LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDoes it even need explaining? Its bleeding obvious.Originally Posted by aussie
.jpg)
Does it even need explaining? Its bleeding obvious.
No cherry picking. You are looking at his overall career, in which his peak years for a solid 8 years from WI 92 to ENG 2000 (where he was very solid vs AUS in series between 93/94 - 97/98) & should meet the criteria of averaging under 30. You are leaving out his last 2 years in which he was passed his ultimate peak where coincidentally he ran into the AUS.
I dont know if you saw Donald bowl in that series but the man had slowed down considerably & wasn't the same white lightning who was bowling 90+ mph's like in the 90s. In his last test vs AUS @ Jo'Burg he was sadly stretched off due to injury as well. You really can't consider those 4 tests..
Micheal Vaughan then deserves to be in that list because during his peak around 2002 he was averaging about 60. So should Laxman who averages over 50 since his epic 281 in 2001.
greenidge averaged 50+ after 75 odd tests but finished with a 44 average.... botham averaged 5 wickets per test under 23. finished with less than 4 per match at 28. this has happened to so many players... that is the nature of the game... and that is why you have to take the overall career into consideration...
sachin averaged above 40 in SA until the last series he played there. now it is 39. he will have to live with it.
Does that mean he declined?. I dont think so since i know Greendige scored a superb double century in his last test series @ age 40.
Clearly this is because of injury & other factors. When judging Botham as a great all-rounder you can only look at his performances from 77-84. Unless you want to compare him to other all-rounders his late career decline isn't relevant to judging his greatness.
It depends on the circumstances of the players career. Some players like Marshall & Greg Chappell for example its fairly easy to judge them via overall career performances, since they started off with a bang & ended their careers as some of the best in the buisness. They never declined.
Then you have blokes like:
- Viv Richards who didn't score a hundred in the last 3 years of this test career. He clearly should only be judged on performances from 1976-1988.
- Waqar younis after his 94/95 injury. Like Botham one can & should only judge his greatness based on that short peak. After injury his later he wasn't the same again...
- Gary Sobers as all 'all-rounder" after 1970 (The ENG vs ROW series). Since after that series his bowling declined considerably, while his batting remainded very good. So when judging him as an "all-rounder" his output as a bowler from 70 - 73/74 shouldn't be considered.
I dont see why. You seem to forget that in his last series in SA 07 Tendy was still in his "tennis-elbow injury phase" which affted him alot in tests between ENG 2002 to PAK 07/08. At his best he avergaed 40 in SA, such factors you cant turn a blind eye to.
Note: Well just realising when talking about Tendys record in SA it usually runs againts Donald/Pollock or any really top quality SA attacks. Tendy at his best vs top quality SA attacks in SA was only in 92/93 & 96/97 (the 2001 attack was not a top SA attack) & he averaged 36 over those 2 series.
The 2006/07 shouldn't be considered since as i said Tendy wasn't at his best & he was up againts a quality SA attack.
Last edited by aussie; 29-12-2009 at 06:01 PM.
How does that compare to Donald who had a almost 10 YEAR PEAK, then declined only for 1.5 years due to loss of pace & injury?.
Vaughan just had a little purple patch between SRI 2002 to SA 03 (Birmigham test). No comparison whatsoever to Donald.
So again Donald's 3 test vs AUS IN 2001/02 shouldn't be considered AT ALL, when judgging his record againts them.
VVS indeed when judging him as a great player should be from that Kolkatta test to now since thats when he peaked. Laxman in the 90s clealry wasn't a complete player, he was just a raw talent.
Last edited by aussie; 29-12-2009 at 01:09 PM.
So in other words, if it supports your beliefs then we can cut out matches which don't suit you, but if not we have to ignore them?
Amazing that you can discount a series for Tendulkar with one of the reasons being that he faced a top class bowling attack.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
It has nothing to do with my beliefs or what suits me. Its just knowing a players career & not using stats blindly to judge them. You can't blame me if indivuals have not spent the time to follow the ups & downs of a cricketers career properly.
Yes because in the 2006/07 series, Tendy was still in his tennis-elbow injury phase still. So it wasn't Tendy in peak/top form vs a quality SA pace attack.
I think Pakistan's Ijaz Ahmed had a pretty good record against Australia especially compared to his overall record. I think he had like 5 centuries and 1000 test runs
"This is a clash of strategy. And of methods, culture and politics. This is a new-era rivalry. Not as ancient as the Ashes, or as passionate as India-Pakistan. Two countries that are so different, yet share rampant egotism, high self-opinion and a belief that being born in their country is superior to other births. This brings together a belligerent bunch of brats, bullies and braggers."- Jarrod Kimber
I remember Greenidges double in that series, he was well past his best, he barely scored all series then came out with that innings from nowhere. But I understand what you mean with Donald, Botham, etc, although I wouldn't totally discount players playing past their prime. Botham is probably more a case than Donald, Averaging 31 against the Aussies in that era is certainly nothing to be snivvled at, and The Aussies were certainly strong then, not just a case of Donald being past his best.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote