Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 May 14
00:55
Joined:
Date Joined:
13 Aug 11
Seen them both live, heard them both, looked at them both in context of impact on cricket at their time, compared stats and:
KP not worthy to lick the box of GG. I simply dont understand why KP considers himself to be gods gift to cricket when there are plenty of people round him that are better and classier
KP not worthy to lick the box of GG. I simply dont understand why KP considers himself to be gods gift to cricket when there are plenty of people round him that are better and classier
Show More
An English boy who grew up in South Africa, don't they all think their gods gift
Averaged more, scored quicker, more hundreds in less games. Seriously?
Not to mention, KP played only 50% of games on home soil where England performed considerably better, compared with Gooch nearly 63% of his games on home soil.
Add to that Gooch had the support of all and sundry, whereas KP didn't even have the support of his teammates, playing under a coach that publicly stated he wanted him gone and was the cause of all Englands problems.
Not sure where "classier" comes into it. Titles and wealth really don't need to come into it.
As for better players around, there sure are. But he is a walk up start in any England team in the last 3 decades. Test, ODI, T20I. I don't really see too many stats where Gooch is in front to be honest.
Not to mention, KP played only 50% of games on home soil where England performed considerably better, compared with Gooch nearly 63% of his games on home soil.
Add to that Gooch had the support of all and sundry, whereas KP didn't even have the support of his teammates, playing under a coach that publicly stated he wanted him gone and was the cause of all Englands problems.
Not sure where "classier" comes into it. Titles and wealth really don't need to come into it.
As for better players around, there sure are. But he is a walk up start in any England team in the last 3 decades. Test, ODI, T20I. I don't really see too many stats where Gooch is in front to be honest.
you cant compare averages in such a naive way. If you do it means all the good cricketers are in the current era and they are all better than cricketers from 30 years ago
Poor old KP not having the support of his teammates. Maybe thats because he's a ****?
Cricket is a team game and it is patently obvious most of the England side ouldnt bare him - what effect do you think that has on a team?
Cricket is a team game and it is patently obvious most of the England side ouldnt bare him - what effect do you think that has on a team?
I refer you to the answer Sir Alex Ferguson gave when asked the one most important piece of advice he would give about amnaging a team.
'Get rid of the c unts'
'Get rid of the c unts'
Gooch's ability to work with people is highly questionable too, from the Gower disgrace through to his stint as the batting coach.
In the same way that Roger Rasheed and Lleyton Hewitt was a match made in heaven, and Rasheed and Monfils is a disaster, you can see that Gooch works excellently with Cook, but less so with others, and possibly even becomes detrimental.
He also went on the South Africa tours which makes him a bit of a c*nt in my book too.
As for the better batsman, it's tough.
I don't think Pietersen ever really understood his game or his method, and with more thought could have been better than he was. That is not to say that his best wasn't bar emptying spectacular, or match turning, but increasingly i think the mark of a great sportsman is having complete control of your intensity and performance when the situation demands it, and i think pietersen has slipped up too often there.
(It's also why i don't rate Botham's headingley knock incredibly highly because really, it was a hungover slog, and the real achievement was Willis')
Had Gooch been forced out of the game at the same age as Pietersen, KP is the clear winner, but Gooch's achievements from when he retook the captaincy, particularly the knock against the windies at Headingley, and the 456 in a test at Lord's, combined with the iffy quality he had for bowlers and batsmen and the insane selection policies during his tenure, means that he probably edges it for me.
In the same way that Roger Rasheed and Lleyton Hewitt was a match made in heaven, and Rasheed and Monfils is a disaster, you can see that Gooch works excellently with Cook, but less so with others, and possibly even becomes detrimental.
He also went on the South Africa tours which makes him a bit of a c*nt in my book too.
As for the better batsman, it's tough.
I don't think Pietersen ever really understood his game or his method, and with more thought could have been better than he was. That is not to say that his best wasn't bar emptying spectacular, or match turning, but increasingly i think the mark of a great sportsman is having complete control of your intensity and performance when the situation demands it, and i think pietersen has slipped up too often there.
