Greg Chappell - just how good do people think he was?

[C_C]

Modern players going back in time stand a far better chance at adapting than the opposite - simply because modern players are professionals and used to far more competetive and pressure situations.

 

[C_C]

Croft (the fiercest of the lot and whose career was terminated by back injury not form)

Didnt Croft, Clarke and Daniel throw away their careers by going to rebel tours of South Africa ?

IMO, the most underrated Windian of that era is Alvin Kallicharan. He is seen as a good batsman but IMO, he was a great batsman in the same bracket as the Chappells, Richards and Tendulkars of this world. Tis a pity that his right shoulder died on him and his average plunged from 50 to 44 or so in the space of a couple of years or so.

 

[Swervy]

Didnt Croft, Clarke and Daniel throw away their careers by going to rebel tours of South Africa ?

IMO, the most underrated Windian of that era is Alvin Kallicharan. He is seen as a good batsman but IMO, he was a great batsman in the same bracket as the Chappells, Richards and Tendulkars of this world. Tis a pity that his right shoulder died on him and his average plunged from 50 to 44 or so in the space of a couple of years or so.

It is a testement to that West Indian 'team' (between 75 and 88) that they actually lost a lot of players through one thing or another and still managed to stay at the top (Lawrence Rowe springs to mind, Kallicharan, the fact they didnt really miss a player of skill is astonishing really)

I just really wish they could finfd the same talent now.

 

[thierry henry]

Any 4 combined were the mose awesome pace lineup in history (particularly when umlimited bouncers and no mimimum overs were in place) and made the 90s look like school boys

my god, what rank dribble. I expect better from you social.

 

[archie mac]

Didnt Croft, Clarke and Daniel throw away their careers by going to rebel tours of South Africa ?

IMO, the most underrated Windian of that era is Alvin Kallicharan. He is seen as a good batsman but IMO, he was a great batsman in the same bracket as the Chappells, Richards and Tendulkars of this world. Tis a pity that his right shoulder died on him and his average plunged from 50 to 44 or so in the space of a couple of years or so.

He was a fine batsman, but not in the class of GSC, Viv or Tendulkar

 

[archie mac]

Modern players going back in time stand a far better chance at adapting than the opposite - simply because modern players are professionals and used to far more competetive and pressure situations.

Not that simple, a players temperment would be more of a factor, they played Tests to packed grounds in the 30s, and a lot of the matches were contested betweed two very evenly matched teams. (Eng V Aust.)

 

[Fusion]

Says who...Given the same facilities, I have no doubt in mind that they would be equally competitive.

But we are not talking of them being born in this era and growing up, we are asking if we transport them as adults. Because the other way of looking at it 'give them the same training' is completely ludicrous as we have NO CLUE what that would do. Maybe it would burn them out, maybe the new coaching would force them to change their basic techniques and render them useless, or a million other things.

You can only judge the final product.

If we are talking about simply "transporting" players to the past/future, then IMO the modern players would dominate. Generally speaking, they are bigger, faster, stronger, and frankly more knowledgeable about cricketing techniques. There can always be exceptions, but by and large I wouldn't expect the past players to hold their own against the modern players. However, like Sanz mentioned, if a player from the past was born in the modern era, grew up and learned the same techniques/methods as today's players, then I believe there is a good chance he would excel if he's got talent. He may not dominate like he did in the past, but he wouldn't get dominated either.

 

[Sanz]

Didnt Croft, Clarke and Daniel throw away their careers by going to rebel tours of South Africa ?

IMO, the most underrated Windian of that era is Alvin Kallicharan. He is seen as a good batsman but IMO, he was a great batsman in the same bracket as the Chappells, Richards and Tendulkars of this world. Tis a pity that his right shoulder died on him and his average plunged from 50 to 44 or so in the space of a couple of years or so.

On what basis you say that Kalicharan was a batsman in the class of Chappell, Richards and Tendulkar ? It's similar to the claims that Barry Richards was next best batsman after sir Don.

Sorry..Kalli was good but not in the class of Chappels/Richards of this world. I dont think he is in my top 10 WI batsmen list. My top 10-11 list would be :-

3 Ws, Richards, Sobers, Kanhai, Headly, Lara, Lloyd, Chanderpaul & Greenidge. Then there will be guys like Kallicharan, Roy Fredricks, Hayens, Richardson etc.

