in Chennai.

Sorry..I missed this year's Challengers, I was talking about 05-06 where he did terrible. In any case Tendulkar hardly plays domestic cricket to make any kinda claim that he has been scoring bucketload of runs in domestic cricket.

 

[Richard]

Urm, Tony Gray played the last of his test matches in 1986, so he should be added to the previous generation's list. Unfortunately, he suffered from back injuries and was never the same bowler after his debut series.

What does it matter what generation he was? All I said was you mentioned worse bowlers than him and failed to mention him.

Winston Davis was a similar standard to Benjamin but much quicker

And Benjamin was far better - what's your point?

Ezra Moseley played 2 tests for WI at 33! He was effectively banned because of his involvement in the rebel tour to SA in the mid 80s. As I mentioned earlier, he was reputedly the quickest bowler in the world in the early 80s and also a bit of a head-case.

Err, Franklyn Stephenson, a better bowler, played 0 Tests due to a similar ban. Croft, too, caused his own downfall by electing to go to South Africa. Their lack of Tests was their own fault.

 

[Richard]

So Ive nominated 4 * 90 mph plus bowlers against your 2 great bowlers.

No, you haven't, no-one knows how fast such bowlers were because timing technology didn't exist back then.

However, the fact remains that if we're arguing about the relative merits of one of the greatest attacks in history vs SELECTIONS 7 - 10 OF ONE COUNTRY IN ONE DECADE then you've already lost

Not relevant - the only thing that matters is the players who're playing regularly. Daniel, Croft, Clarke and Gray hardly played so they don't contribute to the standard of the attacks of the decade.

 

[Richard]

Actually I don't have a high opinion of Kerry Packer at all - by many accounts he was just the typical idiosyncratic, badly-tempered billionaire magnate. And I've actually found it bizarre that Ch 9's dedication to showing the cricket has actually gotten better since his death, despite his alleged love for the game.

But that's not really the point I'm making. Given you don't (and I think most cricket followers don't) have a problem with the players wanting more appropriate recompense for their efforts and the money they were bringing in, it's not really about Packer, the stats are about those players. And certainly, the vast majority of those involved have comfortably moved into cricket orthodoxy, as commentators, coaches, officials, etc. It seems like such an exciting and inspiring part of cricket's history is to forever be consigned to the shadows, simply because the governing body got the fright of its life.

TBH I appreciate that "official status" is official status, and the only arbiters of that are the custodians of the official game - in some instances I agree with official status not being granted, ie rebel tours of South Africa, the Denness affair, etc (though I don't really see the problem with the World XI vs Aus stuff last year in that context, as you appear to). Ultimately only the governing body can decree the status, and it's at their whim. I do actually have a hope though that someday in the future the stats will be incorporated.

Anyhow, at the very least, I wouldn't mind seeing the WSC stats available at a site like Cricinfo though, for the relevant players' info page.

Possibly that latter might be a good idea. After all, Trophy matches are available in said place. Why not email them and suggest it?

The reason I don't like the World XI game being given Test and ODI status as I've said many times is because I don't like "vs Rest Of" games being given top status.

I think, however, that more bad came of the Packer Schism than simply "the Govorning body getting the fright of it's life". And as such I don't feel what, despite the players' understandible financial desires, remain illicit matches deserve any top-ranking status. More still than the players, it's the games themselves that revile me. And why I'm glad they have no higher status than a game organised by some rich Paul Getty or similar in his backyard involving a load of top players.

 

[Richard]

Fortunately, most things that Packer did ultimately proved to be good for the game.

No, far, far more bad came of the split than good.

About the only good thing that came of it was improved wage-packets.

However, you'd have to be completely naive to think that that was his sole, let alone primary, motivation.

It wasn't the remotest consideration, anyone who knows anything about these type of moghuls knows they care little about anything other than themselves.