Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Far out, this is a tough one. Do you go for the consistency of Chappell or the one Bradman-esque period in Viv's? Chappell also had an outstanding WSC averaging about 69 and against those players, numbers like those demand respect even if they don't officially count. Against spin, Chappell was rated as less effective by his brother Ian because his outstanding but ultimately rigid technique hampered him in some ways. He said on raging turners, sometimes you have to sacrifice correct technique to be effective. Even then, though, he was a very good player of spin. Same with swinging conditions and, again, Chappell's record takes a hit in England, averaging 10+ runs less.
I guess it depends on what you value; Greg Chappell was very successful playing within the parameters of established technique as he had been taught whereas Viv was an innovator and changed established technique and the way others played even as people emulated some of the techniques he used and his style of play. Reminds me of the old saying; "Talent hits the target no-one else can, genius hits the target no-one else saw." Viv's numbers post-70's might have been lesser than he would have liked but then, when you're constantly trying risky things no-one else would dare, there are going to be lulls and, conversely, Chappell's technique stood him in good stead in his late career when reflexes, eyes and intensity started to wane. Both were sensational fielders (Viv better on the ground, Chappell a better catcher), both were good on most wickets, both did well under pressure, both were the outstanding batsman in successful teams.
Okay enough fence-sitting, I'm plumping for Chappell but it's a personal thing; innovation is necessary of course (techniques are merely a product of trial-and-error, not set in stone) but I value effectiveness and consistency over a period of time a little bit more. Enjoyed watching Viv more, though.
I guess it depends on what you value; Greg Chappell was very successful playing within the parameters of established technique as he had been taught whereas Viv was an innovator and changed established technique and the way others played even as people emulated some of the techniques he used and his style of play. Reminds me of the old saying; "Talent hits the target no-one else can, genius hits the target no-one else saw." Viv's numbers post-70's might have been lesser than he would have liked but then, when you're constantly trying risky things no-one else would dare, there are going to be lulls and, conversely, Chappell's technique stood him in good stead in his late career when reflexes, eyes and intensity started to wane. Both were sensational fielders (Viv better on the ground, Chappell a better catcher), both were good on most wickets, both did well under pressure, both were the outstanding batsman in successful teams.
Okay enough fence-sitting, I'm plumping for Chappell but it's a personal thing; innovation is necessary of course (techniques are merely a product of trial-and-error, not set in stone) but I value effectiveness and consistency over a period of time a little bit more. Enjoyed watching Viv more, though.
