conversations with Ian Chappell

Ian Chappell recently stated that only 4 allrounders were good enough to play Test Cricket as either a batsman or a bowler

Gary Sobers
Jack Gregory
Imran Khan
Keith Miller

Thats only 4 cricketers in 3 centuries of  test cricket
Just goes to show how hard it is for genuine allrounders to be equally as  exceptionally good with bat and ball
Any cricketer that plays over a longish period of time with a batting average of 40 and a bowling average of 30 is quite an outstanding performer

Jaques Kallis is a most recent allrounder of greatness
Ive seen Sobers and Imran, they were exceptional cricketers
Imagine a player batting like Sobers and bowling like Imran

well i wonder why Botham isn't named

Chappeli has not had kind words to say about Botham
However I cant recall him saying anything about Bothams cricket ability
He would be mad to discredit Bothams cricketing feats
Botham was a star bowler and a sensational batsman when he fired

I dont think Ian Botham could ever be selected as a batsman only though

bayman wrote:well i wonder why Botham isn't named

He was asked that very question. He said that he gave Botham 0 out of 10 as a man, but 10 out of 10 as a cricketer. He didn't think that Botham was a good enough batsman to play test cricket only as a batsman. His argument is that Botham's average of 33 isn't good enough for a test batsman.

I know it is sacrilege but following that line of thinking would Sobers have been a good enough bowler to hold down his position simply as a bowler given that he took 235 wickets at just over 34. I guess that is a similar average to Nathan Lyon.

The two who certainly meet both criteria are Imran with a batting average of 37 and a bowling average of 22 and Keith Miller with a batting average of 36 and a bowling average also of 22.

Even Jack Gregory, whose career was delayed by the first world war did average over 30 with the ball.

Jacques Kallis' averages compare with Sobers, but I think that his figures are flattered by some of the opposition he played against. I never thought that he dominated against Australia. He averaged 41 with the bat and 37 with the ball against Australia.

Some of those star allrounders if they concentrated exclusively on either batting or bowling MIGHT have further mastered the weaker of the two

For example I reckon Imran Khan was injured and could not bowl for a while , and played as batsman only , and his batting peaked ?

Will we ever see a 5000 + runs 500 + wickets + ,  average 50 with the bat and 25 with the ball ?
We might have to call that cricketer a Donrounder

A player rarely mentioned as an allrounder but has allrounders averages was Douggie Walters
5357 runs @ 48.26 batting average
49 wickets @ 29.08 bowling average
You could not ;pick Dougggggggie a s a specialist bowler

As bad as Botham and Chappelli's relationship was and is, I bet Chappelli wouldn't have minded him in his side as an all rounder.

You just would never hear him say so!

Botham was the sort of cricketer Chappelli got hard over. Much like Lillee, he wanted to be the "go to" man. And on quite a few occasions he delivered with either bat or ball.

I agree that whilst his batting was good enough to be a specialist batsman at say #6, he probably just didn't produce consistent form to hold that down in his own right.

I would say he could get into a Test side on bowling alone, however.

Those two blokes are so alike, combative, belligerent, desperate to win with a 'take no prisoners' approach. It is no wonder they hate each other.

I think Imran's batting is always over-shadowed by his elite bowling.
Which is a pity really, because just when you thought you had ripped through the top order Imran comes in and thrashes you about.
How many #7s have an average that high?

A bit like Gilchrist for Australia.

In keeping with the topics on "Flat Decks" and the "NZ test Series", here is an opinion piece from Chappelli recently in the lead up to the series that is relevant to both.

There have been far too many predictable results in recent Test series and therefore the uncertain nature of the upcoming Australia-versus-New Zealand contest makes it one to savour.

It's rare to find a perfect cricket pitch - one that satisfies both batsmen and bowlers - but surfaces like the one produced in Abu Dhabi for the first Test between Pakistan and England do the game no favours.

