Best After The Don

[watson]

Just as an aside kyear -

John Snow dismissed Greg Chappell 5 times, Ian Chappell 10 times, Bill Lawry 6 times, Gary Sobers 5times, Clive Lloyd 5 times, Rohan Kanhai 4 times, and Sunil Gavaskar twice. All these batsman are among the best ever at playing fast bowling.

HowSTAT! Player Bowling Analysis

IMO, the quality of the batsman that John Snow dismissed make him the best English fast bowler of all time.

But lets not get off topic........

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Rubbish. The 1975/76 attack apart from Andy Roberts was the very raw and wild Michael Holding, Vanburn Holder, Bernard Julien and Keith Boyce. All moderate bowlers prior to the great emergence. In fact the only bowler who played in every Test was the ageing and not overly quick Lance Gibbs.

 

[watson]

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.

I saw both Richards and Chappell bat is some ODIs at the SCG in 1979-80. And aIso saw Chappell make 98 not out against Willis, Botham, and Underwood in a Test match during the same summer. So I have a rough idea.

 

[watson]

Rubbish. The 1975/76 attack apart from Andy Roberts was the very raw and wild Michael Holding, Vanburn Holder, Bernard Julien and Keith Boyce. All moderate bowlers prior to the great emergence. In fact the only bowler who played in every Test was the ageing and not overly quick Lance Gibbs.

Well, a mere 3 months later Holding mowed down India at home, and then blew away Tony Greig's side shortly after that. So, he couldn't have been that bad against the Aussies. But maybe he was an extremely fast learner. Crap one day, superb the next.

Anyway, whatever you think about the 1975/76 series doesn't discount his successes against the full West Indian battery during WSC.

And just to cite a cliche - Vic Richards never faced a West Indian attack of the 70s/80s. Although he did very well against an ageing Dennis Lillee, Bob Willis, and Imran Khan.

 

[watson]

But I still place Lara ahead of both those two batsman;

Brian Lara > Greg Chappell > Viv Richards

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well, a mere 3 months later Holding mowed down India at home, and then blew away Tony Greig's side shortly after that. So, he couldn't have been that bad against the Aussies. But maybe he was an extremely fast learner. Crap one day, superb the next.

Anyway, whatever you think about the 1975/76 series doesn't discount his successes against the full West Indian battery during WSC.

And just to cite a cliche - Vic Richards never faced a West Indian attack of the 70s/80s. Although he did very well against an ageing Dennis Lillee, Bob Willis, and Imran Khan.

I don't discount his successes. If you seriously believe having watched Richards and Chappell bat that Chappell was the better player that's your tickle, but trotting out a load of spurious stats and non-facts doesn't help. (Or does it? I haven't been reading this forum for a couple of years )

 

[Slifer]

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.

With all due respect the batsmen in the so called second have done nothing of note to be rated a tier above the batsmen in the 3rd (IMHO). For goodness sake B Richards only played 4 tests. Then again we r all entitled to our own opinions

 

[watson]

I don't discount his successes. If you seriously believe having watched Richards and Chappell bat that Chappell was the better player that's your tickle, but trotting out a load of spurious stats and non-facts doesn't help. (Or does it? I haven't been reading this forum for a couple of years )

It's true that Richards had a 'commanding presence' when batting due to the arrogance of his personality. So if we take that into account then Richards may have been the greater player.

However, when Greg Chappell was in his prime (1974-79) he was more skilled at hitting the cricket ball IMO.

(BTW your sliding tackle was a bit late. You're supposed to kick the ball, not take out the man)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Then again we r all entitled to our own opinions

When I started reading this forum again after a long absence I decided that if I start posting again I'm going to respect other people's opinions and post in a polite and constructive manner. Didn't last long but never mind.

 

[watson]

Jeff Thomson's summations are good fun ('Thommo Speaks Out', pages 243-244);

Viv Richards was another fabulous player. You always thought you had a chance with Viv and that's why I rate Greg (Chappell) just above him, but Viv was devastating on his day.

Lara was the best batsman I have seen over the past fifteen years, I saw him cut Warne and McGrath to pieces in the Caribbean. They didn't know how to bowl to him. Lara played in a **** side, a star among a bunch of mug batsman. He was a fantastic player. He had all the shots and plenty of time against the fast bowlers; always a sign of class.