(It's also why i don't rate Botham's headingley knock incredibly highly because really, it was a hungover slog, and the real achievement was Willis')
Had Gooch been forced out of the game at the same age as Pietersen, KP is the clear winner, but Gooch's achievements from when he retook the captaincy, particularly the knock against the windies at Headingley, and the 456 in a test at Lord's, combined with the iffy quality he had for bowlers and batsmen and the insane selection policies during his tenure, means that he probably edges it for me.
seems as if england have got rid of both of them
.......both for fergies reasons ?
who knows
.......both for fergies reasons ?
who knows
@Gooch's ability to work with people is highly questionable too,@ - b o llox
I have seen him number of times at County ground working with very youn gpeople with an enthusiasm and insight that only comes from someone that loves the game.
KP would only do this if he was getting paid millions for it and if a camera was on him.
Fact
I have seen him number of times at County ground working with very youn gpeople with an enthusiasm and insight that only comes from someone that loves the game.
KP would only do this if he was getting paid millions for it and if a camera was on him.
Fact
@Gooch's ability to work with people is highly questionable too,@ - b o llox
I have seen him number of times at County ground working with very youn gpeople with an enthusiasm and insight that only comes from someone that loves the game.
KP would only do this if he was getting paid millions for it and if a camera was on him.
Fact
I have seen him number of times at County ground working with very youn gpeople with an enthusiasm and insight that only comes from someone that loves the game.
KP would only do this if he was getting paid millions for it and if a camera was on him.
Fact
altho i agree with your point about SA tour - that was a wrong move on his part
if you ask any member of england team what they think of gooch it will be all complimentary and revolve around his intensity, love for the gme and willingness to do anything to help England.
Only tonight I heard Gough reiterate this on TS
If you ask any member of england team what they think of KP answer is not repeatable
Only tonight I heard Gough reiterate this on TS
If you ask any member of england team what they think of KP answer is not repeatable
ask lord gower what he thinks of gooch. as mild mannered as anyone but doubt his response would be repeatable
his sergeant major approach certainly wasn't appropriate for everyone
his sergeant major approach certainly wasn't appropriate for everyone
A lot of rubbish being spoken here. Talking about a team of pompous fools and basing your opinion of a player on what they say.
What has English cricket ever done for Pietersen? He didn't fit the mold of a middle class pompous fool and never would.
He was badly mismanaged by England, and so will any extravagant player in the immediate future (being probably the next century) as England simply don't have the ability to adapt to reality. They are living in the past and a class system and expectancy of "class" of the player, not what they can do with the bat/ball.
Why else is the most inept "captain" in the history of cricket currently a captain? Simply because Cook fits the mold of a pompous middle class prat that looks good and speaks kindly.
All good to say you have seen them both, but the reality is you wouldn't have a clue what each of them has to deal with behind closed doors.
Pietersen was highly criticised for not being a team player during the tour of Aus because he wasn't running in from the opposite boundary to join in the 5 player group meeting every few deliveries.
Really? What the fcuk was he really supposed to do? If he ran in, he would have been seen as arrogant, I mean 5 players is surely enough to help Cook put the plan of the coach on the boundary's plan in action?
If Pietersen had have kept the captaincy 4 years ago, they may not have dropped straight back to the bottom of world cricket.
Whilst you all live in the dream of Cook being some sort of answer to anything regarding cricket, you will continue to dwell in depths of the gutters of cricket. Pietersen could have taken you to greatness, but he didn't fit your pompous middle class prat mold.
Simple as that.
What has English cricket ever done for Pietersen? He didn't fit the mold of a middle class pompous fool and never would.
He was badly mismanaged by England, and so will any extravagant player in the immediate future (being probably the next century) as England simply don't have the ability to adapt to reality. They are living in the past and a class system and expectancy of "class" of the player, not what they can do with the bat/ball.
Why else is the most inept "captain" in the history of cricket currently a captain? Simply because Cook fits the mold of a pompous middle class prat that looks good and speaks kindly.
All good to say you have seen them both, but the reality is you wouldn't have a clue what each of them has to deal with behind closed doors.
Pietersen was highly criticised for not being a team player during the tour of Aus because he wasn't running in from the opposite boundary to join in the 5 player group meeting every few deliveries.
Really? What the fcuk was he really supposed to do? If he ran in, he would have been seen as arrogant, I mean 5 players is surely enough to help Cook put the plan of the coach on the boundary's plan in action?
