Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 135

Thread: The Latest Comparison - Ponting or Chappell?

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    Pakistan's attack isn't "garbage", neither is India's, and indeed neither is Sri Lanka's. The West Indies and New Zealand aren't much at the moment, sure, but the rest aren't bad.
    Really?
    Pakistan's attack in 2004\05 certainly was pretty close to being garbage. India's certainly is away from home, too.
    Ponting also just scored 5 centuries in 6 tests on some pretty sporting wickets against one of the two attacks you suggested is good.
    With about a million let-offs.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,510
    chappell well ahead of ponting....numbers just don't tell the whole story....ponting has feasted on weakened attacks better than anyone in this era of flat tracks and is certainly an exceptional player against fast bowling but he is definitely not at chappell's level, chappell is clear no: 2 after bradman as far as australian batting goes, in my list, i would rank both border and waugh above ponting as well....
    Last edited by Anil; 18-04-2006 at 05:16 PM.

  3. #18
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    I'm simply indicating that the attacks aren't crap. Bowling strength in the world today isn't what it was in the 90s, but people vastly overestimate the drop in class all the time, and use all sorts of insane hyperbole to back it up. Every attack in the world is garbage except for England? Give me a break. Every period in test history has poor bowlers, great bowlers, average bowlers and everything else, and every batsman makes more runs against the crappy ones than the good ones. People automatically assume that because a player played in an era of more difficult bowlers means they proved themselves more, but it's not necessarily true. It's like assuming that because Gavaskar and Ian Chappell made lots of runs against the West Indies means they had the best of the great West Indies bowlers from around the same time, which isn't entirely accurate.

    I'll give a crude example using Chappell to add some substance to the debate. Arrow used the "30 average" barrier to seperate "good" bowlers from poor ones. Seems fair enough, right? So how many times did Chappell make big runs against attacks including several bowlers averaging under 30? I'll use career averages and at least 100 wickets to make it simpler.


    Centuries against attacks including 4 "good" bowlers
    West Indies, Brisbane 1979 - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Colin Croft (23.30), Joel Garner (20.98)

    Centuries against attacks including 3 "good" bowlers
    England, MCG 1975 - Chris Old (28.11), Geoff Arnold (28.30), Derek Underwood (25.84)
    West Indies, Brisbane 1975 (both innings) - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Lance Gibbs (29.09)
    West Indies, SCG 1976 - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Lance Gibbs (29.09)
    England, Old Trafford 1977 - Bob Willis (25.20), Chris Old (28.11), Derek Underwood (25.84)
    England, MCG 1980 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20), Derek Underwood (25.84)

    Centuries against attacks including 2 "good" bowlers
    England, The Oval 1972 - Geoff Arnold (28.30) and John Snow (26.67)
    England, SCG 1974 - Bob Willis (25.20) and Geoff Arnold (28.30)
    Pakistan, MCG 1977 - Imran Khan (22.81), Iqbal Qasim (28.11)
    England, WACA 1982 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20)
    England, Adelaide 1982 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20)



    Now, Chappell scored 24 centuries in his career. If you rate all the attacks with 3 or more bowlers averaging under 30 as good ones, 7 of them came against good attacks, while a full 12 came against attacks that were simply crap by the standard given. By that same criteria, right now Australia, England, South Africa and Pakistan would probably have good attacks, while India and Sri Lanka would fall in the middle with 2 good bowlers.

    If you look at the names as well, the likes of Geoff Arnold and Derek Underwood (on a normal wicket) don't exactly inspire massive fear. Greg Chappell obviously played some brilliant innings against great bowlers. He scored a century against one of the best attacks of all time in 1979, one in each innings against Holding and Roberts in 75, and also faced Botham and Willis at their best in the early 80s with success, and made runs against Hadlee and Imran with their weak support too. However, the assumption that because he played in the same era as Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Botham etc and still had a good average means that he scored heaps against all of them and faced awesome attacks every time he made runs is false. Like Ponting, his career crossed with some great bowlers, and sometimes he faced them and did well, but a lot of the time he made runs against the weaker bowlers around, because they were easier to make runs off. If you did a similar study on Ponting you'd probably get about the same result.
    The simple fact of the matter is that Ponting in the time when he faced roughly the calibre of bowling that Chappell did averaged about 10 less.
    What you say is perfectly true, but as I've said often anyone scoring heaps of runs in the 1930s and 2000s can't really be taken all that seriously, because run-scoring was so, so easy in comparison to most other points in history.
    At any time you can have some good times and some easy times. However, in the 1930s and 2000s to date most times you went to the crease it was likely that run-scoring was not going to be especially hard.
    Hence, quite a few very good players (Ponting, Laxman, Kallis, Martyn, Gilchrist) have ended-up looking like all-time top-tier players.

  4. #19
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    I made be a little biased as GSC was my batting hero when I was growing up (still not there according to the wife) for most of his career Chappell averaged 54+ but in the end it dropped to 53+.

    Style wise I would give it to Chappell hands down, run scoring ability nothing between them.

    So Chappell just for me because of aesthetic reasons
    You know it makes sense.


  5. #20
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    At any time you can have some good times and some easy times. However, in the 1930s and 2000s to date most times you went to the crease it was likely that run-scoring was not going to be especially hard.
    Hence, quite a few very good players (Ponting, Laxman, Kallis, Martyn, Gilchrist) have ended-up looking like all-time top-tier players.
    Maybe the 1930s, but it can't be that easy now that it was then surely. It think you are being a bit harsh on these blokes.

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Why on Earth can't it be that easy now?
    Is it so difficult to believe that the current age is one of an especially low standard?
    In both decades, pitches tended to be exceptionally flat and there were few particularly good bowlers around.

