Best After The Don

[MrPrez]

Kallis obv.

 

[MrPrez]

Sachin Tendulkar just isn't #2. Sorry. I understand most don't agree with my manlove for Kallis, but I'd definitely also have Sobers above SRT. The all-round package makes him a greater player overall.

 

[centurymaker]

I understand most don't agree with my manlove for Kallis, but I'd definitely also have Sobers above SRT. The all-round package makes him a greater player overall.

true but this is about 2nd best batsman ever, not 2nd best cricketer.

Actually Don may not even be the best crickter ever

 

[MrPrez]

Oh, derp.

Kallis still wins, SRT next.

 

[centurymaker]

Oh, derp.

Kallis still wins, SRT next.

there are so many batsman ahead of kallis, it's not even funny tbh.

 

[MrPrez]

Negative.

 

[harsh.ag]

Those things aside, Greg Chappell is the best and greatest batsman of the 1970s, and even better than Viv Richards during that decade. Viv had to wait until the 1980s when Greg was a couple years off retirement before he could be counted as the world's best batsman.

Ahem, ahem.. Barry Richards.. ahem.

 

[ankitj]

I voted Hobbs. Of all batsmen to have played 10 tests or more before WW1, only about four (Jackson, Bardsley, Ranjit and Faulkner) averaged over 40, with Jackson the only one of those averaging above 45. Hobbs scored 2500+ runs at 57 pre-WW1. He stands out almost as much as Bradman for being so far ahead of his contemporaries.

+1. Once I realized that I fully appreciated how good Hobbs was.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, and the Underarm incident doesn't help either. He also made a record 6 ducks in a row in the early 80s when the West Indies were touring.

Those things aside, Greg Chappell is the best and greatest batsman of the 1970s, and even better than Viv Richards during that decade. Viv had to wait until the 1980s when Greg was a couple years off retirement before he could be counted as the world's best batsman.

Most contemporary players seem to rate Viv > Gavaskar > Chappell. Interested in knowing why.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, and the Underarm incident doesn't help either. He also made a record 6 ducks in a row in the early 80s when the West Indies were touring.

Those things aside, Greg Chappell is the best and greatest batsman of the 1970s, and even better than Viv Richards during that decade. Viv had to wait until the 1980s when Greg was a couple years off retirement before he could be counted as the world's best batsman.

Viv was outstandingly the best batsman in the world from the mid to late 70's to early 80's. If anything he was on the slide by the time Chappell retired and his performances were modest by any standards never mind his own from around 84 onwards.

During his prime years Viv is still the best batsman I ever expect to see. I find the idea of Chappell being the second greatest batsman of all time rather fanciful. Of those I've seen I would consider Tendulkar, Sobers, Barry Richards or Lara almost along side Viv.
Of course the statsguru (yawn) will show that Viv's level of performance was not maintained for as long as some others, but I prefer to judge a player from his peak years as long as it's more than just a couple of years.
In other sports I consider Muhammad Ali to be the best boxer I've ever seen and that isn't diminished by the shambling wreck of a man who fought Larry Holmes. By the same token I consider a peak Maradona to be the best footballer I've ever seen (as much as I despise the little twerp) and that isn't diminished by the drugged up portly gentleman he was at the end of his career.

 

[harsh.ag]

Viv was outstandingly the best batsman in the world from the mid to late 70's to early 80's. If anything he was on the slide by the time Chappell retired and his performances were modest by any standards never mind his own from around 84 onwards.

During his prime years Viv is still the best batsman I ever expect to see. I find the idea of Chappell being the second greatest batsman of all time rather fanciful. Of those I've seen I would consider Tendulkar, Sobers, Barry Richards or Lara almost along side Viv.

Of course the statsguru (yawn) will show that Viv's level of performance was not maintained for as long as some others, but I prefer to judge a player from his peak years as long as it's more than just a couple of years.

It's not that simple, I think. Even at his best, Viv was not a great player of spin, good, better than many, but not great. And if this was a thread about the best batsman against fast bowling, I would vote Viv too. But it's not. And for that reason, I rate Barry Richards as a better batsman than Viv. And as I wrote before, I have Hobbs, Sobers, Barry and Tendulkar in the second tier after Bradman (in no particular order), and Viv, Hammond, Headley, Pollock, Chappell and Lara in the third tier. I agree it was awe-striking to watch Viv cart the pacers around, though.

 

[kyear2]

Most contemporary players seem to rate Viv > Gavaskar > Chappell. Interested in knowing why.

