Punter or Chappellg as second Aussie to Bradman

With Punter's form under scrutiny there's much discussion of him in the papers and often accompanied by "Australia's second best batsman after Bradman" as if it's fact, not opinion. Surely it's the latter as despite his stellar career, his status in that elevated position must still be open to question.

As they say, comparisons are odious but Chappellg would probably be the only other candidate. In my opinion he's as worthy as Punter to be considered as the next best after Bradman but obviously many will beg to differ. For what it's worth here is what I believe are the merits of each case.

Case for Punter
Much higher aggregate runs
Played more tests
Perceived perhaps to be more aggressive and a matchwinner
Combative and pugnacious
Highly rated by opponents and universally regarded as one of the top batsmen in his era
Great range of shots
Batted at #3 for most of his career
Batted well while captaining his team

Case againstTechnically flawed early leaves him vulnerable in particular to the swinging ball
While coming in at #3 has largely followed productive openers who've taken the shine off the ball
Played in an era when it wasn't uncommon to average 50+
Played in an era with more batsmen-friendly pitches, roped in boundaries and bigger bats
Played against super minnows

Case for Chappellg
Considered technically brilliant, played early within the 'V' and had upright, still stance
Averaged 50+ in an era when it was rare
Played on pitches on average which were slightly more bowler-friendly
On average faced a much stronger Windies team
Largely played sans helmet, no tests against Zim. or Bang., only one against Sri Lanka
Mainly batted at #3 or 4 but followed unstable opening partnerships by and large
Record would have been better had WSC (in his prime) and Rest of the World series been included in averages
Rated by for e.g. Sir Richard as superior to Sir Viv and AB and he best he bowled to
Could dominate an attack

Case against
Never played in India
Never played against South Africa
Didn't tour as often as Punter
Played fewer tests and made fewer runs
Inferior longevity

Of course there are other factors to consider but they're the ones which quickly came to mind

What do others think?

[Most Strines] AB [/Most Strines]

Having not seen Chappell live or on TV live, it's hard to have a well formed opinion, but having read plenty, it seems to me that Chappell prospered against really good bowling moreso than Ponting.

Chappell.

Well to be honest, i've always thought Ponting was overrated. I've never seen a 'great' batsman with so many technical deficiencies as him. Cashed in BIG time between 2002 and 2007 at the height of the era of flat as f*ck pitches, and complete w*nk bowling attacks.

Even when he was averaging a whole 7 runs more than BCL, and 5 runs more than SRT, it was almost universally agreed that he wasn't as good as them. I actually think Mike Hussey might be better than Ponting.

Greg Chappell has been the best Aussie batsman since Bradman, followed by Allan Border.

Henry wrote:Well to be honest, i've always thought Ponting was overrated. I've never seen a 'great' batsman with so many technical deficiencies as him. Cashed in BIG time between 2002 and 2007 at the height of the era of flat as f*ck pitches, and complete w*nk bowling attacks. Even when he was averaging a whole 7 runs more than BCL, and 5 runs more than SRT, it was almost universally agreed that he wasn't as good as them. I actually think Mike Hussey might be better than Ponting.

Greg Chappell has been the best Aussie batsman since Bradman, followed by Allan Border.

That really addresses my point about the technical flaws. You wonder how he would have coped if there was a steady stream of bowlers who could have exploited them. In his first incarnation at #3 as a youngster he was exploited big time by the Windies but when he returned their dominant era was largely over. Of course recently the point has been made that had DRS been around longer, he probably would have been out LBW more because the umpires have largely assumed that a lot of the balls would have been going down leg. Even before it Channel Nine often highlighted how Hawkeye had the ball hitting the stumps.

Chappell always seemed masterful, to me. I mean, his beautiful strokes to lively bowling are brilliant to watch... it's hard with just highlights really.

Around 05/06 on C4, I remember so many of the Australian gentry saying Ponting was the 2nd best EVER batsman behind the Don. I pointed out his lesser success against decent bowling and was told that it was his youth that caused it. I was never sure.

Henry wrote:Well to be honest, i've always thought Ponting was overrated. I've never seen a 'great' batsman with so many technical deficiencies as him. Cashed in BIG time between 2002 and 2007 at the height of the era of flat as f*ck pitches, and complete w*nk bowling attacks.

