Nov 4, 2016 -- 3:06PM, DStyle wrote:
Cook's concentration is peerless, but he's merely statistically great. He has cashed in heavily in a period which will be remembered for its paucity of great bowlers. His contributions rarely come in isolation (i.e. his large scores are often accompanied by other large scores from other batsmen).Pietersen had many more important innings. Much in the same way Tendulkar never came close to equaling any of Lara's most important and influential innings, Cook has very little that comes close to KP's runs in Colombo (2012), the Oval (2005), Headingley (2012) and Mumbai (2012)
Interesting thoughts on Cook but surely if he's scoring heavily and putting the team in a great position then it makes it easier for others to bat, so he's less likely to score his runs in isolation.
Isn't that the role of the opener? To set the game up for others to cash in?
Nov 4, 2016 -- 11:54AM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Great topic wonby but ruined it by using the word Fact.OK I get it. That is funny!SoI will see your 3 withGubby AllenPelham WarnerColin Cowdreyand raise youK S RanjitsinhjiNawab of Pataudi SnrAlbert TrottFor those of you not taking drugs or crack in particularW G GraceJack HobbsS F BarnesSupps I think you need to change your supplier. If you tell me what is your pleasure I will try and get you something decent!
Jack Hobbs never played in the sub continent and most of the bowlers he faced were probably 60mph tops!
SF Barnes? That's a joke right! He only played 27 matches!
W G Grace? How can you say how good he was?!
Nov 5, 2016 -- 6:11AM, Fatslogger wrote:
In the spirit of the thread, why are none of you morons talking about G Lohmann? Quite apart from the stats, the man played test cricket despite being sick with consumption. Best test bowler ever? Quite possibly. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html
"On the matting wickets of South Africa he was devastating - in 1896-96 he took 35 wickets in three Tests at 5.80"
WD will be replacing S F Barnes with this guy after reading this
Nov 5, 2016 -- 7:13AM, detraveller wrote:
Bob, when you do a 9 hour shift 5 times a week, you are obviously likely to spot more talent than at a game that lasts 7 hours a day for 5 days. Weren;t you at mcdonalds by the way? Did you switch jobs?
so you admit it! there is more talent walking through the checkout in a supermarket than on the pitch owned yourself there mate
Nov 6, 2016 -- 2:32AM, jucel69 wrote:
I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.
It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.
Nov 5, 2016 -- 11:05AM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Now you are peeing me off young man!So what about Hobbs and Sutcliffe?Do you still think Cook could hold a carrot to any of them. Big heavy bats, shorter boundaries these days. No great West Indian fast bowlers around, Not many decent Aussie quicks, The great Pakistani's retired. Nowadays they chip a toe nail and they are sick noted off for 3 months!
WD, when you think about how many people have played cricket for England it must be an amazing coincidence that we had 2 of our greatest ever batsmen opening together in the same team!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 5:18AM, Fatslogger wrote:
Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:32AM, jucel69 wrote:I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.
Comparing them to their contemporaries is probably the most valid way to assess a players "greatness"
There was a guy averaging 100 odd during Hobbs/Sutcliffes time and with only 3 teams playing Tests there weren't too many others to compare them to!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 7:06AM, GRANTCKING wrote:
havent read the posts yet but the 3 greatest england batsman ive seen are KP, root and buttler
I was staying away from this thread because of my lack of knowledge but you certainly show me how to contribute when one doesn't have a clue!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 2:37PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:
To be considered the best you have to have delivered against the best...Botham, Gower both failed on that count v Windies Gooch did not.
Nov 7, 2016 -- 2:02PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
No!Which one of Warne and McGrath was not great?The Windies of the 70's and 80'sTBH I didn't know much about Eddie Paynter except for the Bodyline match when he was ill. He didn't play as much as Hammond and Hutton who I do consider greats of the game.I don't know what you have against the older players. They could play and score on uncovered pitches and our current England team can't play against spin. The bats they used were almost half the weight of current bats.
It does detract from Warne/Mcgrath's greatness for me. They're obviously 2 amazing bowlers but if they're in the same side then they're obviously going to get a huge benefit from playing with each other.
Look at Brett Lee / Jason Gillespie / Craig Mcdermott, do you think that playing with Warne+McGrath was good for their stats or bad?
Look at the batsmen who played with Warne + McGrath - Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Steve Waugh all averaging 50+, lots of other batters averaging 45+
Playing in a strong side boosts everyones stats.
None of those older players played in the subcontinent so nobody has any idea about their true ability vs spin!
Nov 7, 2016 -- 11:43PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Look at Natt Hayden's average when the great fast bowlers were around! read and learn padawan! The great bowlers were largely missing when Aus were in their pomp! As has been pointed out here bowlers win matches! Aus had the two best, no wonder their batsmen made hay!
That was my point WD!
Have spent lots of time looking at stats and reading and so far have to come to one conclusion only.
I T Botham was the greatest cricketer to play for England!
There hasn't been an English all rounder before or since who was close to him and he was the best in his era.