Milo has long struck me as a sounder judge than most on modern-era cricketers... and he's commented on Viv with enthusiasm and passion on many, many occasions... but for all his enthusiasm, the verdict on Viv has always been that he was a great exponent of a particular style of play - and whilst Milo clearly delighted in witnessing that style of play he's objective enough to recognise that others in the history of the game were considerably more complete batsmen.

Milo is one who has no problem taking CLWalcott's advice to "watch some Richards and revel in the playing across the line, taking one hand off the bat, backing away and exposing stumps, sweeping fast bowlers" and so on.

I've no recollection of ever having seen footage of Chappell and have not read enough to really comment on the case for or against... but I've no problem, in principle, with the use of Dravid and Gilchrist as a means of making a crucial distinction between a complete batsman (which Dravid certainly is and I believe Chappell was) and a guy whose game is extremely dependent on being a clean striker of the ball (far truer of the one dimensional and frankly second rate Gilchrist than of the far more polished and accomplished Richards).

Ps. What's with this argument that Viv's ability and willingness to play lofted shots and cross batted shots is a critical factor in determining batting greatness: on that basis you'd quite probably have to elevate hundreds of batsmen (and perhaps even the likes of Gayle and Jayasuria) over Bradman!!!!