If Pietersen had have kept the captaincy 4 years ago, they may not have dropped straight back to the bottom of world cricket.
Whilst you all live in the dream of Cook being some sort of answer to anything regarding cricket, you will continue to dwell in depths of the gutters of cricket. Pietersen could have taken you to greatness, but he didn't fit your pompous middle class prat mold.
Simple as that.
And in regards to "averages" and the modern player, as I stated, KP played around 50% of his games away, compared with Gooch playing around 37% of his games away. Gooch had a clear advantage.
And what of Cook? Where does he fit in? He is the player touted as being the one likely to take over Tendulkars record of most ever runs in test cricket. Right? How does he compare to KP? KP by far better. Not only in test cricket, but ODI and T20I. While Cook is living in his middle class heaven, KP is touring away in the worst conditions played by an English cricketer ever. I mean how many English test players have 100 test appearances up and only playing 50% on home soil?
Yes, the media has a place in sport. But if you simply buy into the bullshit, then all you are really doing is repeating a bullshit opinion that doesn't reflect anything real.
And what of Cook? Where does he fit in? He is the player touted as being the one likely to take over Tendulkars record of most ever runs in test cricket. Right? How does he compare to KP? KP by far better. Not only in test cricket, but ODI and T20I. While Cook is living in his middle class heaven, KP is touring away in the worst conditions played by an English cricketer ever. I mean how many English test players have 100 test appearances up and only playing 50% on home soil?
Yes, the media has a place in sport. But if you simply buy into the bullshit, then all you are really doing is repeating a bullshit opinion that doesn't reflect anything real.
Of the two most recent posts from Professor BJT, I have a strong liking for the first. It is a classic of its genre.
He starts by very accurately predicting what he is going to write.
"A lot of rubbish being spoken here."
The second paragraph is right up there:
"What has English cricket ever done for Pietersen? He didn't fit the mold of a middle class pompous fool and never would."
He puts a presumptuous rhetorical question to himself then answers it beautifully - and equally rhetorically. Professor BJT is on a roll.
I quite like the third paragraph too because it is discriminatory in that it singles out England of all the teams who have "mismanaged" Pietersen, and there have been a few.
And it is wrong. If England are excluding people on grounds of social class, how do you explain some of the utter ratbags they have had in the team over the course of the last 10 years alone?
He almost gets things back on track in the fourth paragraph by attacking Cook's Captaincy. Almost...
The 5th paragraph is another Professor BJT special. In it he accuses his opponent of ignorance of knowledge he himself cannot have, unless Professor BJT is both Gooch AND Pietersen. I doubt anyone can be both Gooch AND Pietersen.
In the 6th paragraph the Professor latches onto one of the minor criticisms of Pietersen, magnifies it until it appears as if it is the only thing of which Pietersen has ever been accused, and then engages in tilting at windmills that would do Don Quixote proud.
"Pietersen was highly criticised for not being a team player during the tour of Aus because he wasn't running in from the opposite boundary to join in the 5 player group meeting every few deliveries."
Just pure classic that.
The 7th paragraph may not be the Professor's best here, but you cannot lay a glove on the way it commences:
"If Pietersen had have kept the captaincy 4 years ago, they may not have dropped straight back to the bottom of world cricket."
The way this statement ignores the fact that England rose to number one in test cricket after Pietersen was dumped as skipper is almost poetic it is that good.
But all of this, as good as it has been until now - and it has been a seriously great offering from Professor BJT - pales in comparison to the three little words that go to make up the 8th paragraph. After this post that surely projects the Professor into the annals of infamy, he very modestly downplays the confusing morass of irrelevant and incorrect points he has made by his three word summary of his own post:
"Simple as that."
How succinct is that? Just a pure delight that post from the Professor.
He starts by very accurately predicting what he is going to write.
"A lot of rubbish being spoken here."
The second paragraph is right up there:
"What has English cricket ever done for Pietersen? He didn't fit the mold of a middle class pompous fool and never would."
He puts a presumptuous rhetorical question to himself then answers it beautifully - and equally rhetorically. Professor BJT is on a roll.
I quite like the third paragraph too because it is discriminatory in that it singles out England of all the teams who have "mismanaged" Pietersen, and there have been a few.
