Dudley Nourse vs Denis Compton

[MasterBlaster24]

.

 

[Johan]

Compton.

Qualitatively close but one just had an objectively better career.

 

[ankitj]

Nourse is my favourite obscure cricketer from the past.

 

[ataraxia]

Hmm, let's see. What's that? Ho, it's a failure away from home for Mr Compton!
I'll flip the page. Oh dear, a quiet series overseas.
What's this here? Golly, I do believe it's again a tragic tour.

But everywhere I gaze, one thing grabs my eye. Runs in England. Rather many of them.
I will – I must – extol his graceful and elegant strokeplay like a good Englishman.
It is my civic duty. Let me wax lyrical about August days at Lord's: it behoves me.

I must write to the MCC to ensure we move to six tests a summer.
If Mr Compton plays fewer than three in five matches at home, his average will invariably drop below 50.
I know we must keep it afloat that mark so the CricketWeb automatons will applaud him.

 

[Johan]

Hmm, let's see. What's that? Ho, it's a failure away from home for Mr Compton!
I'll flip the page. Oh dear, a quiet series overseas.
What's this here? Golly, I do believe it's again a tragic tour.

But everywhere I gaze, one thing grabs my eye. Runs in England. Rather many of them.
I will – I must – extol his graceful and elegant strokeplay like a good Englishman.
It is my civic duty. Let me wax lyrical about August days at Lord's: it behoves me.

I must write to the MCC to ensure we move to six tests a summer.
If Mr Compton plays fewer than three in five matches at home, his average will invariably drop below 50.
I know we must keep it afloat that mark so the CricketWeb automatons will applaud him.

 

[ataraxia]

It saddens me that you think I would burn the planet to humiliate you. There are some ataraxia hallmarks in that post which clearly indicate it's not AI, most notably the use of spaced en dashes rather than spaced or unspaced em dashes and starting the post with "Hmm".

 

[Johan]

It saddens me that you think I would burn the planet to humiliate you. There are some ataraxia hallmarks in that post which clearly indicate it's not AI, most notably the use of spaced en dashes rather than spaced or unspaced em dashes and starting the post with "Hmm".

Hmmm I don't believe you

 

[sayon basak]

View attachment 48764
View attachment 48763

Hey dude, please ask ChatGPT why PCl3's bond angle is greater than that of PH3.

 

[Johan]

Hey dude, please ask ChatGPT why PCl3's bond angle is greater than that of PH3.

The bond angle in PCl₃ is greater than that in PH₃ due to differences in electronegativity and lone pair–bond pair repulsion effects.


Here’s the breakdown:


1. Electronegativity difference

• Cl (3.0) is more electronegative than H (2.1).
• In PCl₃, the bonding electron pairs are pulled more toward the Cl atoms, away from the central P atom, reducing lone pair–bond pair repulsion.
• In PH₃, H is less electronegative, so the bonding pairs stay closer to P, increasing lone pair–bond pair repulsion.

This means that in PH₃, the lone pair is more "squeezed" and pushes the bonds closer together, reducing the bond angle.


2. Bond angle comparison

• PH₃ bond angle ≈ 93.5°
• PCl₃ bond angle ≈ 100.5°

This is because repulsion between lone pair and bond pairs is stronger in PH₃, compressing the H–P–H bond angles more than in PCl₃.


3. Hybridization note

While both are often described as having sp³-like geometry, PH₃ shows more pure p orbital bonding, so it’s closer to a trigonal pyramidal shape with small bond angles, due to poor hybridization.


PCl₃ exhibits slightly better hybridization and less lone pair repulsion due to the nature of Cl, leading to a wider bond angle.


Summary:

PCl₃ has a greater bond angle than PH₃ because Cl is more electronegative than H, which pulls bonding electrons away from P, reducing lone pair repulsion and thus allowing a wider bond angle.

