Greg Chappell vs Ricky Ponting

[Slifer]

Chappell for me. Faced the 4 horsemen in wsc which I understand isn't official but he made hey more than any of his contemporaries. Ricky was at his peak imo, facing much lesser bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

Ponting is winning this handsomely and yet came in behind Chappell in the voting thread.

no dude. he is losing

 

[trundler]

Madness.

 

[Anthony Clayden]

Punter for me, my memories of the run of 4 ducks by Greg is one of my first cricketing memories..

 

[bagapath]

He didn't tour that many countries and most of the ones he did tour, he only did so once in his entire career. Its less impressive than you're making out imo.

Greg averaged under 30 twice in his career. once in the 1975 ashes. and against west indies in 81/82. other than this, his worst performance in a series was averaging 34, something an English batsman could possibly build a 100+ career with. out of the 24 series he played, he averaged 18 times over 40. (75%) - and 22 times over 34.

Ricky Ponting obviously he had a longer career. among the greatest ever; averaged above 40 in 31 of the 52 series he played (60%). but he did face serious failures at various points during his journey. averaged 6 against SA and 3 against India in 3 test series. in three other series he averaged under 20 and had six more under 30.

I didn't look at all this when I voted. I just remembered Greg's career as one of (almost) uninterrupted success and Ricky's as a typical great career as many other stalwarts with a few more failures along the way.

 

[Burgey]

Chappell picked and chose his tours too much for my liking, albeit that was something people seemed to do back in that era. I imagine his record would be enhanced were his WSC stats taken into account and he was a great, great player.

I think Ponting has this overall, but having had a closer look at GC's stats, his record is even better than I realized. He was some player. Overshadowed by Viv's swagger but his record is pretty amazing.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think Ponting has this overall, but having had a closer look at GC's stats, his record is even better than I realized. He was some player. Overshadowed by Viv's swagger but his record is pretty amazing.

it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Viv Richards 55.7, even though Viv was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, he had a huge series in 75/76 especially. 700 runs in six tests is crazy stuff.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, he had a huge series in 75/76 especially. 700 runs in six tests is crazy stuff.

75/76 was the series WI got smashed 5-1 wasn't it? Michael Holding admitted he didn't really know what he was doing because it was his debut series. Only came into his own in the India series later in the year. Not discounting Chappell's series, it's still great but not against as standout an attack as it seems on paper. Border's series against WI were far more impressive overall.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

it is worth noting that in the 22 five day matches from 1975 to 1980 in which they both played, Greg Chappell averaged 64.2 to Viv Richards 55.7, even though Viv was at the peak of his career and was also facing a less hostile attack.

Not really worth noting considering that before the 75/76 series Viv had played a handful of Tests, all on the sub-continent, and wasn't even established in the side, and was used as a makeshift opener, and Chappell had been playing Test Cricket for 5 years.

 

[a massive zebra]

Not really worth noting considering that before the 75/76 series Viv had played a handful of Tests, all on the sub-continent, and wasn't even established in the side, and was used as a makeshift opener, and Chappell had been playing Test Cricket for 5 years.

The early sub-continent matches to which you refer are not in the sample size I mentioned as they did not involve Greg Chappell. The period between the 1975/76 series and 1980 was statistically absolutely the pinnacle of Viv Richards career, in which he made 3,259 Test runs @ 65.18 with 10 centuries. From 1981 onwards he made 4,911 Test runs @ 44.64 with 13 centuries - a drop in average of over 20 runs in comparison to the period I quoted.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The early sub-continent matches to which you refer are not in the sample size I mentioned as they did not involve Greg Chappell. The period between the 1975/76 series and 1980 was statistically absolutely the pinnacle of Viv Richards career, in which he made 3,259 Test runs @ 65.18 with 10 centuries. From 1981 onwards he made 4,911 Test runs @ 44.64 with 13 centuries - a drop in average of over 20 runs in comparison to the period I quoted.

Obviously Chappell didn’t play in those matches. The point I was making is that Viv was a novice and unproven at Test level whereas Chappell was established as one of the top batsman in the world. So the stats comparison you made that included that 75/76 series is not a good one.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Greg Chappell for me.Little ahead of Ponting and behind Smith.3rd best Australian batsman after bradman and smith imho.

 

[Burgey]

75/76 was the series WI got smashed 5-1 wasn't it? Michael Holding admitted he didn't really know what he was doing because it was his debut series. Only came into his own in the India series later in the year. Not discounting Chappell's series, it's still great but not against as standout an attack as it seems on paper. Border's series against WI were far more impressive overall.

Sure but it was basically 1 v 2.

 

[subshakerz]

Chappell thrived in a far tougher era for batting than Ponting and ended up with a comparable if not better record.

 

[jayjay]

If the argument is that Chappell is better than Ponting because he supposedly played in a tougher era for batsmen, better for bowlers, thrived in WSC etc, all things I have read in this thread, does it also mean Chappell is better than Tendulkar and Lara? None of them batting against the great Windians or played in the WSC either.

It's a silly line of reasoning. Ponting scored more against more oppositions.

 

[Xix2565]

Ponting didn't exactly have to get his figures wrecked by the best bowling lineup of his era (McWarne & co).

 

[subshakerz]

If the argument is that Chappell is better than Ponting because he supposedly played in a tougher era for batsmen, better for bowlers, thrived in WSC etc, all things I have read in this thread, does it also mean Chappell is better than Tendulkar and Lara? None of them batting against the great Windians or played in the WSC either.

It's a silly line of reasoning. Ponting scored more against more oppositions.

Tendulkar and Lara thrived in the nineties when bowling standards were very high.

Ponting did fairly well in the nineties but his real peak coincided with the best era for batting around 2002-2006. Not saying he is a flat track bully but his record I feel is more padded than Chappell's who still ended up with better numbers. Plus Chappell was more consistent.

 

[trundler]

Tendulkar and Lara thrived in the nineties when bowling standards were very high.

Ponting did fairly well in the nineties but his real peak coincided with the best era for batting around 2002-2006. Not saying he is a flat track bully but his record I feel is more padded than Chappell's who still ended up with better numbers. Plus Chappell was more consistent.

87 Vs 168 tests ffs

Pointing until 2008 has vastly superior numbers. For the vast majority of Chappell's career (pre-quartet), bowling attacks in his era were probably worse if anything. It's not Ponting's fault that the '90s were at the very start of his career. I doubt Chappell is more consistent if we equate career lengths.

 

[jayjay]

87 Vs 168 tests ffs

Pointing until 2008 has vastly superior numbers. For the vast majority of Chappell's career (pre-quartet), bowling attacks in his era were probably worse if anything. It's not Ponting's fault that the '90s were at the very start of his career. I doubt Chappell is more consistent if we equate career lengths.

Agreed! Ponting was the top dog for a long time, competing with 2 ATG batsmen. Also, it's so weird when people automatically talk about Chappell's era as having better bowlers is also somewhat inaccurate. England didn't have better bowlers than what they had in the 00s, Pakistan's great lineup was yet to come (Khan was on the rise and Nawaz was pretty good), the less said about NZ the better and he only had one series against India and the less said about that bowling unit haha

People act as if he faced Holding and co on a daily basis.