 

[C_C]

He was a fine batsman, but not in the class of GSC, Viv or Tendulkar

I beg to differ. Kalli before his right shoulder just failed on him, was every bit as good as those names mentioned and he has some stunning performances to back that up.

 

[C_C]

I dont think he is in my top 10 WI batsmen list.

He is, very very easily, as good as anyone from the caribbean before his shoulder died on him.

Ie, Kalli = Ian Bishop of Windies batting. Could've been greater than even Viv or Lara (just like Bish could've been better than Ambrose) if it wernt for his injury.

 

[Sanz]

If we are talking about simply "transporting" players to the past/future, then IMO the modern players would dominate. Generally speaking, they are bigger, faster, stronger, and frankly more knowledgeable about cricketing techniques. There can always be exceptions, but by and large I wouldn't expect the past players to hold their own against the modern players. However, like Sanz mentioned, if a player from the past was born in the modern era, grew up and learned the same techniques/methods as today's players, then I believe there is a good chance he would excel if he's got talent. He may not dominate like he did in the past, but he wouldn't get dominated either.

Infact I have my doubts about that as well. I would like a Carl Lewis to run on the tracks of 1939, I am pretty sure he wont be much ahead of Jesse Owens. And I am not trying to deginerate Carl Lewis in anyway because he is my fav. sportsman. How many people have been able to break Bob Beamen's long Jump record? If today's athletes are so good then how come only one person in last 40 years has been able to top that..Infact his Olympic record is still standing.

 

[social]

my god, what rank dribble. I expect better from you social.

In the 90s , you had Ambrose (all-time great), Walsh (one time test record holder but not generally not considered to be in class of Ambrose and earlier greats), Bishop (past 92, was a shadow of former self due to back injuries), and a support crew of the Benjamins, etc

Pre Bishops back injury, ie '92, they obviously has 3 very fine fast bowlers and as good as most combinations despite the lack of a quality 4th.

Other than that, you could draw 4 names out of the earlier generation's hat and they beat every combination of the 90s hands down

 

[Fusion]

Infact I have my doubts about that as well. I would like a Carl Lewis to run on the tracks of 1939, I am pretty sure he wont be much ahead of Jesse Owens. And I am not trying to deginerate Carl Lewis in anyway because he is my fav. sportsman. How many people have been able to break Bob Beamen's long Jump record? If today's athletes are so good then how come only one person in last 40 years has been able to top that..Infact his Olympic record is still standing.

Well like I mentioned, there will always be exceptions. However, even if you look at Olympics, most records have been made in modern times. So generally speaking, a modern player IMO is better suited to take on an older era player (as long as we're talking about our "transporting players as is" condition).

 

[Sanz]

He is, very very easily, as good as anyone from the caribbean before his shoulder died on him.

Ie, Kalli = Ian Bishop of Windies batting. Could've been greater than even Viv or Lara (just like Bish could've been better than Ambrose) if it wernt for his injury.

Could have been doesn't mean would have been.

 

[C_C]

Could have been doesn't mean would have been.

True. But Kalli, unlike the rest, had sufficient matches where he proved himself to be top bracket and only an injury halted his progress.

 

[Sanz]

True. But Kalli, unlike the rest, had sufficient matches where he proved himself to be top bracket and only an injury halted his progress.

Not really. I think you are exaggerating his injury part. Kallicharran had a pretty successful comeback from Injury in the late 70s and If I am not mistaken he played county Cricket for a couple of years in the 80s and was one of the highest run scorers.

 

[C_C]

Not really. I think you are exaggerating his injury part. Kallicharran had a pretty successful comeback from Injury in the late 70s and If I am not mistaken he played county Cricket for a couple of years in the 80s and was one of the highest run scorers.

Err no. Kalli bolloxed up his shoulder in mid 1979. After which his career just died.
He messed up his shoulder right before the NZ tour in 79/80 - initially dislocated it during practice but it wasn't put back in place properly and he had serious inflammation and swelling. By the time he got back to the Caribbean and went to Florida for a checkup, his shoulder had calcified significantly and rotor cuff was damaged beyond repair.

