Viv Richards v Greg Chappell

[Craig]

Who was the better batsman?

 

[archie mac]

Very close but "If you had watched them both live"

 

[Richard]

... then you might judge on factors other than batsmanship.

Seriously - I'd have no real quip with either being put ahead. Chappell was much better for much longer than Richards, but Richards touched peaks (and not just for 3 or 4 Tests - 25 in 2 different spells) Chappell could not come close to. Peaks only one other could manage (and, indeed, exceed).

Tend to value the presence of a Chappell more than a Richards myself, but many would differ.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This poll is no contest, but what happened to the Michael Atherton/Gary Kirsten poll that was here about half an hour ago?

 

[pasag]

This poll is no contest, but what happened to the Michael Atherton/Gary Kirsten poll that was here about half an hour ago?

Craig deleted it. Was actually going to a Warwick Armstrong vs Jacques Kallis poll up just before, but I reckon people are getting a bit sick of them.

 

[Richard]

Atherton vs Kirsten would actually be quite interesting and one I'm really not sure which way I'd go. Armstrong vs Kallis though TBH I don't know how much they have in common.

Player-vs-player is IMO always interesting if they have a decent bit in common.

 

[pasag]

Armstrong vs Kallis though TBH I don't know how much they have in common.

Pretty much the exact same player, itbt.

 

[gettingbetter]

Was thinking about M. Morkel v Johnson battle.

 

[Richard]

Pretty much the exact same player, itbt.

Meh I know next to nothing about Armstrong the batsman, merely that he was one of the most successful captains ever.

 

[Richard]

Was thinking about M. Mørkel v Johnson battle.

As with the Steyn-Sharma thingy, different kind of "vs" thread. This is, and most tend to be, about judging what has gone. Morne Morkel vs Johnson would be more about predicting what is to come.

Both interesting of course, but in very different ways.

 

[masterblaster]

Got to give the vote to Viv Richards. Everything from the aggression to the charisma and that unstoppable era of West Indies cricket brings back great memories. Wonderful to watch any time he played.

 

[Goughy]

I accept that it is possible that I undervalue Chappell. That may have caused a controversial decision if this was against most other top players.

However, my rating of Chappell isnt really relevant as Richards is, IMO, ahead of all but a few batsmen in history.

A clear vote for Richards here.

 

[DaRick]

Hmm...the era of Viv Richards and Greg Chappell did correlate, although Richards certainly had the longer career (1974-1991 opposing 1970-1984). That being said, the era itself is not my area of expertise, so I can only go by what I heard.

From what I heard, Viv was a real swashbuckler. He was as infamous for his ODI exploits, if not more so, than his Test exploits. Not only does he have the record for the fastest Test hundred, but his descendants, such as Adam Gilchrist, still spoke of his achievements - such as his ex-MCG record of 153* in 1979, where "he belted Australia from midwicket to deep cover". Gilchrist also said that Viv had "an air of invincibility and absolute certainly that he was about to wreak havoc".

However, Greg Chappell apparently possessed a lot more finesse than Viv Richards. Also, while Richards' impact on proceedings was often diluted by the presence of Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes and even Roy Fredericks at the top of the order (which may've actually boosted his Test/ODI bowlers due to the demoralisation of bowlers), the same could not be said of Chappell (blokes like Ian Davis, Alan Turner and John Dyson batted before him). Also, while Chappell succeeded against everybody he faced up with (he averaged at least 45 against any given country, a terrific achievement, even then), Richards spent much of his career bashing an England attack which was good at times and quite risible at others - he averaged <45 against Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan.

So, as a Test batsman, I'd not hestitate to pick Chappell, if only for his consistency. The opposite applies in the case of ODI's - I have no reason to believe that Chappell was at Richards' level - he lacks his...um...notoriety in that format, for one thing.

Since each was better at one format than the other, I'm gonna go for Brad Haddin.

 

[Sanz]

No Contest.

 

[Ikki]

Don't agree with the "No Contest" appraisals but I do think Richards as the greatest bar batsman so it is obvious who I will vote for.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Don't agree with the "No Contest" appraisals but I do think Richards as the greatest bar batsman so it is obvious who I will vote for.

The term "No contest" doesn't mean that Chappell wasn't a great player, he and Gavaskar from that era are the only ones who should be used in the same paragraph but they not of the same quality as Richards. Any comparison poll involving Richards is a "no contest".

 

[silentstriker]

I always loved watching Chappell innings, so went with my heart.

 

[Anil]

viv for me although chappell was also a magnificent player...

 

[Slifer]

Chappell for me. Did insanely well against all when pace bowling was at its best. Including WSC where he took apart some of the best pace attacks of all time

 

[JBH001]

Chappell for me.