• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Latest Comparison - Ponting or Chappell?

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
In light of Ponting's recent orgies of run-making, he's being bandied about as being superior to Greg Chappell (in terms of batsmanship, of course).

Do you agree? Do they compare in fielding and captaincy as well?
 
Last edited:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Chappell for me has the "best Australian after Bradman" spot down, for now ahead of Ponting and Waugh. Ponting is obviously pretty close to the mark though, and I think at the end of his career he might well be even better than Chappell. We'll be better able to judge when he's retired, or close to it.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
from all that i've heard from commentators (and people who have seen Chappell) and read the common trend is that Chappell is the best Australian batsman other than the Don.

But Ponting is just unstoppable these days, for me if he conquers India i honestly may rate him ahead of Chappell even before his career ends.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I know you can only play against the attacks you are faced with, but boy in terms of talent and venom the attacks Chappell succeeded against far outweigh those Ponting has belted around. That's not really an indictment on Ponting, more a very big compliment to the G man.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Greg Chappell was my boyhood hero - classically correct and all that stuff.

But Ponting is really racking up the no.s.

Unfortunately, as Ponting is an "eye" player, I believe he'll deteriorate markedly towards the end of his career. Time will tell.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Arrow said:
Ponting is facing garbage attacks. Real crap, apart from England and SA is decent.
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.

Ponting also just scored 5 centuries in 6 tests on some pretty sporting wickets against one of the two attacks you suggested is good.
 

Arrow

U19 Vice-Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
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.

Ponting also just scored 5 centuries in 6 tests on some pretty sporting wickets against one of the two attacks you suggested is good.

How isnt pakistans attack garbage? How many of their bowlers average under 30?
Just Aktar right?

India is decent i guess with Pathan and Kumble, but the only real top line attack around atm is England and Ponting didnt go to well there did he?

What good bowlers do sri lanka have?
Muri and?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Pakistan's attack at full strength would be Shoaib, Asif, Shabbir and Kaneria, and all of them average under 30 except Kaneria, who is close. Afridi is also a handy bowler, when he is in the team.

Sri Lanka have Murali and Vaas, and also Bandara who is a good young spinner. Malinga has also had a good start to his test career. All those guys except Bandara average under 30.

India have a good spin attack with Kumble and Harbhajan, and their pace attack is developing at least... Sreesanth looks like a good bowler.

South Africa have a pretty good attack with Nel, Ntini, Pollock and Boje, and Kallis is bowling better recently than he has in a long time.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
You're clutching at straws when you start mentioning Shabbir Ahmed (who is clearly out for a long time) and Bandara and Malinga.

I don't think Pakistan's attack is rubbish, but boy its nothing like what Chappell faced.
 

C_C

International Captain
players will always be judged by the level of opposition players they've faced.
Punter is a great batsman but unless he can average 60 by the end of his career, he isnt in the same bracket as the laras tendulkars and greg chappells of the world. Simply speaking, Ponting was very good but not stellar pre 2001, when bowling standards and pitch conditions were significantly more challenging.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Jono said:
You're clutching at straws when you start mentioning Shabbir Ahmed (who is clearly out for a long time) and Bandara and Malinga.

I don't think Pakistan's attack is rubbish, but boy its nothing like what Chappell faced.
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.
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
social said:
Greg Chappell was my boyhood hero - classically correct and all that stuff.

But Ponting is really racking up the no.s.

Unfortunately, as Ponting is an "eye" player, I believe he'll deteriorate markedly towards the end of his career. Time will tell.
Other than the century in his last test, Chappell had a shocking end to his career with more ducks than Steve Waugh on a hard WACA wicket (smooth
). I don't think the end of their careers should be taken into the equation, perhaps just their peaks?

Having said this, I can't fully comment as i didn't see Chappell play, but at this stage I'd take Chaps from what I've read.
 

C_C

International Captain
perhaps just their peaks?
That is a very slippery slope. For peaks need to be balanced with troughs to get an accurate impression.
Some players are utterly 'peak players' such as Botham - who did superbly for 4-5 years and then f-all after. Some players arnt peak players but are some of the greatest players of the game because of their consistency in performance - such as McGrath and Tendulkar.
If peaks are only taken, players like McGrath and Tendulkar wouldnt even feature in the top 20 list.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
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.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
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:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
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.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I made be a little biased as GSC was my batting hero when I was growing up (still not there according to the wife:laugh:) 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:)
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
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.
 

Top