And it is wrong. If England are excluding people on grounds of social class, how do you explain some of the utter ratbags they have had in the team over the course of the last 10 years alone?
He almost gets things back on track in the fourth paragraph by attacking Cook's Captaincy. Almost...
The 5th paragraph is another Professor BJT special. In it he accuses his opponent of ignorance of knowledge he himself cannot have, unless Professor BJT is both Gooch AND Pietersen. I doubt anyone can be both Gooch AND Pietersen.
In the 6th paragraph the Professor latches onto one of the minor criticisms of Pietersen, magnifies it until it appears as if it is the only thing of which Pietersen has ever been accused, and then engages in tilting at windmills that would do Don Quixote proud.
"Pietersen was highly criticised for not being a team player during the tour of Aus because he wasn't running in from the opposite boundary to join in the 5 player group meeting every few deliveries."
Just pure classic that.
The 7th paragraph may not be the Professor's best here, but you cannot lay a glove on the way it commences:
"If Pietersen had have kept the captaincy 4 years ago, they may not have dropped straight back to the bottom of world cricket."
The way this statement ignores the fact that England rose to number one in test cricket after Pietersen was dumped as skipper is almost poetic it is that good.
But all of this, as good as it has been until now - and it has been a seriously great offering from Professor BJT - pales in comparison to the three little words that go to make up the 8th paragraph. After this post that surely projects the Professor into the annals of infamy, he very modestly downplays the confusing morass of irrelevant and incorrect points he has made by his three word summary of his own post:
"Simple as that."
How succinct is that? Just a pure delight that post from the Professor.
Interesting post junior. I challenge you to get Sanch Panza into your next one! I like to think cricket fans are more literate than football fans, well played....my son!
KP all day long for me, why because I said so. Beat hat as an argument!
KP's impact as a player is far greater than Graham Gooch's. He is regarded by most as World Class and likely to get into a World X1 at various points in his career. I don't think Gooch was ever regarded in that class or esteem. In 1990 his annus non anus was against India and New Zealand.
Gooch got 4 hundreds in 42 matches against The Convicts and 5 in 26 against The Windies. He got 9 Hundreds in 34 against the might of Indian and New Zealand attacks.
I think people regard him highly because he worked hard. His own batting average was almosy twice that of his other batsmen but that doesn't make him great, it makes the others not very good. Again this is not a sign of greatness just better than the dross.
If anybody has seen both bat and think KP is not worthy to lick the box of Baldie Gooch then they must be the type of person who like to watch buses parked on a football pitch. Further to that someone who broke the embargo on Sporting Links with an Apartheid Government does not deserve to have their balls licked by anyone other than an Uncle Tom **** sucker and I dare say we shall have plenty of them in the England side soon.
After this summer I will not be paying 80n Sovereigns for a ticket. I will wait till they announce due to the lack of demand people can pay a tenner on the gate!
KP all day long for me, why because I said so. Beat hat as an argument!
KP's impact as a player is far greater than Graham Gooch's. He is regarded by most as World Class and likely to get into a World X1 at various points in his career. I don't think Gooch was ever regarded in that class or esteem. In 1990 his annus non anus was against India and New Zealand.
Gooch got 4 hundreds in 42 matches against The Convicts and 5 in 26 against The Windies. He got 9 Hundreds in 34 against the might of Indian and New Zealand attacks.
I think people regard him highly because he worked hard. His own batting average was almosy twice that of his other batsmen but that doesn't make him great, it makes the others not very good. Again this is not a sign of greatness just better than the dross.
If anybody has seen both bat and think KP is not worthy to lick the box of Baldie Gooch then they must be the type of person who like to watch buses parked on a football pitch. Further to that someone who broke the embargo on Sporting Links with an Apartheid Government does not deserve to have their balls licked by anyone other than an Uncle Tom **** sucker and I dare say we shall have plenty of them in the England side soon.
After this summer I will not be paying 80n Sovereigns for a ticket. I will wait till they announce due to the lack of demand people can pay a tenner on the gate!
For the record WhisperingDeath...whilst I would not have Pietersen anywhere near any team I picked, I have to acknowledge you are correct in inferring that it is wrong to say KP is not worthy to lick the box of Gooch. I would think Pietersen is perfectly suited to that task.
