Chappell vs. Border vs. Waugh

[Slifer]

And a devastating toe crushin yorker to boot to get rid of those nagging tail enders. That ability to get rid of tail enders should never be underestimated!!

 

[bagapath]

This is very true. Garner also rarely opened the bowling the way Holding, Roberts and Marshall did, thus having less of a crack at the chance to get five-fors. Batsmen rarely got on top of Garner. In fact, I can arguably see Garner as a better version of McGrath, about as niggardly and accurate with more pace and bounce and a more menacing presence and also without the need to sledge.

I think this is a very misleading stat which you should take with a massive pinch of salt.

The difference between batsmen and bowlers is that one batsman's success in scoring a 100 doesn't hinder his team-mates' ability to score 100s of their own. But there are only ever 10 wickets to go round for the bowlers. In Garner's case his ability to take 5-fers was restricted by the very fact that Holding, Roberts and Marshall (and the rest) took so many wickets while he was playing. This grossly distorts that element of his career bowling analysis.

His ability to run through a team is evident from the fact that he had 48 5-wicket hauls in first class cricket, more than Roberts and more than Holding. His rate of 5-fers per FC match is better than Roberts, better than Holding and better than Marshall.

(Compare, btw, Freddie Flintoff who has a total of 3 in first class cricket!).

One statistic that is neither distorted nor misleading is Garner's Test bowling average of just under 21.

i am sorry this thread is going in a different direction. cant resist this topic, though.

dont want to spend hours arguing on this point because garner was, indeed, a crack fast bowler. but pl dont bring in his first class stats to explain his test class.

i get it that the other bowlers in the team were getting a major share of the wickets so he didnt end up with as many five-fers as he should have. but there should be a reason for them having more fivewicket hauls than him. what is it?

his average is similar to marshall's and strike rate is similar to holding's. so it is not that he was more expensive or less incisive than his team mates. in fact, he had the best economy rate among them.

he did take, on average, 4.5 wickets per test. same as marshall and more than holding. so he was aways among wickets.

could it be that he averaged lesser number of overs per match compared to them? i dont think so. marshall averaged 36 overs per match, holding bowled 35 and garner bowled 37.

I am comparing three absolute champions here. among them i see that garner was indeed bowling more overs per match but was getting the opposition in bulk more rarely compared to the other two.

the only reason i could think of is when the three of them hunted together garner was strangling the opposition's run rate with his accuracy and chipped in with a couple of wickets in every innings. whereas one of the other two got the rest of the wickets in bulk. doesn't necessarily mean garner was inferior. they were feeding on his accuracy also. it is just that they ran through the opposition more often than him.

and please dont think i am basing this whole argument on decimals i see on paper. even when i watched them in my childhood garner did indeed come of as the spine of the attack, not the spearhead; that was, mostly, marshall and, sometimes, holding.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yeah, I have a huge amount of respect for Garner's record.

You may argue that bowlers like Hadlee couldn't help but take 5-fers, with their bowling competition. Yet, there may be justice to that argument if Hadlee, as the only good bowler, was taking 6-130 every match. Yet Hadlee got his 5-fers typically at a low price, which just shows how great a bowler he was.

You'd have to put Marshall and Hadlee as the greatest fast-medium bowlers as all (not counting Barnes).

 

[bagapath]

On what basis?...I mean on what basis have you not taken Border and Waugh in the combined XI? And on what basis do you think that Miandad is slightly weaker candidates than them?...Don't you think that the comments you're making are too judgmental? [And about my point about Miandad, read my post above]

the idea of this whole forum is being judgemental. i dont think you can separate cricketers of such high caliber by mere stats. see the post above where i struggle to explain my rating garner a notch below his contemporaries. i believe it but dont epect everyone to agree with me.

similarly my rating miandad below border and waugh is purely a personal choice.

to start with, in the 1980s, border scored 20 centuries and 7000+ runs at an average of 55+. miandad scored 16 centuries and 5000 + runs at 54+. having seen him score more hundreds, i obviously grew up thinking border was superior to miandad. also, i saw border play so many back to the wall innings that i saw him as an underdog hero, a mantle that was passed on to waugh. while miandad killed an indian attack, that was just first class standard except for kapil dev, border, and later waugh, always reserved their best against the stronger opponents. i am sure miandad has a case to be considered above them. just saying not in my book, though.

as for dropping border and waugh in the combined XI, all i can say is it is a very tough call. especially dropping border.

but the other four - richards, g.chappell, ponting and lara - were not just equally high scoring batters. they were also better stroke palyers. they scored faster than the other two. this can be proved by comparing their batting strike rates, wherever available - but more easily by observation. border and waugh lived on, and limited by, a handful of shots; mostly variations of the cut and the pull.

the other four were more all round in their stroke production. lara and g.chappell also happened to be so beautiful to watch. you can never accuse borer and waugh of trying to please the aesthetic needs of the spectator. they were gritty, sweaty and bloody effective. i loved them and respected them but prefer the other four, albeit marginally, not just for substance but also for the manner in which they went about their business of scoring runs.

