Viv Richards v Greg Chappell

[Prince EWS]

I assume this is once again by the lower strike rate statistical criteria you value so highly.

I don't actually value a lower strike rate; I just don't value a higher one. I never suggested that a lower strike rate was better - merely that with all possible outcomes of a match situation, scoring quickly was not necessarily an advantage and hence strike rate was irrelevant in Test cricket. The exception to this is when picking an XI as having a balance is always advantageous in the long run.

Chappell did the batsman's job - scoring runs - more consistently and effectively than Richards AFAIC, so he got my vote. Strike rate was not considered at all.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For how long (in game, not years, terms) and at what levels?

They both played Test and County Cricket at a time when an uncovered wickets regulation was in place. As this doesn't mean it automatically rained and they bowled on the resulting wet wicket, the only way to see how much they bowled on a wicket that was affected would be to check a match report for every game and hope it got mentioned. I don't recall either bowling on wet wicket in Tests, but County Cricket would require a lot of research.......which I don't intend undertaking.

 

[Richard]

By the time of their debuts, what I mean is, what was the regulation? Obviously some sort of covering was in effect - was it the "cover it once play's called-off for the day" thing or something else?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The rule was that once play had started the wicket remained uncovered until close of play. It was a poor regulation that lead to problems. You sometimes got a situation where the umpires started play on time in iffy light and went off after a couple of balls when the light hadn't got any worse. This left the wicket exposed to the elements, whereas if they hadn't started at all the wicket would have remained covered. It left the umpires reluctant to start play if the light was marginal.

 

[Richard]

And when was this nonsensical regulation changed to the what we now have? And was there anything else in the interim?

 

[Jono]

Fair enough my list: Going back to 1974/75

Best Batsman= Richards (Viv)
Best AR=Botham
Best Quick=Lillee
Best Leggie=Warne
Best off spinner=Vettori (two birds with one stone)

Lol Archie, did you switch off the TV everytime a finger spinner was bowling?

I like Vettori a lot, but he's an average test bowler at best.

 

[archie mac]

Lol Archie, did you switch off the TV everytime a finger spinner was bowling?

I like Vettori a lot, but he's an average test bowler at best.

I was going with the ones I have watched live, who would you put in front of him?

 

[silentstriker]

I was going with the ones I have watched live, who would you put in front of him?

Well, I mentioned a couple from the quartet, and no way Vetorri was better than Bedi but if you want to say post that era, then I'd say Saqlain.

 

[archie mac]

Well, I mentioned a couple from the quartet, and no way Vetorri was better than Bedi but if you want to say post that era, then I'd say Saqlain.

Saulain was could, but I thought he used his wrist more than his fingers? Also he seemed to drop his performance when 'under fire'

But yes could destroy teams on his day

 

[silentstriker]

Saulain was could, but I thought he used his wrist more than his fingers? Also he seemed to drop his performance when 'under fire'

But yes could destroy teams on his day

Well, Murali does too tbh. It depends whether we use fingerspinner or offspinner. In this thread we've been using it interchangeably but the OP was saying off spin.

 

[archie mac]

Well, Murali does too tbh. It depends whether we use fingerspinner or offspinner. In this thread we've been using it interchangeably but the OP was saying off spin.

Yes it is certainly blurred, a bit like fast bowlers and fast medium. And slow fast like McGrath for example

 

[silentstriker]

And slow fast like McGrath for example

You sir, are a dire dire man.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't actually value a lower strike rate; I just don't value a higher one. I never suggested that a lower strike rate was better - merely that with all possible outcomes of a match situation, scoring quickly was not necessarily an advantage and hence strike rate was irrelevant in Test cricket. The exception to this is when picking an XI as having a balance is always advantageous in the long run.

Chappell did the batsman's job - scoring runs - more consistently and effectively than Richards AFAIC, so he got my vote. Strike rate was not considered at all.

Agree with you really when it comes to strike rates and their impact in Test cricket, its just that usually, all other things considered, you go for the guy who's more likely to put you to sleep.

Also I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that Viv was much more productive with the bat than Chappell during his peak, which is the reason that I put him over the more consistent throughout career Chappell.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with you really when it comes to strike rates and their impact in Test cricket, its just that usually, all other things considered, you go for the guy who's more likely to put you to sleep.

Also I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that Viv was much more productive with the bat than Chappell during his peak, which is the reason that I put him over the more consistent throughout career Chappell.

Yeah, I'm not really one to put much faith in a peak unless of course there are mitigating circumstances (be it a player selected before he was ready for Test cricket or a player declining well past his best but remaining on for the good of the team). Having an excellent period of three seasons is all well and good, but I think it actually distorts one's value over an entire career. I'd go with Chappell's long-serving reliability every time. It's not a bias against his strike rate.

If one's peak can be the defining criteria of his Test career, Mathew Sinclair averaged 43.16 in the first two years of his career, but no-one cares.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, I'm not really one to put much faith in a peak unless of course there are mitigating circumstances (be it a player selected before he was ready for Test cricket or a player declining well past his best but remaining on for the good of the team).

Thing is, that describes Viv's situation perfectly.

 

[Richard]

Richards was only "at his best" for two very short periods, though. There's no way he was going to retire after the second of these - he'd not even reached his 30th birthday.

In any case, it's not like his performances were shocking outside this - he averaged 41 in 79 Tests 1974/75-1988/89 excluding these two periods (of 25 games in total) while still putting considerable fear into bowlers, which places him above someone who might have averaged a little more with less intimidation. He remained, beyond all question, a Test-class batsman in all other parts of his career apart from the very, very end, which no-one should really be taking too seriously.

However, someone who averaged as much more (53 without a great deal of wavering thoughout a career - from his 12th Test onwards the highest his average went was 57, the lowest 47) as Greg Chappell did has a pretty considerable case to my mind for being rather better.

 

[Richard]

Saulain was could, but I thought he used his wrist more than his fingers? Also he seemed to drop his performance when 'under fire'

But yes could destroy teams on his day

There's no way Saqlain was a wristspinner in any shape or form. Fingerspinner completely. Avec-Doosra, yes - unlike Vettori. But fingerspinner still.

Nor, really, was he any worse "under fire" than anyone.