Current players who should quit while they're ahead.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You have to do it at least for the better part of a decade IMO.

Ian Botham took over 200 wickets within his first 5 years of cricket IIRC, or at least he was close to it. I don't think longevity is that much of an issue when the achievement is that great. 41 Tests for 200 wickets and a career batting average over 30? I think he'd had done enough at that stage to be considered one of the great allrounders. He continued because England still needed him and because, perhaps more importantly, he still felt he had - and he did have - something to contribute.

 

[silentstriker]

Ian Botham took over 200 wickets within his first 5 years of cricket IIRC, or at least he was close to it. I don't think longevity is that much of an issue when the achievement is that great. 41 Tests for 200 wickets and a career batting average over 30? I think he'd had done enough at that stage to be considered one of the great allrounders. He continued because England still needed him and because, perhaps more importantly, he still felt he had - and he did have - something to contribute.

Yea, well he was a spectacular talent - no doubt. But the initial post compared him to Imran - and thats why I rate him lower than Imran. Obviously, if he had continued his form for another 2-3 years, he'd be ahead of him. Botham did it for around 40-50 tests, Waqar did it for about 30-35...but more than the number of tests is the amount of time IMO.

You have to bowl/bat for an extended period of time and continue to be successful even opposition has plenty of time to figure you out and also avoid or go past injuries. It's part of being a cricket player IMO. That's why I think Walsh is massively underrated. To do it for that long is nothing sort of spectacular.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yea, well he was a spectacular talent - no doubt. But the initial post compared him to Imran - and thats why I rate him lower than Imran. Obviously, if he had continued his form for another 2-3 years, he'd be ahead of him. Botham did it for around 40-50 tests, Waqar did it for about 30-35...but more than the number of tests is the amount of time IMO.

Time is irrelevant if you consider the intensity of cricket. In this day and age, a player can conceivably play a lot of matches in a short space of time. The intensity of cricket and the wear upon the body would be a huge factor in determining the length of a career. 40-50 Tests in the space of 5 years is not a huge amount by modern standards, but it still takes its toll, especially given the number of ODI matches (and Twenty20 rubbish) in between.

Note that this post is not a comment on Botham per se, but rather stating that there are several things to consider when commenting on longevity. In the 5 years after his debut, Imran Khan had only played 4 Tests. In Botham's first 5 years, he played 51. After 10 years, Khan had played 33 and hadn't reached his peak. Botham had played 93 and long passed his.

 

[Richard]

As a kind of related aside I often see Ian Botham's overall career figures used a stick to beat him with when compared to the other great all-rounders from his era. I mean, obviously Imran averaged more with the bat & less with the ball when their careers were over, but if Botham had retired earlier his overall averages (particularly his bowling) would've been far better. IIRC when he reached 200 test wickets his average was around 21.

He obviously didn't maintain his considerable peak for as long as Imran did, due to various factors, but I don't think it's fair to denegrate a player because he has the desire to go on & play for his country even if he is past his best. Clearly Both was still the best all-rounder we had available to us (& remained so for pretty much all his career, even when he was a fat late 30-something with no back) so I say fair play to him for carrying on.

Moreover, I'd say any player who quit for the sake of his average is a little wrong-headed anyway. Hell, even Boycott played on for long enough to see his (test) average dip below 50.

Boycott could've played even longer if he hadn't decided a rebel-tour was preferable.

FWIW, I think it's a great shame Botham wasn't advised against bowling after the First Test in India in 1981\82 (not as absurd as it sounds - it's not impossible that such a thing would happen today, even if still less likely than more, with his back in a poor state - self-inflicted, it shouldn't be ignored), and that he didn't snap a cruciate-ligament or something and never bat again after the first-innings of the Third Test of 1984.

Because his latter matches could give the unwary the impression that he wasn't really that good - yet had such a thing happened, it might well be Sobers, Miller\Botham, daylight. As it is, there are types (C_C, for example) who can argue that because Botham ended-up having a load of crap games (and played when he never, ever should have done in 1991 and 1992) he wasn't really that good ITFP.

 

[Richard]

Actually, I personally thought the way the Oz selectors hurried Steve Waugh towards the door marked "retirement" was a bit shabby tho. On the face of it he seemed to go of his own volition, but I strongly suspect he desperately wanted that win in India. I think he'd earned that right too.

And it was a little bizarre, given that at the time of his retirement he'd regained his form and his place in the side would not have been up for question for said two subcontinental tours (wasn't just India, was Sri Lanka too - he never won in either).

 

[Richard]

He continued because England still needed him and because, perhaps more importantly, he still felt he had - and he did have - something to contribute.

Well - the odd good performance once every 4 or 5 games, yes.