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Why on Earth can't it be that easy now?
    Is it so difficult to believe that the current age is one of an especially low standard?
    In both decades, pitches tended to be exceptionally flat and there were few particularly good bowlers around.
    Explain to me how the current bowling stocks in world cricket are significantly weaker than in, say, the 50s. In the 50s, aside from England, most attacks were fairly weak, particularly after Miller declined and before Davidson and Benaud arrived on the scene. Current bowling stocks are weak compared to the 90s or the 70s, sure, but not compared to most of the rest of cricket history.
    It's cold on the outside they say
    But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Hugh Tayfield on uncovered wickets was such a poor bowler, wasn't he? Neil Adcock was dreadful? Peter Haine and Trevor Goddard were poor?
    Ray Lindwall was still a pretty damn good bowler until about 1955, too. In any case, Miller hardly experienced much of a decline - he was still a fine bowler into his final series. Benaud and Davidson, incidentally, both emerged at the start of the decade, and were pretty good pretty much from the start of their careers.
    The back half saw the emergence of Hall, Sobers and Gibbs - who were such poor bowlers, weren't they? Before that, there was Ramadhin and Valentine.
    India had Subhush Gupte if not much else.
    Not to mention the fact that pitches-wise the 1950s was probably the least batsman-friendly decade since the 1930 revolution.

  9. #24
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    Hugh Tayfield on uncovered wickets was such a poor bowler, wasn't he? Neil Adcock was dreadful? Peter Haine and Trevor Goddard were poor?
    Nope - poor strokes were employed by inept batsmen.

    The back half saw the emergence of Hall, Sobers and Gibbs - who were such poor bowlers, weren't they?
    Again, it was all luck and uncovered pitches. You give the batsmen far too much credit.

    Not to mention the fact that pitches-wise the 1950s was probably the least batsman-friendly decade since the 1930 revolution.
    In that case, Hassett, Morris, Weekes and May are better batsmen than those of any age. I repeat, ANY AGE.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy
    Nope - poor strokes were employed by inept batsmen.
    Of course, you'd know that, having seen so much of Tayfield's bowling, wouldn't you?
    Again, it was all luck and uncovered pitches. You give the batsmen far too much credit.
    1, The batsmen, I'm sorry?
    2, how in the blue blazes do uncovered pitches unduly affect seamers like Hall.
    3, incidentally, the fact that uncovered pitches were about, and allowed the like of Tayfield\early-Gibbs (who'd just be average Joes\Gileses\Vettoris\Tufnells in this day-and-age) to be high-class bowlers was considered by many to make cricket a better, more diverse game. Not saying I agree with these sentiments, but certainly uncovered pitches are just the way things were then, and as such fingerspinners in those days WERE good bowlers, unlike today outside the subcontinent.
    In that case, Hassett, Morris, Weekes and May are better batsmen than those of any age. I repeat, ANY AGE.
    Err, just because the 50s was a time where batting was often difficult doesn't mean batsmen who did well then can be classified as such.


    YES, I KNOW THIS POST WAS MADE WITH A HUMOROUS INTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ACTUALLY FOUND IT EXTREMELY FUNNY MYSELF, ESPECIALLY IN COMBINATION WITH THE AVATAR.

  11. #26
    International Regular JBH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hugh Tayfield on uncovered wickets was such a poor bowler, wasn't he? Neil Adcock was dreadful? Peter Haine and Trevor Goddard were poor?
    Ray Lindwall was still a pretty damn good bowler until about 1955, too. In any case, Miller hardly experienced much of a decline - he was still a fine bowler into his final series. Benaud and Davidson, incidentally, both emerged at the start of the decade, and were pretty good pretty much from the start of their careers.
    The back half saw the emergence of Hall, Sobers and Gibbs - who were such poor bowlers, weren't they? Before that, there was Ramadhin and Valentine.
    India had Subhush Gupte if not much else.
    Not to mention the fact that pitches-wise the 1950s was probably the least batsman-friendly decade since the 1930 revolution.
    What about Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Laker, Lock, Loader etc.
    Even Alec Bedser went alright until the 1954-55 series (damn shingles).

    Though the less said about those foot dragging Australian chuckers the better.

  12. #27
    International Regular JBH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy
    In that case, Hassett, Morris, Weekes and May are better batsmen than those of any age. I repeat, ANY AGE.
    Morris is perhaps the finest of Australian opening batsman.
    Weekes would have a lot going for him to step into an All Time WI XI.
    As for PBH May, he is probably the finest English batsman since WW 2.
    (Not including Hutton whose career began pre WW2)

  13. #28
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Why on Earth can't it be that easy now?
    Is it so difficult to believe that the current age is one of an especially low standard?
    In both decades, pitches tended to be exceptionally flat and there were few particularly good bowlers around.
    One of the reason they probably weren't many good bowlers around in the 1930s is because only Aus & Eng were strong and both sides had some top bowlers then, so this argument is a bit flawed..

  14. #29
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23,883
    It's a bit rough to say that Ponting isn't as good because he didn't play against the same calibre of bowlers, as it's hardly his fault. His average is almost 5 runs higher than Chappell's (8%, if you were interested), so surely that would at the very least make up for the differences in bowling attacks.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  15. #30
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by andyc
    It's a bit rough to say that Ponting isn't as good because he didn't play against the same calibre of bowlers, as it's hardly his fault. His average is almost 5 runs higher than Chappell's (8%, if you were interested), so surely that would at the very least make up for the differences in bowling attacks.
    Not necessarily.
    I dont think players like Hayden,Ponting, Kallis, etc. would be averaging 50+ if they played in the 70s/80s or even much of the 90s.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 28-10-2011, 12:59 PM
  2. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  3. Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting
    By sirjeremy11 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 24-02-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. Chappell Wants Ganguly Out - Emails BCCI.
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27-09-2005, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •