Choose three batsmen for the Post Packer XI middle order

[silentstriker]

In your spinner free world perhaps.

One can dream.

 

[Ikki]

One can only hope.

Well, I look at 1st and 2nd innings as one and then 3rd and 4th as one. But yes, it definitely works against Tendulkar in my eyes, no doubt. He had one great innings late in the game recently, I'd want to see a couple more before he goes. If he can do that, I might put him equal to Chappell.

How about you explain why he's equal/better than Ponting first.

 

[Ikki]

Chappell played only 30 odd Tests post Packer and though his record in that time was outstanding there's very little logic behind picking him ahead of Tendulkar who's record is incredible by all standards and should be stats-mongers dream.

36 Tests out of 87 were post-Packer - that's almost half his career.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

36 Tests out of 87 were post-Packer - that's almost half his career.

It's actually little more than 40% - but nonetheless it's a minor contribution to the period in question when compared with an entire 150+ Test career which has yielded such an amazing record.

 

[G.I.Joe]

3-4-5. Ponting-Tendulkar-Lara.

 

[Ikki]

It's actually little more than 40% - but nonetheless it's a minor contribution to the period in question when compared with an entire 150+ Test career which has yielded such an amazing record.

41-42% is near 50%...meaning half his career. I think it's enough to gauge who he was, how he played and to rate him. You don't, so don't vote for him. Case closed. It's not the same as merely voting for someone who played JUST 36 tests.

 

[andruid]

Waugh and Kallis for the grit and solidity spiced up with the genius that is Sachin.

 

[Evermind]

Chappell and Richards ahead of Ponting?! FFS!!!

 

[Slifer]

Chapell>SRT imo

 

[Evermind]

Chapell>SRT imo

Definitely could be well-argued.

But Ponting > everyone else, purely by stats.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Chapell>SRT imo

Definitely could be well-argued.

Could it? Well, it hasn't been so far.

But Ponting > everyone else, purely by stats.

 

[Matt79]

Chappell definitely > Ponting for mine. Vic better than either.

 

[Burgey]

Chappell, Tendulkar and Richards for me. The latter just over each of Lara and Ponting.

Lara's highs wre higher probably than anyone's, but he had some ordinary lows as well, so I left him out. Left Ponting out as he's not really done yet, and I'd have Tendulkar just ahead of him at their respective peaks on all surfaces.

I put Richards in there because, irrespective of what stats you throw at me about better records of others, I saw the **** bat plenty of times in person and on TV, and he was bloody awesome.

 

[Burgey]

Could it? Well, it hasn't been so far.

I'll argue it then - Chappell's average is better when you take park cricket team attacks out, he played the majority of his career pre-helmets and on less batsmen-friendly wickets, and played against some great attacks, just as Tendulkar did. And he was as graceful a player to watch, or even more so.

Why don't you put up a convincing argument that Tendulkar is categorically better than Chappell? Because to me the point is arguable at least. You seem to be suggesting it isn't.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Chappell definitely > Ponting for mine. Vic better than either.

Vic Marks is definitely a glaring omission from the poll.

 

[Burgey]

Vic Marks is definitely a glaring omission from the poll.

Good get.

 

[Matt79]

 

[archie mac]

This poll should help to dispel the rubbish about people voting down national lines

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, it's pretty criminal. His record walks over any of his contemporaries. More complete than Tendulkar and Lara, quite easily. I was going to put in Tendulkar originally but I forgot about Chappell. Of course, Richards has to be there.

3) Ponting
4) Richards
5) Chappell

OMG, unbelievable!!!
Richards over Waugh?

 

[silentstriker]

This poll should help to dispel the rubbish about people voting down national lines

I suppose its genetic whether someone prefers Warne or Murali?