 

[bagapath]

You'd have to put Marshall and Hadlee as the greatest fast-medium bowlers as all (not counting Barnes).

for most of their careers hadlee was fast; and marshall was express fast.

 

[Days of Grace]

Well, let's just say they were the best fast-medium to fast bowlers.

 

[burr]

I thought this was going to be about captaincy and I was all set to vote Border.

As it is, Chappell, without contest.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

For captaincy I'd probably go for Waugh, of the three. If it was Ian rather than Greg in the poll though, he'd win out, as would Taylor.

 

[bagapath]

Just created a separate thread to discuss the combined xi in more detail.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/41515-post-packer-world-xi-discussion.html

 

[zaremba]

i am sorry this thread is going in a different direction. cant resist this topic, though.

dont want to spend hours arguing on this point because garner was, indeed, a crack fast bowler. but pl dont bring in his first class stats to explain his test class.

Bagapath I agree with almost everything you've written in this thread, we clearly share very similar feelings about these players, and I found your analysis of their records very interesting.

The reason why I brought in FC stats was to show that Big Bird's Test record of 5-fers was perhaps anomalous and not representative of his bowling. His FC record shows that as a bowler he was quite capable of regularly running through sides. Couple that with the fact that he clearly wasn't someone who froze or was "found out" on the Test stage (bowling average below 21) and I think the result is that his Test record of 5-fers is indeed shown to be anomalous.

The number of 5-fers you get isn't always a particularly telling stat, either. Garner got 18 4-wicket hauls in Tests. Had he picked up one extra tail-end wicket in just a few of those innings we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And his failure to do so doesn't in my view significantly diminish his greatness as a bowler.

 

[social]

for most of their careers hadlee was fast; and marshall was express fast.

At their most effective, Hadlee was McGrath's pace without the height/bounce whilst Marshall was express

BIG difference

 

[bagapath]

Bagapath I agree with almost everything you've written in this thread, we clearly share very similar feelings about these players, and I found your analysis of their records very interesting.

The reason why I brought in FC stats was to show that Big Bird's Test record of 5-fers was perhaps anomalous and not representative of his bowling. His FC record shows that as a bowler he was quite capable of regularly running through sides. Couple that with the fact that he clearly wasn't someone who froze or was "found out" on the Test stage (bowling average below 21) and I think the result is that his Test record of 5-fers is indeed shown to be anomalous.

The number of 5-fers you get isn't always a particularly telling stat, either. Garner got 18 4-wicket hauls in Tests. Had he picked up one extra tail-end wicket in just a few of those innings we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And his failure to do so doesn't in my view significantly diminish his greatness as a bowler.

cant disagree with you even if i try hard. guess i'll have to leave it as an issue akin to choosing border over miandad; that is it is a purely personal choice. wonder what you think of bob willis' record compared to andy roberts' or brett lee's versus javagal srinath's. (not even one 10 fer vs at least one ten wicket haul)

 

[Burgey]

ah... SS! that team is a killer, i agree. in fact, this kind of puts all of us in agreement that g.chappell and punter > border and s. waugh. my combined xi would be slightly different because i cannot go into a test match without any spinner to make use of the old ball and to dominate the opposition on last 2 days' crumbling wicket.

so here is my combined WI - Aus Post Packer XI

greenidge
hayden
richards
g.chappell
ponting
lara
gilchrist (wk)
marshall
warne
lillee
mcgrath

reserves: ambrose, border and s.waugh

Hmm - imagine the score 5/350 or 400 and Gilly walks out to bat with Lara. I think I'd walk off, take a seat and just watch tbh.

 

[Anil]

Punter may well rank above them all by time he hangs up the willow, if he doesn't already.

not really he doesn't...

anyway chappell, border and waugh for me in that order...

 

[Athlai]

Hmm - imagine the score 5/350 or 400 and Gilly walks out to bat with Lara. I think I'd walk off, take a seat and just watch tbh.

Were you playing for England at the time or something?

 

[bagapath]

At their most effective, Hadlee was McGrath's pace without the height/bounce whilst Marshall was express

BIG difference

i think hadlee was genuinely fast (in the walsh/ ambrose league and not akhthar/lee kind) for a good part of his career and had most of the champion batsmen in all sorts of trouble with his swing and cut.

i would always rate hadlee ahead of mcgrath. with his controlled swing and amazing variations he was definitely more exciting to watch than the monochromatic pigeon.

 

[Burgey]

Were you playing for England at the time or something?

Look mate, you seem a genuinely nice bloke and I realise these boards are kind of anonymous.

But you can't just go throwing those sorts of horrible insults around here .

 

[Athlai]

Look mate, you seem a genuinely nice bloke and I realise these boards are kind of anonymous.

But you can't just go throwing those sorts of horrible insults around here .

Well it had to be the team that wouldn't have a single player in that alltime XI.

 

[Jono]

Burgey's bagging of English cricket has been top notch over the last 48 hrs.

Really cashing in while he can.

 

[Burgey]

Burgey's bagging of English cricket has been top notch over the last 48 hrs.

Really cashing in while he can.

I'm getting in now in case things go wrong during the winter....