Seriously - don't let Botham's paucity in his last 40-odd games detract from the brilliance of his first 60-odd, but equally don't let his initial brilliance disguise the fact that he was mostly wholly poor after the middle of 1984.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan - unfit, hasnt been a world class bat for a few years and living on his reputation from the Ashes of '05

Err, what? Vaughan achieved little in Ashes 2005. It was Ashes 2002\03 that was his magnum-opus.

 

[Richard]

We have a winner for the Inzy...

Should we have a Stuey MacGill for "worst thread of the week"?

 

[Swervy]

As a kind of related aside I often see Ian Botham's overall career figures used a stick to beat him with when compared to the other great all-rounders from his era. I mean, obviously Imran averaged more with the bat & less with the ball when their careers were over, but if Botham had retired earlier his overall averages (particularly his bowling) would've been far better. IIRC when he reached 200 test wickets his average was around 21.

He obviously didn't maintain his considerable peak for as long as Imran did, due to various factors, but I don't think it's fair to denegrate a player because he has the desire to go on & play for his country even if he is past his best. Clearly Both was still the best all-rounder we had available to us (& remained so for pretty much all his career, even when he was a fat late 30-something with no back) so I say fair play to him for carrying on.

Moreover, I'd say any player who quit for the sake of his average is a little wrong-headed anyway. Hell, even Boycott played on for long enough to see his (test) average dip below 50.

quite right...but try telling some people on here that.

Actually it tends to be younger people on here that down grade Botham as a player. Those of us who saw Botham play would never dream of basing an opinion on his career on what his overall averages looked like.

I mean , jeez, some people even have the cheek to say that Kapil dev was Bothams superior, which is laughable really

 

[Swervy]

Well - the odd good performance once every 4 or 5 games, yes.

Seriously - don't let Botham's paucity in his last 40-odd games detract from the brilliance of his first 60-odd, but equally don't let his initial brilliance disguise the fact that he was mostly wholly poor after the middle of 1984.

to be fair, Botham bowled pretty well vs Australia in 1985, and threw in there some very useful innings when the series was still up for grabs, but yeah there was a spark missing from his bowling after 1982, bar the odd performance (8 for vs WI being one)

 

[Richard]

I mean , jeez, some people even have the cheek to say that Kapil dev was Bothams superior, which is laughable really

Some people even have the cheek to say Kapil was Imran's superior, and that is beyond laughable.

 

[Richard]

to be fair, Botham bowled pretty well vs Australia in 1985, and threw in there some very useful innings when the series was still up for grabs, but yeah there was a spark missing from his bowling after 1982, bar the odd performance (8 for vs WI being one)

That 8-for would've been great had it not been followed-up by 20-117-0. That sort of thing takes the gloss off something somewhat - same with Hoggard at Christchurch.

1985 was the only time he bowled semi-decently from the Second Test 1981\82 onwards, and even then he was still nothing like as good as he had been before 1981\82.

And with the bat from the second-innings of the Third Test of 1984 to 1989 (I refuse to base anything whatsoever on the Botham of 1991 and 1992, his career should have ended in 1989 IMO) he passed 50 6 times in 44 innings. You could probably go so far as to say he had a really big influence (the type he had for fun in his first 111 innings) on the game once in said period.

I'd say it's stretching credulity to claim Botham was anything other than decidedly poor from mid-1984 onwards. Not quite Khaled Mahmud-esque, but certainly nothing more than a Paul Strang \ Chandika Hathrusinghe type player. Useful of times, but nothing more.

He still had the attitude, of course, and that could go some way to making him look a bit better than he was any more.

IMO there's no better illustration of the two parts of Botham than two incidents in 1981 and 1985. Both triumphant summers, but 1981 saw the innings at Old Trafford where he slammed Lillee, Whitney and Bright all over the shop for 118 off 102 balls. In 1985 at The Oval he slammed Hughes for 16 in an over... then was caught off McDermott.

Same attitude, same style of play... far, far less effective.

 

[Dick Rockett]

While I do agree with the concept of "quitting while you're ahead", it doesn't really apply with athletes, as they are only in a team at the whim of the selectors.

Musicians, on the other hand...

 

[Jono]

Some people even have the cheek to say Kapil was Imran's superior, and that is beyond laughable.

Weren't you around for the Freddy Mercury discussion?

 

[shortpitched713]

Weren't you around for the Freddy Mercury discussion?

Link Please???

 

[Richard]

Weren't you around for the Freddy Mercury discussion?

Well there seem to have been a few.

Link Please???

This is the only one I was involved in.

 

[Jono]

No, there was a post where SL pointed out that Kapil Dev looked a lot like Freddy Mercury, and hence that alone made him superior than Botham and Imran.

 

[Richard]

Oh.

 

[shortpitched713]

No, there was a post where SL pointed out that Kapil Dev looked a lot like Freddy Mercury, and hence that alone made him superior than Botham and Imran.

Slow Love™

 

[FRAZ]

Slow Love™

How one can get this tm on tne right upper corner of the login name . Looks kool ,Wish I could grow one !!!