Even when he was averaging a whole 7 runs more than BCL, and 5 runs more than SRT, it was almost universally agreed that he wasn't as good as them. I actually think Mike Hussey might be better than Ponting.

Greg Chappell has been the best Aussie batsman since Bradman, followed by Allan Border.

I'd agree with this. I remember during the 2005 ashes I was terrified that he would be picked, they would have won if he had been I reckon.

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Well to be honest, i've always thought Ponting was overrated. I've never seen a 'great' batsman with so many technical deficiencies as him. Cashed in BIG time between 2002 and 2007 at the height of the era of flat as f*ck pitches, and complete w*nk bowling attacks.

Even when he was averaging a whole 7 runs more than BCL, and 5 runs more than SRT, it was almost universally agreed that he wasn't as good as them. I actually think Mike Hussey might be better than Ponting.

Greg Chappell has been the best Aussie batsman since Bradman, followed by Allan Border.

I'd agree with this. I remember during the 2005 ashes I was terrified that he would be picked, they would have won if he had been I reckon.

Although if we'd picked Thorpey ahead of the young and naive Bell, it would have evened things up again.

And of course the absence of DRS was the main thing that won it for us.

Cheers Billy .

I might just be having a Bucky/black helicopters moment, but do you think there's any chance that Billy knew it wasn't out?

I just have a sneaking suspicion that he knew if he raised the finger then he would be a part of one of the most famous moments in cricketing history, with the image of him giving the wicket becoming almost iconic.

I can't really remember the last overs too well though and I have a faint memory of a plumb LBW decision not being given, though not sure it was him.

Just a thought anyway, probably bollocks...

vilkrang wrote:And of course the absence of DRS was the main thing that won it for us.

Cheers Billy .

Kasprowicz knew he'd gloved the ball, but in that moment would he have been smart enough and aware enough to know that his hand wasn't on the handle when the ball hit it, known the laws, and then called for the review? I reckon no, as he didn't appear to be outraged at Bowden's decision at the time.

I'm not even sure that Ponting is better than Steve Waugh.

However, Ponting did have about 5 or 6 years where he was as good as anyone who played the game other than DGB. We did some stats on this a while ago and he average something like 70+ in a 52 test run (52 tests being Bradman's whole career of course).

JGK wrote:I'm not even sure that Ponting is better than Steve Waugh.

However, Ponting did have about 5 or 6 years where he was as good as anyone who played the game other than DGB. We did some stats on this a while ago and he average something like 70+ in a 52 test run (52 tests being Bradman's whole career of course).

Aren't the likes of Kallis and Sanga still in similar runs? I seem to remember seeing that Kallis averages around 70 since 2006. Same with Sanga.

vilkrang wrote:I might just be having a Bucky/black helicopters moment, but do you think there's any chance that Billy knew it wasn't out?

I just have a sneaking suspicion that he knew if he raised the finger then he would be a part of one of the most famous moments in cricketing history, with the image of him giving the wicket becoming almost iconic.

I can't really remember the last overs too well though and I have a faint memory of a plumb LBW decision not being given, though not sure it was him.

Just a thought anyway, probably bollocks...

Aye, I don't think you have a case.

The stat says that Aus had it mildly worse in terms of bad luck with decisions that series.

What usually occurs is that people remember the team in the ascendency's good fortune and not the loser's. There was a plumb LB that Bung got away with that allowed the match to continue to that length. Furthering this, it took 50 replays and for an attention whore like Simon Hughes to bring it up before anyone knew it wasn't out... then took a super slowmo to demonstrate it.

Mr. Benaud wasn't happy at all about that bit of coverage.

Yeah, I basically just decided to throw a completely unfounded accusation at an umpire who has never demonstrated obvious bias. I did this because I hate him.

Bowdenism is a bit like racism.

Billy couldn't contain his smile even before he put the finger up. You could see him thinking "YEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna be a part of HISTORRRRYYYY!!!!!"

Red wrote:With Punter's form under scrutiny there's much discussion of him in the papers and often accompanied by "Australia's second best batsman after Bradman" as if it's fact, not opinion. Surely it's the latter as despite his stellar career, his status in that elevated position must still be open to question.

