Greg Chappell vs Ricky Ponting?

[burr]

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks Waugh or Border is a better player is kidding themselves. I've no doubt that both would concede in terms of runs on the board and natural talent Ponting comfortably exceeded them. Chappell I accept may be seen as better, although I think a lot of that is people's belief that to associate with and glorify past players is to assert him or her self as a knowledgeable and learned historian of the game. We ALWAYS, and particularly on this forum, reify the past. Having said that, I hear Chappell was extremely graceful, which I myself am partial to.

[Monk]

I think Chappell was a better all-round batsman, and a little more consistent than Ponting, and I think he faced slightly better bowling attacks than Ponting.

I think in full-flight, not many in history can match Ponting. But I'd take Chappell over Ponting.

I think a lot of that is people's belief that to associate with and glorify past players is to assert him or her self as a knowledgeable and learned historian of the game.

I think that in a lot of other forums people just select modern players, so it'll always be "Hayden and Langer are the best openers ever ftw", or "Tendulkar has made 1,000,000,000 runs, so he's the best batsman ever". I like the fact that there is a good balance in this forum, and that people take the time to investigate the players from other eras, and critique them on evidence available against modern players (as tedious as it sometimes gets ) As is currently happening between a few posters on the topic of Larwood.

[MrPrez]

I think that in a lot of other forums people just select modern players, so it'll always be "Hayden and Langer are the best openers ever ftw", or "Tendulkar has made 1,000,000,000 runs, so he's the best batsman ever". I like the fact that there is a good balance in this forum, and that people take the time to investigate the players from other eras, and critique them on evidence available against modern players (as tedious as it sometimes gets ) As is currently happening between a few posters on the topic of Larwood.

It's definitely good that people consider older players. However, I agree with him on the point that there tends to be a definite bias towards rating older players above what they deserve. Ironically, Larwood is a great example.

Lots of olden players with poor stats have their value beefed up by olden-cricket-romantics due to their being "amazing players to watch." So was Herschelle Gibbs, for example, but you won't see anyone beefing up his reputation due to it.

[8ankitj]

Yeah, there is lot of romanticizing of past on this forum.

[L Trumper]

I think Chappell was a better all-round batsman, and a little more consistent than Ponting, and I think he faced slightly better bowling attacks than Ponting.

I think in full-flight, not many in history can match Ponting. But I'd take Chappell over Ponting.



I think that in a lot of other forums people just select modern players, so it'll always be "Hayden and Langer are the best openers ever ftw", or "Tendulkar has made 1,000,000,000 runs, so he's the best batsman ever". I like the fact that there is a good balance in this forum, and that people take the time to investigate the players from other eras, and critique them on evidence available against modern players (as tedious as it sometimes gets ) As is currently happening between a few posters on the topic of Larwood.

I am imagining all this in Al Swearengen's voice. Need more **********s in the content.