When does good become great?

[flibbertyjibber]

Just a question here, we regard Tendulkar, Ponting, Murali, Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Lara, Dravid and Kallis as great players of recent years and nobody would question that. The thing is they all had or are still having very long careers so they have a ridiculous amount of runs/centuries/wickets/5fers. When does a player go from being good to great?

For example Alastair Cook now has 19 hundreds with a career average just under 50 and he is only 26, will he end up being regarded as a great player once he reaches 30 test hundreds or 10,000 runs both of which he will probably pass given time. There are other players you can put in the same bracket, Ian Bell and Dale Steyn to name but 2. When is it that a player leaps from good to great in the eyes of the public?

 

[weeman27bob]

I think Steyn is arguably a level above Cook and almost certainly above Bell.

I was thinking about this the other day, and another player I'd like to see people's thoughts on is Prior.

 

[Howe_zat]

In my opinion, I had a great cheese toastie for lunch. I described it as much at the time.

My point is that it's really just a case of semantics, this. Whether you want to describe a player as "great" usually revolves around some description of tiers - that is, whether those in the top 5, 10, 20, 50 or whatever qualify. That's completely up to you.

In fact, I think it's rather a weak way of praising someone. For the above reasons, it can mean almost anything. If we are to indulge in the mostly unnecessary but occasionally interesting game of ordering past players, surely it's better come up with something better to look for?

Shouldn't you look for decisive or mathcwinning? Or, if you prefer, how about beautiful or innovative? What about being ahead of their time, or just a well spoken, likeable cricketer that succeeded at the top level?

There's so much more to the greats than just being called "great". It does a disservice to them.

 

[GIMH]

In my opinion, I had a great cheese toastie for lunch. I described it as much at the time.

My point is that it's really just a case of semantics, this. Whether you want to describe a player as "great" usually revolves around some description of tiers - that is, whether those in the top 5, 10, 20, 50 or whatever qualify. That's completely up to you.

In fact, I think it's rather a weak way of praising someone. For the above reasons, it can mean almost anything. If we are to indulge in the mostly unnecessary but occasionally interesting game of ordering past players, surely it's better come up with something better to look for?

Shouldn't you look for decisive or mathcwinning? Or, if you prefer, how about beautiful or innovative? What about being ahead of their time, or just a well spoken, likeable cricketer that succeeded at the top level?

There's so much more to the greats than just being called "great". It does a disservice to them.

Great post Jake

 

[tooextracool]

I think in general it takes something special, be it a match winning performance, a special series against the best team in the world or a colossal year where said person manages to truly set himself apart from everyone else. Obviously you need to have the consistency before you can legitimately stake a claim but that's usually what happens.

As Malcolm Gladwell would have it, its that tipping point.

 

[centurymaker]

I think in general it takes something special, be it a match winning performance, a special series against the best team in the world or a colossal year where said person manages to truly set himself apart from everyone else. Obviously you need to have the consistency before you can legitimately stake a claim but that's usually what happens.

As Malcolm Gladwell would have it, its that tipping point.

yeah spot on.

 

[smash84]

I think in general it takes something special, be it a match winning performance, a special series against the best team in the world or a colossal year where said person manages to truly set himself apart from everyone else. Obviously you need to have the consistency before you can legitimately stake a claim but that's usually what happens.

As Malcolm Gladwell would have it, its that tipping point.

Great point

 

[Redbacks]

There's so much more to the greats than just being called "great". It does a disservice to them.

It's probably something greater than any one person can explain, thus is probably found in the tacit knowlegde of cricket followers formed by the sum of their opinions.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's probably something greater than any one person can explain, thus is probably found in the tacit knowlegde of cricket followers formed by the sum of their opinions.

Yeah, agree with this.

 

[Redbacks]

As for Bell and Cook: They'd have to be better the Hayden for a start

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't think Bell will ever become a great tbf.

 

[Burgey]

You also need to have enough faith placed in you to become "great". Cook is a good example of long term faith being placed in a player from a young age. I wouldn't have recognised him from the bloke who was here four years before.

That's credit to him, but it's also credit to those who've kept faith with him.

 

[subshakerz]

In Steyn's case, I think once he passes 300 wickets and maintain his current form, he should by all rights be considered a great, given that he's in the the same statistical ballpark as Lillee, Marshall, and all.

 

[Jacknife]

When you look at the last 2 years for Bell his stats are unreal averages 72 with 7 tons, only Kallis averages more. If he keeps this form up, it will defo put his name up to be talked about as one, same goes for Cook as well.

 

[Xuhaib]

around 5000runs and 200 wickets you start entertaining the thought that XYZ is on the verge of greatness once the player sustains his performances after this at some point the tag of great will get tagged to that player.

 

[Spark]

When you look at the last 2 years for Bell his stats are unreal averages 72 with 7 tons, only Kallis averages more. If he keeps this form up, it will defo put his name up to be talked about as one, same goes for Cook as well.

2 years is a tiny period though. Any good player will have a period like that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I knew this was about Cook before I opened the thread

I think a player becomes a great with consistently good performances against good teams over a long period of time. It's always interesting to see how players perform against the top players in their era.

 

[Jayzamann]

2 years is a tiny period though. Any good player will have a period like that.

It is profound that Kallis is still better over that period, after having a decade+ of similar returns.

 

[Jacknife]

2 years is a tiny period though. Any good player will have a period like that.

Hence why I put, if he keeps this form up.

 

[salman85]

Back in the day,getting 300 Test Wickets was my personal definition of an ATG bowler.

Thankyou Vettori,Vaas,Harbhajan,Kumble and Ntini for placing your unworthy buttcheeks on that list,and proving that all of you have diarrhea.