Though the game came to life on the last day, dead pitches like this one, which by and large give the bowlers little chance of success, encourage batsmen to dawdle in the name of posting a huge first-innings total. Test cricket - which is in dire need of nurturing - needs huge first-innings scores in the same way a motorbike requires an ashtray. A huge total by the team batting first generally leads to one of two results: a grinding response like Alastair Cook's incredible feat of endurance in seeking a draw, or a complete capitulation by the opposition, ending in a blowout victory.

Games like the one at the Premadasa Stadium in 1997-98, where India's 537 for 8 (centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, Navjot Sidhu and Mohammad Azharuddin) was obliterated by Sri Lanka's 952 for 6 (a triple-century by Sanath Jayasuriya and a double by Roshan Mahanama) become an exercise in futility and statistical self-gratification.

Most right-minded fans want a two-pronged contest - the one between bat and ball and the other between two engaged teams - with their favoured side winning in a close finish.

Good curators are like players; they have pride in their performance and aim to produce a surface that is fair to the batsmen and bowlers of both teams
Even a contest at the other end of the scale, like that between India and Australia on a difficult pitch at the Wankhede Stadium in 2004-05, which resulted in two of the four totals amounting to only around 100 each, did have the redeeming feature of providing a result. Nevertheless, any pitch that allows a front-line bowler, never mind a part-timer like Michael Clarke, to take 6 for 9 isn't a good one.

Which brings up the question: what is the definition of a good pitch?

The practical answer is often supplied by the best curators. When asked before a game what they are hoping for, they reply: "I'd like to see a result late on the fifth day."

Notice they never say which team they want to win. Good curators (or groundsmen) are like players; they have pride in their performance and aim to produce a surface that is fair to the batsmen and bowlers of both teams. That's why the preparation of a pitch should be solely in the hands of the curators or groundsmen, with no input from players or administrators, both of whom have a vested interest in the state of the surface.

Les Burdett, a long-time curator at the picturesque Adelaide Oval, was one of those who sought a result after tea on the fifth day. He often achieved his aim, but even when he fell agonisingly short it usually provided great excitement.

One of the side benefits of the increase in short-form cricket has been the increased haste in Test match batting. Add to that regulations that allow time lost to weather to be made up, and the percentage of results achieved in Test cricket is greatly improved.

If administrators are serious about promoting Test cricket, they should come down hard on any player, coach or official who tries to influence the preparation of a pitch. And while they are at it, they should threaten to take Tests away from administrations that conjure up lifeless pitches; if they transgress a second time, follow through on the threat.

For both teams, the pitch is an important participant in every Test. Producing a good surface is just as crucial to the contest as the performance of any individual player.

The reasons for the difficulty in predicting a series between two neighbours - not quite as combative as India and Pakistan but still fierce rivals - are many and varied. The vast improvement in New Zealand's play, inspired by the vibrant captaincy of Brendon McCullum and a penetrating attack, is a major reason. For Australia, there are the bulk retirements and the appointment of a new captain, leading to uncertainty surrounding the squad. And finally there's the history-making first day-night Test using pink balls, adding to the conjecture.

There's no doubt the success of day-night Test cricket would be an enormous boost to the format but the precarious nature of the experiment is almost exclusively down to the viability of the ball. Currently the pink ball's approval rating among local players has slumped to the level of the Australian Opposition leader. This adds to the mystery surrounding the series.

Hopefully there'll soon be a breakthrough in day-night ball manufacture, because the outcome of this experiment is too important to the future of Test cricket for it to fail.

New Zealand's resurgence has been a triumph for positive play and swing bowling. McCullum's insistence on aggression has sometimes led to his own downfall as a batsman but the overall results have been an overwhelming success. What makes this ploy so surprising is the conservative nature of Kiwis in general and (until lately) their cricket team in particular.

The fact that the players have bought into the policy and managed a successful transition is a tribute to McCullum's powers of persuasion and leadership. The success of the bowling attack and the captaincy are interwoven. Bowlers are more likely to experience success when backed by thoughtful, attacking fields, but captains can only afford to persist with such tactics when supported by good bowling.