Kalli's career before NZ tour :

52 tests, 88 innings, 9 not outs, 3917 runs @ 49.58, 11x100, 20x50

Kalli from NZ tour (shoulder injury):

13 tests, 20 innings, 1 not out, 443 runs @ 23.31, 1x100, 1x50

Clearly, 50 tests is a good enough sample space for comparison and for bulk of his career he was in the Lara-Tendulkar-Viv-Chappell zone. He ranks a little behind them because afterall, they did achieve more but Kalli was very much in the same bracket. It is also worth mentioning that when Kalli suffered his injury, there were only four batsmen who had similar/better average than Kalli : Viv, Gavaskar, GSC and Mom-n-dad.

 

[Richard]

Quoting Social"

Apart from the fact that those 3 (Imran, Sarfraz & Qadir) were never at their peak at the same time, even if they had been it'd not be an attack to match Waqar, Wasim and Mushtaq.

Wasim = legend, one of the most talented cricketers in years.
Mushtaq = good on his day, not a patch on Warne or Kumble. Fine wrong'un though.
Waqar = rarely has a more over-rated bowler visited anitpodean shores. Hardly ever broke into a sweat here, let alone broke the back of a batting line up. Always saw wonderful footage of him bowling superbly overseas, but he must have left it at customs because he did diddly out here.

Yer were quoting me, pal...

Waqar did little anywhere from 1994 onwards - it just happens to be unfortunate that he never went to Australia in the first 5 years of his career.

In the early 1990s, he, Wasim and Mushtaq were a better attack than Safraz, Imran and Qadir were. Mushtaq certainly was a patch on anyone for a time, but the trouble was he was also very poor in the 1st and 3rd thirds of his career.

 

[archie mac]

Err no. Kalli bolloxed up his shoulder in mid 1979. After which his career just died.
He messed up his shoulder right before the NZ tour in 79/80 - initially dislocated it during practice but it wasn't put back in place properly and he had serious inflammation and swelling. By the time he got back to the Caribbean and went to Florida for a checkup, his shoulder had calcified significantly and rotor cuff was damaged beyond repair.

Kalli's career before NZ tour :

52 tests, 88 innings, 9 not outs, 3917 runs @ 49.58, 11x100, 20x50

Kalli from NZ tour (shoulder injury):

13 tests, 20 innings, 1 not out, 443 runs @ 23.31, 1x100, 1x50

Clearly, 50 tests is a good enough sample space for comparison and for bulk of his career he was in the Lara-Tendulkar-Viv-Chappell zone. He ranks a little behind them because afterall, they did achieve more but Kalli was very much in the same bracket.

Just from memory so maybe wrong, but I don't think Kalli played in the Packer matches, so for a couple of years he would have played against some very average teams/players. I watched him a fair bit, and never thought him close to Viv or GSC or Gavaskar or Miandad for that matter. Still a fine player, but not one of the greats from his or any era for mine

 

[Richard]

It comes down to whether you are simply a stickler for orthodoxy or not. You paint the picture as though the cricketing establishment of the time was some sacred cow that couldn't do wrong, and then Packer came along and made a mockery of everything. The entire thing happened because the players felt they were being screwed out of the profits by the governing body (and the boards) in spite of the fact that they were the main attraction. If it was good enough for a man like Richie Benaud to support, it's good enough for me.

But besides that, I think that particular players of that era are a bit shortchanged when it comes to their records against some pretty amazing competition. It seems there are very few reasons outside of bitterness and rigid stuffiness to exclude those records, and very good reasons to include them, if the object of the statistics is to give some kind of accurate indication as to a player's career/worth in a five day test format.

There's no good reason to compartmentalise games which were played under a private entrepreneur with Test-cricket.

I'm not saying the players were wrong to want more money (that wasn't why it came about though, and you know it - you really, really have an inflated opinion of Kerry Packer, the archetype of the self-centred media moghul, if you think he cared about improving the lives of the players of the time - he organised WSC because the ACB refused to grant him coverage to Test-cricket, and had they granted in 1975 it'd never have happened at all), I've never blamed those who signed-up (and nor did any of their contemporaries - Knott and Underwood were welcomed back with open arms).

The game of cricket would, as everyone knows, be better off had Kerry Packer not inherited Nine in my estimation.