As they say, comparisons are odious but Chappellg would probably be the only other candidate. In my opinion he's as worthy as Punter to be considered as the next best after Bradman but obviously many will beg to differ. For what it's worth here is what I believe are the merits of each case.

Case for Punter
Much higher aggregate runs
Played more tests
Perceived perhaps to be more aggressive and a matchwinner
Combative and pugnacious
Highly rated by opponents and universally regarded as one of the top batsmen in his era
Great range of shots
Batted at #3 for most of his career
Batted well while captaining his team

Case againstTechnically flawed early leaves him vulnerable in particular to the swinging ball
While coming in at #3 has largely followed productive openers who've taken the shine off the ball
Played in an era when it wasn't uncommon to average 50+
Played in an era with more batsmen-friendly pitches, roped in boundaries and bigger bats
Played against super minnows

Case for Chappellg
Considered technically brilliant, played early within the 'V' and had upright, still stance
Averaged 50+ in an era when it was rare
Played on pitches on average which were slightly more bowler-friendly
On average faced a much stronger Windies team
Largely played sans helmet, no tests against Zim. or Bang., only one against Sri Lanka
Mainly batted at #3 or 4 but followed unstable opening partnerships by and large
Record would have been better had WSC (in his prime) and Rest of the World series been included in averages
Rated by for e.g. Sir Richard as superior to Sir Viv and AB and he best he bowled to
Could dominate an attack

Case against
Never played in India
Never played against South Africa
Didn't tour as often as Punter
Played fewer tests and made fewer runs
Inferior longevity

Of course there are other factors to consider but they're the ones which quickly came to mind

What do others think?

I think Ponting is underdone.

vilkrang wrote:Yeah, I basically just decided to throw a completely unfounded accusation at an umpire who has never demonstrated obvious bias. I did this because I hate him.

Bowdenism is a bit like racism.

I totally agree that he's a huge thunderqunt - casepoint being the ridiculous kerfuffle over the bails being taken off at the end of that series... that whole weird signalling he did because NZ had won the RWC... total attention whore of the worst kind.

From a Pom's POV, I'd rate AB way above the Whinger any day of the week.

AB - Solid, roughneck, scrapper, scored a few, bowled a bit, skippered till the death, lifted his players.
The Whinger - scored a helluva lot .... whinged a helluva lot.... good red-inker though.

re: Bowden - yeah ... thunderqunt to the nth degree ... the sooner he slips that bent finger up his a*** the better for cricket.

ponting had one of the best runs ever by a batsman between 2002 and 2006 when he seemed unstoppable. either side of that though his record resembles an azhar or a langer more than a hutton or sobers

from 1995-2001 he averaged 44
from 2002-2006 he averaged 72
from 2007-2011 he has averaged 39 and falling

so for approximately 12 out of his 17 years he averaged ~42

for an ATG batsman that is an extremely skewed record. i can't think of anyone else coming close, except maybe richards. chappell in comparison has a pretty even record

People forget that Chappell had his flaws too. He went through a period of low scores including seven ducks (four in a row) which lead to someone releasing a couple of (live) ducks onto the ground as Chappell came out.
As Red said, comparisons are odious & unless the players are from the same era, are meaningless.

A question for our Aussie mates - who would you rather have in a crisis against the best bowlers on any sort of pitch Chappell (I) or Chappell (G)

JGK wrote:I'm not even sure that Ponting is better than Steve Waugh.

However, Ponting did have about 5 or 6 years where he was as good as anyone who played the game other than DGB. We did some stats on this a while ago and he average something like 70+ in a 52 test run (52 tests being Bradman's whole career of course).

I am...ponting has batted most of his career at number 3...after a couple of goes when he failed Koala senior preferred to bat at 6 where he could hide behind the tail...K senior would not make the the top 20 Oz batsmen since Bradman

Basil wrote:A question for our Aussie mates - who would you rather have in a crisis against the best bowlers on any sort of pitch Chappell (I) or Chappell (G)

both had completely different strengths...chappelli you'd have to knock out a 40 for your life

horace wrote:

Basil wrote:A question for our Aussie mates - who would you rather have in a crisis against the best bowlers on any sort of pitch Chappell (I) or Chappell (G)

both had completely different strengths...chappelli you'd have to knock out a 40 for your life

I remember hearing it said that Ian was the better player in ALL conditions.