Ian Chappell's new piece on CI marginalizing Kane?

[CM Punk]

Ian Chappell's new piece on CI marginalizing of Kane?

Any conversation about which batsmen are currently top-rated in Test cricket begins with the Big Three; in order of batting average that's Steve Smith, Joe Root and Virat Kohli.

It's often noted that New Zealand captain Kane Williamson could easily make it a quartet.

Indeed, Williamson should be included as his average is second only to Smith, but David Warner ought to also be there, to extend it to a quintet.

Is there anything in it? It rubbed me the wrong way tbh...

The batting averages he's referring to are actually ranked like this...

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

and he refers to them again when saying Kane could easily make it a quartet because his average is only second to Smith's.

Sure Smith is ahead, but I don't think he's any less of a batsmen than Root or Kohli. I think he's well ahead of Root at this stage while has the slight edge on Kohli who has only recently started to get it together in Tests.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah usual biased stuff from Chappelli. To me, it goes... (considering only test cricket)


Smith


KW, Root
Kohli
Azhar Ali

Warner etc.

 

[Flem274*]

ian chappell in only focusing on cricket between australia, england, india and more australia shocker

next please

 

[CM Punk]

ian chappell in only focusing on cricket between australia, england, india and more australia shocker

next please

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he only watched games featuring those teams.

 

[Burgey]

I thought he was saying williamson *shouldn't* be overlooked but that he often is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Chappeli is just a bit of a dick, and says a lot of stupid inflammatory stuff, but in this instance I don't really see the issue. Just using the quote you posted he literally says that KW should be in the group.

 

[Howsie]

They were the Fab Four years ago, and then as they became the best in the world the Big Four. I've literally never seen an actual reporter/commentator leave one of them out and go with the "Big Three"

Its Ian Chappell though, a guy who if you actually read what he writes might have you believing there is only three teams in world cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

Chappeli is just a bit of a dick, and says a lot of stupid inflammatory stuff, but in this instance I don't really see the issue. Just using the quote you posted he literally says that KW should be in the group.

Yeah, agree with this.

It seems like most of the people Chappelli talks to seem to think it's a big three, but that he thinks Williamson (and perhaps Warner) also belong. His entire point actually seems to be that Williamson is under-rated in not being included with the others.

 

[SeamUp]

The only thing he did wrong there was put Warner in the elite 4 bracket.

Not long ago Warner just couldn't score a test run in Asia so Chappell just needs to settle down there.

I know Chappelli is controversial and can be pompus but I like him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only thing he did wrong there was put Warner in the elite 4 bracket.

Not long ago Warner just couldn't score a test run in Asia so Chappell just needs to settle down there.

I know Chappelli is controversial and can be pompus but I like him.

He tells some boring ****ing stories sometimes when commentating. He's turning into a stereotypical Grandpa Simpson.

 

[Groundking]

Kholi isn't even the best bat for India FFS.

 

[SeamUp]

He tells some boring ****ing stories sometimes when commentating. He's turning into a stereotypical Grandpa Simpson.

When he repeats them it does become a problem.

I like his anecdotes most of the time.

Last of the real senior comms on channell 9 so you have to give him some rope. No more Benaud , Greig & Lawry is rare.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, agree with this.

It seems like most of the people Chappelli talks to seem to think it's a big three, but that he thinks Williamson (and perhaps Warner) also belong. His entire point actually seems to be that Williamson is under-rated in not being included with the others.

But that is where it goes wrong though? Who exactly are these people? We follow most of the cricket media and even the most biased ones have bought into the "Big 4" storyline which obviously came from the old ICC's "big 3".

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah, agree with this.

It seems like most of the people Chappelli talks to seem to think it's a big three, but that he thinks Williamson (and perhaps Warner) also belong. His entire point actually seems to be that Williamson is under-rated in not being included with the others.

Yeah I think I largely agree with him, except for the Warner bit. Outside of CW circles Williamson is likely to be less celebrated just because of NZ playing less cricket. Seems like an age since they last played a Test.

That said, I don't think how often you perceive other people to make a point is much of a solid basis for further moaning.

 

[Dan]

But that is where it goes wrong though? Who exactly are these people? We follow most of the cricket media and even the most biased ones have bought into the "Big 4" storyline which obviously came from the old ICC's "big 3".

70 year old Australian casual cricket fans, probably.

 

[Spikey]

Anyone can miss Kane, all tucked away down there.

 

[Gnske]

He's right you know

 

[Slifer]

It certainly rubbed me the wrong way. But given where Kane is from, it didn't really surprise me. Kane Williams is solidly in the so called big 4. Warner is a pretender.

 

[Slifer]

Kholi isn't even the best bat for India FFS.

I hope you're not referring to Pujara???

 

[Groundking]

I hope you're not referring to Pujara???

Certainly a better bat than Kohli IMO.