Sachin Tendulkar is supposed to get something like US$10 million a year. Mate, I wouldn't give you two-bob for him. I've never rated him as a great player. Tendulkar is a good player and he thrives on the low, slow, flat ****-heaps in the Sub-Continent. If he had to play against genuinely quick bowlers on fast wickets, he wouldn't get a ****ing run.

 

[harsh.ag]

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.

I agree. But Barry was quite the better player of spin. Perhaps Viv's later decline puts in that image in mind. I sometimes think that of all the great batsmen, Viv depended the most on his hand-eye co-ordination (If we agree not to include Sehwag in this discussion).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I agree. But Barry was quite the better player of spin. Perhaps Viv's later decline puts in that image in mind. I sometimes think that of all the great batsmen, Viv depended the most on his hand-eye co-ordination (If we agree not to include Sehwag in this discussion).

No, the myth about Viv Richards and spin is based on his first test in India.

 

[harsh.ag]

With all due respect the batsmen in the so called second have done nothing of note to be rated a tier above the batsmen in the 3rd (IMHO). For goodness sake B Richards only played 4 tests. Then again we r all entitled to our own opinions

Well, I compounded on this a few pages earlier. I will never say that they are greater batsmen. But for this thread, my logic is simple (perhaps too simple, you might say): I thought Barry Richards was a better batsman than Viv, so Viv cannot be the best batsman after Bradman and must be in the third tier. Barry gave the kind of joy which makes you feel content as opposed to Viv, who gave a raw, burning kind of happiness which demanded more blood Sobers was the most dashing left hander I ever saw, so Lara and Pollock must be in the third tier. Hobbs because I cannot discount his record, and so Hammond goes in the third tier. Headley i just don't know about. Too much uncertainty there to work with. And Tendulkar because he gave me an immense amount of joy as an Indian that is not quantifiable, and there is a huge bias, there, I admit.

Quote:
Sachin Tendulkar is supposed to get something like US$10 million a year. Mate, I wouldn't give you two-bob for him. I've never rated him as a great player. Tendulkar is a good player and he thrives on the low, slow, flat ****-heaps in the Sub-Continent. If he had to play against genuinely quick bowlers on fast wickets, he wouldn't get a ****ing run.

Really worthless analysis.

 

[Jono]

LOL @ Thommo saying McGrath didn't know how to bowl to Lara.

He really is one of the dumbest ****s I swear.

 

[fredfertang]

He really is one of the dumbest ****s I swear.

Definitely not one of mankind's intellectuals - his idiotic behaviour over WSC proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt

 

[watson]

No, the myth about Viv Richards and spin is based on his first test in India.

Chandra's bunny during that series if I remember rightly.

 

[Jono]

Definitely not one of mankind's intellectuals

He's no Tangy!

 

[fredfertang]

He's no Tangy!

Horses for courses Jono - I may be rather better than Thommo at reading contracts, in fact I doubt anyone could be any worse, but at the same time I'll bet he's handled his love life rather than better I've done with mine!

 

[L Trumper]

Sobers. For a decade or so he was the best batsman. He had the highest average, strike rate, highest score in an innings, and over the career. From both longevity POV, and hitting highest of peaks he was the best. For someone who mostly batted at 5 or 6, he did even better at 3 and 4. When Wisden retroactively awarded leading cricketer of the year, Sobers completely dominated his peers. Especially from 58 - 68 he is unsurpassed, unchallenged as the leading batsman.

 

[Slifer]

Well, I compounded on this a few pages earlier. I will never say that they are greater batsmen. But for this thread, my logic is simple (perhaps too simple, you might say): I thought Barry Richards was a better batsman than Viv, so Viv cannot be the best batsman after Bradman and must be in the third tier. Barry gave the kind of joy which makes you feel content as opposed to Viv, who gave a raw, burning kind of happiness which demanded more blood Sobers was the most dashing left hander I ever saw, so Lara and Pollock must be in the third tier. Hobbs because I cannot discount his record, and so Hammond goes in the third tier. Headley i just don't know about. Too much uncertainty there to work with. And Tendulkar because he gave me an immense amount of joy as an Indian that is not quantifiable, and there is a huge bias, there, I admit.

Really worthless analysis.

LOL, nothing wrong with that at all buddy. SRT is worthy of all the praise he receives. Where we differ is that I dont think SRT is a tier above BCL, IVAR etc