Do you agree with this philosophy of Ian Chappell and Tony Greig ?

Hi Monti,

Both Chappell and more especially Grieg are both outspoken gits! They are both has beens. Their claims to fame were centered around WSC as part of Kerry Packers mob. Grieg’s greatest claim to fame is being hit on his S.P helmet by Lillie. Chappell although was a great captain and was a dynamic batsman, his arrogance has always been his greatest problem. Debates of this kind will always rage and be debated. If they thought about it a little more, which clearly they did not, Gavaskar would surly be included. He could be defensive, granted however, I have also seen him tare attacks apart and deserves his place with the best.

I do not take anything seriously that these two has beens come up with. I mean anyone can twist any stat around to put a negative slant on it. I have heard others speak of Bradman and try and turn his stats into negatives - unsuccessfully mind you. But nonetheless, they still tried.

People will put others down to try and make up for their own shortcomings and these two are no exceptions.

Monti, to be honest I don't agree with Chappell and I'm not bragging or anything either when I'm saying this,so everyone please don't misunderstand me.

I have played school and club cricket at very junior levels and I do have a couple of relatives(former) who have played test cricket,they are not in the same league as the Chappells ,nevertheless they did teach me about cricket,sportsmanship and what not.One thing I have heard most batsman say is that they measure a good batsman by how they can preserve the wicket no matter what.First of all a batsman has to be superbly confident to keep the ball from hitting the wicket,second LBW and third caught.The first two forms of dismissals are the most humiliating and for the third anyone could come up with excuses.A great batsman is supposed to be 100% sure about not getting out in those three fashions.If you are certain you can't get out only can you dispatch the bad ball.Anyone who keeps the good balls out and safely score off the bad balls are good batsmen.Batsmen like Shewag and Jayasuriya are risky players and cannot be relied upon but they are match winners thats why they are great.They are not great because of their batting ability but their match winning ability,A good quality batsman should be able to preserve his wicket and bat for very long times consistently not just when he scores hundreds.Chappell I think is talking about match winning batsmen and not about batsmen in general.Boycott was boring but very reliable,Dravid is more than reliable and not boring at all.Everyone cannot play like a Richards or a Tendulkar they are just exceptional.Gavaskar was a awesome bat and a true legend of the cricket game,he is 1000 times better than the Chappells!

Tony Greig is just a media hype and he will say whatever the populars want to hear, his word should be taken in through one ear and thrown out the other.Bradman is the greatest no doubt but Dravid,Tendulkar,Lara are all in that category as well.I think Ponting and Inzamam are step below the other three greats of this generation.

Overall a batsman has to score reliably to be considered great,this is not a insult to Afridi but according to what Chappell said Afridi is better than Boycott.Yeh right...

It's a poor theory in my opinion, they are saying that agressive players are the best players in the world !!

Here's one for them Donald Bradman approximately had a S/R of under 55, which is just an average S/R.

Teams have a mixture of players, if all players batted like Richards and Sobers then the batting line-up would be unpredictable, teams need players like Dravid and Boycott, because they are very good batsmen even if they don't increase the momentum of the team. Boycs and Dravid are very reliable and succesful players, which deserve respect from fans and pundits all around the world !

The Gavaskar comment was obviously just a spiteful comment by them, because Gavaskar was the original little master !

These 2 need to learn to shut there mouths, Greig has always been one to say stupid comments though rememeber the "we will make West Indies" grovel comment made by him !

I hate to say it BUT the 10,000 run club is over-hyped. People such as, Border and Waugh are in that club because of the fact that they played over 150 games for Australia, if they played a similar amount of games to a Richards or a Sobers, then the story would be different.

I agree that any club which doesn't involve Bradman (or Richards), cannot be used to describe who are the best batsmen !

Ian Chappell Steve Waugh

Steve Waugh had an excellent strike rate. So he's not in the picture.

Geoff Boycott had the philosophy that it was possible to play perfect cricket by never getting out. I do not see him as a great player. I watched him bat with Edrich all day for a draw scoring 0 for 85 in two sessions, when the could have won the game.

Dravid has a better strike rate than Chappell, so I don't know what that's about ... oh and more runs than Greig.