Whether the New Zealand duo of Trent Boult and Tim Southee will be able to swing the ball as much in Australia is doubtful but they must be encouraged by the choice of venues. The Gabba, the WACA and Adelaide Oval at night should provide favourable conditions for seam bowling, and any New Zealand success will first depend on their ability to take early wickets and then to adapt when the ball isn't swinging.
Trying to thwart their endeavours will be an Australian batting line-up heavily dependent on opener David Warner and captain Steven Smith. This pair will prosper as batsmen and will also provide a strong leadership example to the team, but it's the supporting cast who cause concern.

Of late, Australia have relied far too heavily on ageing debutant batsmen, but with all the recent retirements the younger brigade now have ample opportunity to claim a permanent spot. In addition to the retirements of top-order players Chris Rogers and Shane Watson, the departure of wicketkeeper Brad Haddin is critical. He has been the aggressive link between a fragile top order and a group of bowlers who bat well. His stabilising influence needs to be replaced quickly and effectively.

Smith will succeed as captain; his recent surge as a batsman is indicative of a thoughtful cricketer who is his own man. He'll receive good, aggressive input from vice-captain Warner but it's the run support from the other batsmen that will count the most. Smith can't be left to provide the bulk of the team's runs or it will eventually wear him down.

It should be a close contest with Australia prevailing because the extra bounce in the pitches will expose the shortcomings of the New Zealand batsmen.

While it doesn't equal the fervent India-Pakistan rivalry, the result in Trans Tasman sporting contests matters greatly to both sides. However, in this series the balance between bat and ball in the experimental day-night Test will share top billing and any fifth-day result will be looked upon by the administrators as a victory.

Chappelli's Last Stand

Just finished reading this new book which centres on South Australia's 75/76 Sheffield Shield season. More specifically, it is about Ian Chappell's role in SA's victory and the tumultuous controversy that surrounded the whole season.

From Chappelli's dack-dropping (which the Don did not like at all), to sledging and being reported by the umps and the final conflict which on the eve of winning the shield, he threatened a player strike for the final eastern tour to NSW and QLD.

You would have to understand the increasing frustration of the players (Test included) gathering momentum during the early to mid-70s over the pittance they received directly from the game. In most cases it was not even the minimum wage of the day. The Don's outlook was that you played for the love of the cap (be it blue, red or baggy green).

He was quoted as saying that there are 500,000 players out there in Australia if these blokes don't want to play for their country. Or words to that effect.

Chappelli had been one, but not the only voice expressing the the discomfort of the players. He was ok as being the national captain and having had a long career enjoyed sponsorships and endorsements, had media commitments amongst other book deals etc. But as of the 75/76 season every state except SA had some semblance of a "players provident fund" to look after some remuneration for retiring players.

Chappelli took it upon himself to research how they could set one up in SA and went to see a financial guru, who discussed the mechanics of such a scheme. Chappelli felt it was immediately do-able, but the SA Administration (particularly the Don) shut the door before any meaningful discussion took place.

During the period where the Don had prevailed in cricket administration, it was basically his way or the highway.

However, the issue that brought things to head leading up to the player strike, was a deal that the SA selectors reneged on when they replaced Rick Drewer in the touring side to the eastern states with Bob Blewett (father of Greg). Chappelli had a deal that he was informed of any selection changes before they were announced. In this instance the touring team was announced at the same time that they had won the third to last shield game of the season (almost ensuring the shield was SA's to lose). As the team celebrated the win with the obligatory long necks in the rooms, Chappelli was stomping down the corridor enroute to the selectors' rooms to tear strips off them. He went in to bat (pun!) for Drewer who had been in the side all season and he felt had been hard done by in being omitted for the last 2 games.

Chappelli saw it as a complete slap in the face to his leadership (remembering that he was not a selector) and was not even consulted about Drewer's form or any other matter relating to selection.

What unfolded next was quite staggering. He informed them that if they held his leadership in such low esteem then they could replace him and he refused to make himself available for the eastern tour.