Actually I belive that most rate it Richards > Chapell > Gavaskar


Regarding Sachin, between him and Lara I consider Lara the better batsman, especially when considering both at their absolute best, and his ability to turn a game, I readily admit that Sachin has had the better career and there is distence between them in that regard, but the genius of BCL edges SRT in terms of pure batting ability for me.

 

[smash84]

Actually I belive that most rate it Richards > Chapell > Gavaskar


Regarding Sachin, between him and Lara I consider Lara the better batsman, especially when considering both at their absolute best, and his ability to turn a game, I readily admit that Sachin has had the better career and there is distence between them in that regard, but the genius of BCL edges SRT in terms of pure batting ability for me.

:

 

[kyear2]

It's not that simple, I think. Even at his best, Viv was not a great player of spin, good, better than many, but not great. And if this was a thread about the best batsman against fast bowling, I would vote Viv too. But it's not. And for that reason, I rate Barry Richards as a better batsman than Viv. And as I wrote before, I have Hobbs, Sobers, Barry and Tendulkar in the second tier after Bradman (in no particular order), and Viv, Hammond, Headley, Pollock, Chappell and Lara in the third tier. I agree it was awe-striking to watch Viv cart the pacers around, though.

Viv was a great player of spin, not as good as Lara or Tendulkar, but certainly great, he scored runs in India, took Underwood apart, after his decline in form, yes he did have difficulties, but that was across the board.

 

[centurymaker]

Actually I belive that most rate it Richards > Chapell > Gavaskar


Regarding Sachin, between him and Lara I consider Lara the better batsman, especially when considering both at their absolute best, and his ability to turn a game, I readily admit that Sachin has had the better career and there is distence between them in that regard, but the genius of BCL edges SRT in terms of pure batting ability for me.

I am sure thats exactly what most others believe too.

 

[watson]

In the late 70s both Viv Richards and Greg Chappell played 14 WSC Super Tests each;

Chappell Averaged: 56.60
Richards Averaged: 55.70

HowSTAT! World Series Cricket - Batting Statistics (Supertests)

Considering that Chappell faced the better pace attack of the two batsman, I think that Chappell was the better player of fast bowling.

There is also the fact that in 17 Tests against the West Indies from 1973 to 1982 Chappell averaged in 56.00. And in the 1975-76 series against Clive Lloyd's side averaged a mammoth 117.00. Admittedly, Michael Holding was not quite at his prime, but Andy Roberts certainly was.

So to put it bluntly - Greg Chappell in his prime was better than Viv Richards in his prime at playing fast bowling.

 

[kyear2]

Actually I belive that the ROW XI had the best attack in WSC, but yes Chappell was absolute gun in WSC.

 

[ankitj]

Actually I belive that most rate it Richards > Chapell > Gavaskar

ESPN legends of cricket ranked Gavaskar higher than Chappell
CMJ ranked Gavaskar higher than Chappell
Wisden cricketer of century voting had 12 votes for Gavaskar, none for Chappell
Wisden 100 (statistical ranking of cricketers) had Gavaskar ahead of Chappell.

So I don't know of any well known list where Gavaskar was behind Chappell (except the lists made on CW)

EDIT: Not directly relevant, but in all time ICC ranking, Gavaskar is again ahead of Chappell

 

[smash84]

In the late 70s both Viv Richards and Greg Chappell played 14 WSC Super Tests each;

Chappell Averaged: 56.60
Richards Averaged: 55.70

HowSTAT! World Series Cricket - Batting Statistics (Supertests)

Considering that Chappell faced the better pace attack of the two batsman, I think that Chappell was the better player of fast bowling.

There is also the fact that in 17 Tests against the West Indies from 1973 to 1982 Chappell averaged in 56.00. And in the 1975-76 series against Clive Lloyd's side averaged a mammoth 117.00. Admittedly, Michael Holding was not quite at his prime, but Andy Roberts certainly was.

So to put it bluntly - Greg Chappell in his prime was better than Viv Richards in his prime at playing fast bowling.

Dude, did you ever watch Viv Richards bat? (admittedly I didn't watch Greg Chappell bat but I can't imagine him to be better than Viv playing fast bowling. And most contemporary accounts of people who watched them bat and played against them named Viv as the better batsman.

 

[smash84]

ESPN legends of cricket ranked Gavaskar higher than Chappell
CMJ ranked Gavaskar higher than Chappell
Wisden cricketer of century voting had 12 votes for Gavaskar, none for Chappell
Wisden 100 (statistical ranking of cricketers) had Gavaskar ahead of Chappell.

So I don't know of any well known list where Gavaskar was behind Chappell (except the lists made on CW)

I wanted to post these as well but couldn't be bothered trying to change kyear2's mind