I do think the 10,000+ club is over-hyped. Most of the greatest are not in it. Gavaskar was truly good but I can't put him alongside Bradman, Richards, Sobers and Tendulkar.

Ian Chappel was a good but extraordinarily arrogant player and I can't put him alongside any of those either. He hated Gavaskar, so there are no surprises from his choice of formula.

Chappell is a moron ... as is his brother Greg, who I had the displeasure of meeting at a function once. Both are and always were full of themselves.

Greig forgets he never made the 10,000 club and he held the record for most runs off an over of his bowling for a very long time.

its just a couple of crazy old farts with their silly opinions i wouldnt take much notice.

A player who scores slowly and still gets big runs at a high average like boycott is still great in my books however i do agree that somebody who scores big runs at a high average and at a faster rate is a better player in my book and thats why Viv richards is in my opinion the greatist batsman ever never mind reocrds. Viv didnt give a sh!t about trying to get the highest score ever or breaking records he just went out there to win the game for his team. and they didnt lose many did they.

5 greatest batsman: Viv Richards, Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Gary Sobers and Don Bradman

guys like dravid, gavaskar and boycott are legends but they just dont have that extra x factor to be in the previous stated group.

modern guys like ponting, tendulker and lara are fantastic but tell them to take their helmets and amr guards off, bat on a dicey pitch against the windies pace battery, lillie and tompson, or any of the big 4(hadlee, Imran, Kapil and Botham) and then see if they can still play thier fancy hook shots and still average over 50.

Modern batsman are so overated the game couldnt be anymore suited to their advantage

phew... what a rant :)

The old Dravid was much better than Sehwag. India could rely on him for victory. One has to wait for years before Sehwag leads India to a victory.

Evey one is entitled to his own opinion. Bradman was limited as per his day and time. But being in the league of 10K runs is a sign of greatness as a batsman.

If one starts to believe in these ex-cricketers who now sit and

comment and claim one is better than the other, then behold

and thanks to the invention of Remote Control and more

importantly the MUTE button. When such comments are made

by these so called "paid-to-work" they are willing to say what

ever they want. Every one knows how critical Tony is about the

Aus batting and Chappel for following the tracks of Indians.

These 2 may be good and better cricketers and but instead

of making the bat do the talking, now they are opening their

mouths to spill all sorts of nonsense. If they name a bunch of

cricketers of their liking, so be it and it is their opinion even if

I disagree with them. For me personally, I never agree with

them for most of the time and since I hardly listen to them

because of my famous MUTE button.

Test cricket is all about showing your skills and in all conditions such as seamer friendly, spinner friendly, flat, green top, cracked pitch. How well you defend and how well

you get to bat even at a snail pace is part of test cricket. One

cannot use the same approach in limited overs. Scoring fast

is good, but what is the use of scoring so fast at a rate of 5

to 6 runs an over and getting rid of opponent in couple sessions and then asking them to follow on and repeating the

same in the second inning. It will lead to one-sided affair.

If Tony thinks, Dravid is world class batsman, one needs to

remind that there are stats which have the Average and also

S/R as well. One could use as a measure or a criteria to define such and make their own opinions. Yes, I agree Bradman was a great batsman and since he played few tests

he did not get to score 10000 runs. I know for sure he would

have made those runs and yes the average speaks of it.

So Tony does not know what stick to use it as a measure.

So who cares what he says.....

I care less what Tony or Chappel got to say and move on.

So I 10000% disgaree with them.

Hell NO.....i don't agree to what this Mr.Chappell says...

who gives a damn to what he has to say?

They have got the definition of a great batsmen all wrong....they should go and ask an under 15 player and get it corrected.....

Players like Gavaskar,Kallis and Dravid are surely greats even if people like Ian or Greig don't consider them as legends...

i think in a way, they are correct. Good cricketers are not always copy book players. You have to be unconventional. You have to admit that Sehwag's atrocious and unconventional approach is refreshing to watch. Sometimes I dont want to watch a Dravid or a Kallis bat! It is as dull as it can get! In a way even MSD is a very unconventional cricketer. So was Gilly and even Martin Crowe and even Hussey. Yes, not including Gavaskar or even Viswanath was stupid. Finally everybody is entitled to their opinion, so i dont think Chappell or Greig intended to insult any one player.