Now, where is this Sanch Panza?
Now, where is this Sanch Panza?
I think KP is the best batsman England have had since I started watching test cricket in 1970. I mean I saw MC Cowdrey but an old one. Gower of course was class, Geoffrey was Geoffrey. I am trying to think of any others who would dominate a game like he has. I mean IT Botham did and I actually rate him highly technically but as an under achiever as he didn't seem too bothered or rather rarely batted to his ability. I really can't think of anyone else to compare as a batsman.
As for Sancho Panza I hope I am not being condescending but he was don Quixote's Squire. I liked your tilting at windmills idiom.
As for Sancho Panza I hope I am not being condescending but he was don Quixote's Squire. I liked your tilting at windmills idiom.
Oh yes, of course, I knew that....
I don't think it is a simple matter to rate Pietersen. He could do things no other player for England before him could do, reverse swats for 6, flamingo shots amongst other things. But he couldn't cope with half decent left arm orthodox, and might as well not have even walked to the crease on days when the ball was moving about sharply, and struggled badly with steep bounce, not to mention beam balls delivered off 19 yards, he was clueless against them. So we are not talking about anywhere near a complete batsman here, sort of a Matthew Hayden lite who can't play left arm spin, that's about his level. Subtract from that his poor fielding, and it was a long way below average over the course of his career, and his inability to fit into any team on the face of the planet....you just don't pick a guy like that, ever. It must also be remembered with Pietersen he played international cricket only between the ages of 25 and 33, mainly peak age for a batsman to produce runs. Most good batsmen play test cricket before and after this age, and therefore, before and after their peak.
I thought Graham Thorpe was a really good, consistent batsman for England, who seemed to be able to cope in a wide variety of situations. Gooch over his whole career was just a decent batsman and that's all, but at his height he was up there with the best around at the time, I have no doubt about that. You could say something similar about Michael Vaughan. What I saw of Boycott he had the ability to bat, but not the will to score at any decent rate so I just rule him out of considerations based on that alone. Cook is another very good rather than great test player. They are all more or less on a similar sort of level as batsmen, including Pietersen.
If you start Cook's career at about the same age as Pietersen's, his average rises to above 50 for what that is worth.
I doubt very strongly whether England would have profited by appointing Pietersen Captain, Coach, Team Manager, CEO, and Assistant Coach in charge of strategy, and giving him the keys to Lord's Cricket Ground and telling him he can do what he wants, as the Professor BJT seems to be suggesting they should have done.
I don't think it is a simple matter to rate Pietersen. He could do things no other player for England before him could do, reverse swats for 6, flamingo shots amongst other things. But he couldn't cope with half decent left arm orthodox, and might as well not have even walked to the crease on days when the ball was moving about sharply, and struggled badly with steep bounce, not to mention beam balls delivered off 19 yards, he was clueless against them. So we are not talking about anywhere near a complete batsman here, sort of a Matthew Hayden lite who can't play left arm spin, that's about his level. Subtract from that his poor fielding, and it was a long way below average over the course of his career, and his inability to fit into any team on the face of the planet....you just don't pick a guy like that, ever. It must also be remembered with Pietersen he played international cricket only between the ages of 25 and 33, mainly peak age for a batsman to produce runs. Most good batsmen play test cricket before and after this age, and therefore, before and after their peak.
I thought Graham Thorpe was a really good, consistent batsman for England, who seemed to be able to cope in a wide variety of situations. Gooch over his whole career was just a decent batsman and that's all, but at his height he was up there with the best around at the time, I have no doubt about that. You could say something similar about Michael Vaughan. What I saw of Boycott he had the ability to bat, but not the will to score at any decent rate so I just rule him out of considerations based on that alone. Cook is another very good rather than great test player. They are all more or less on a similar sort of level as batsmen, including Pietersen.
If you start Cook's career at about the same age as Pietersen's, his average rises to above 50 for what that is worth.
I doubt very strongly whether England would have profited by appointing Pietersen Captain, Coach, Team Manager, CEO, and Assistant Coach in charge of strategy, and giving him the keys to Lord's Cricket Ground and telling him he can do what he wants, as the Professor BJT seems to be suggesting they should have done.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539