Once the team had gotten wind of this and had been kicking on celebrating, it was Terry Jenner who took control of the ensuing discussion amongst the players and maintained that they had been "one in all in" for the season and that it was that ethos that had provided their success over the season. If Chappelli was so aggrieved that striking was the only option, he said the players should adopt the same approach. On first vote it was something like 8-2 to strike. (Drewer absented himself as he was not going anyway). That wasn't good enough for our TJ as he said it had to be unanimous. The second vote was in fact unanimous and the players were on strike!

The media went berserk when hearing of this the next day and quite a lot of negative angst was directed at Chappelli and the team. Chappelli felt it was his decision and did not want the team to become embroiled in his sh!t fight.

He made the statement to reporters that he was not playing for the SA cricket administration, whom he did not respect anymore, but only for his teammates.

Many meetings and discussions, threats from the administrators and the name calling from the Don about that "upstart Chappell", and the players seemed to reconsider their position.  

What seemed like solidarity and a good idea at the time, evaporated by the time the eastern tour commenced. Chappelli had backed down too and the tour commenced, albeit without Drewer.

None of it was forgotten by Chappelli, however. As the history of the following few seasons would attest, this controversy only fueled his anger with the Australian cricket establishment.

Those final 2 games were both drawn, however a defiant 118 in SA's first innings against NSW showed everyone what Chappelli was all about when fired up. It ensured important first innings points to SA when the fisrt innings bonus point system was very important to sides competing for the shield.

The Queensland game became a fizzer when rain only allowed 1 innings to take place. But it confirmed SA as the shield champions providing 2 things to Chappelli;
1 Immense satisfaction in taking the bottom side to top.
2 The blooding of a few future test careers in Hookes, Darling and Hogg.

Leading up to the tour the SACA administration flipped and flopped over what sanctions to impose to the side over their strike action threat.

The hearing was deferred to after the season and sort of fizzled out amongst the team's success. Chappelli was even lauded by them over his leadership and influence in bringing the result. That was have really goaded him as hypocritical. He was ultimately reprimanded only and the whole thing (at least officially) went away.

As did Chappeill who went to captain-coach North Melbourne for the 1976-1977 season and effectively, retired. But I think it did two things.
1 Basically told the SACA administration they could get stuffed
2 Gave him time and opportunity to further Kerry Packer's idea for World Series Cricket.

As one of the key protagonist's to WSC, Chappell was able to canvas a lot of players during that period. Remembering that March 1977 was the Centenary Test and it was about that time or shortly after that much of the "poaching" took place.

There is much intrigue that could be continued on this period, but I will leave you with this.

The season following the 75/76 shield success, a player superannuation scheme did eventuate in SA. Chappelli can take the credit for that.

One further corollary to this is that Chappelli finished the 75/76 shield season atop the batting aggregate with 840 runs at 76, his brother Greg 800 runs at 80 (playing for Qld).

His 16 catches was the most of anyone other than a keeper.

Mallett was the leading wicket taker with 47 scalps at 22
Prior 18 wkts @ 17
Jenner 26 @ 41
Cosier 16 @ 19
Attenborough 19 @ 35

Imagine the stink if they had sacked him (as was strongly mooted) at season's end having led the team to shield victory, topped the batting and all this whilst the Windies were touring and Chappelli being part of that 5-1 whitewash. He scored 449 runs @ 45 for that series.

Ian had handed over the test captaincy to Greg for Windies series.
One thing he said (to his then wife) when he assumed the national captaincy from the sacked Bill Lawry, was that the bastards were not going to get him that way. And they didn't.....

Boycott bounce the c..t
Edrich bounce the c..t
Willis slog the c..t
Underwood bloody tight hard to get away. Slog the c..t

By Kerry Okeefe
On Ian Chappell
At an Australian team meeting

PS
c..t does not mean cult

That was likely his pre match address / rev up speech!
Chappelli didn't make them any more technical than that.