Pretty weird logic that you use longevity as a reason to pick Chappell over Viv. Consider this : Viv's terminal decline began in late 1988. At that point, he had played 14 years of international cricket and averaged 54 over 100+ tests. Greg Chappell played only 13 years of cricket with 87 tests. When Viv's career before his decline was already longer than Chappell's ENTIRE career, I can't see how people can still say longevity was a factor in Chappell's favour. It's much the same in a comparison with Ponting, who also enjoyed 12-13 years of excellent productivity but because he declined at the end, he's automatically downgraded below Chappell.
I'd agree with you if Chappell had played 17-18 years like Viv and Ponting did, but unlike them didn't decline. As he didn't do that, he gets no points over Viv and Ponting in longevity or consistency stakes.
Chappell went 1 year in his career averaging less than 40 and 4 years in his career averaging less than 50, which is just phenomenal. In terms of consistency not even Sachin can match that. In comparison Viv had 8 years averaging less than 40, and 9 less than 50, so even at his peak he still wasn't that consistent.
Yeah, longitivtiy can't be used to put Chappell above Viv, but i wasn't arguing that so i probably should of clarified my post. Sachin staying at the top for so long is the reason, is the reason i have him second to Bradman, whereas Chappell's consistency is whats nabbed him a spot ahead (just) of Viv.
Players have to be rated by the full length of there careers. Crowe averaged 55+ in his peak 10 years, but because of an average start to his career he isn't held in the same respect as Steve Waugh, when if you compared their sustained peaks. A couple of years of mediocrity at the start or end of your career, yep that can left of (most people will probably forget southees poor start) but if you play when your past your best for a decent portion of your career, then that has to impact on how you're rated as a player.
Ponting is an odd one because his decline came when his body started to fail, then much of it would probably be forgotten, but for some reason he just couldn't compete at the top for any longer. Also not being able to face his own bowlers was always going to prevent him from being respected as much as he did or didnt deserve.
Edit: forgot to mention Chappell's medical problems delaying the start of his peak