 

[sayon basak]

The bond angle in PCl₃ is greater than that in PH₃ due to differences in electronegativity and lone pair–bond pair repulsion effects.


Here’s the breakdown:


1. Electronegativity difference

• Cl (3.0) is more electronegative than H (2.1).
• In PCl₃, the bonding electron pairs are pulled more toward the Cl atoms, away from the central P atom, reducing lone pair–bond pair repulsion.
• In PH₃, H is less electronegative, so the bonding pairs stay closer to P, increasing lone pair–bond pair repulsion.

This means that in PH₃, the lone pair is more "squeezed" and pushes the bonds closer together, reducing the bond angle.


2. Bond angle comparison

• PH₃ bond angle ≈ 93.5°
• PCl₃ bond angle ≈ 100.5°

This is because repulsion between lone pair and bond pairs is stronger in PH₃, compressing the H–P–H bond angles more than in PCl₃.


3. Hybridization note

While both are often described as having sp³-like geometry, PH₃ shows more pure p orbital bonding, so it’s closer to a trigonal pyramidal shape with small bond angles, due to poor hybridization.


PCl₃ exhibits slightly better hybridization and less lone pair repulsion due to the nature of Cl, leading to a wider bond angle.


Summary:

Why does this only compare the lp-bp repulsion? For H2O vs H2S, NF3 vs NH3 etc, bp-bp repulsion is the only one my textbook uses to explain.

 

[Johan]

Why does this only compare the lp-bp repulsion? For H2O vs H2S, NF3 vs NH3 etc, bp-bp repulsion is the only one my textbook uses to explain.

Great observation — and you're right to question the inconsistency. Let's untangle this clearly:


First: What's being compared?

When looking at bond angles in molecules with a lone pair (like PH₃, NH₃, H₂O), we're trying to understand how lone pair–bond pair (lp–bp) and bond pair–bond pair (bp–bp) repulsions distort the ideal geometry.


But here's the key reason for your confusion:

Textbooks sometimes simplify explanations by focusing on whichever repulsion dominates in that specific context.

So depending on the system (like NH₃ vs NF₃ vs PH₃ vs PCl₃), one of the repulsions — lp–bp or bp–bp — is more important, and the other is neglected for clarity.


Why lp–bp repulsion matters in PH₃ vs PCl₃:

• Both PH₃ and PCl₃ have one lone pair on phosphorus.
• The key difference is how strongly the bonding electrons are pulled toward the substituents (H vs Cl).

Because Cl is more electronegative than H, the bonding electrons are held closer to Cl in PCl₃. This means:

• Bonding pairs are farther from P
• Lone pair has more space
• Less lp–bp repulsion
• ➤ Larger bond angle

That's why we focus on lp–bp repulsion here.


Why bp–bp repulsion dominates in H₂O vs H₂S:

• Both have two lone pairs
• Electronegativity again matters: O is more electronegative than S
• So in H₂O, the bonding pairs are pulled closer to the central O, bringing bonding pairs closer to each other
• ➤ More bp–bp repulsion
• ➤ Smaller bond angle in H₂O

In this case, bonding pairs are crowding each other, so bp–bp repulsion is the major factor.


Similar example: NH₃ vs NF₃

• In NF₃, F is more electronegative, so bonding pairs are farther from N
• Less bp–bp repulsion
• ➤ Smaller bond angle than NH₃, where bonding pairs are closer and repel more
• Again, bp–bp is the focus

Final Answer:

You’re absolutely right to question why only lp–bp is considered in PH₃ vs PCl₃ while bp–bp is considered in H₂O vs H₂S and NF₃ vs NH₃.


The explanation lies in:

• What’s changing between the molecules: sometimes the lone pair’s effect dominates, sometimes the bond pair’s
• Electronegativity of the substituents
• Number of lone pairs

Different comparisons emphasize different repulsions based on what most affects the geometry in that specific case.


Want a table comparing all these cases side-by-side?