Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Greatness and Longevity

  1. #16
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,435
    PEWS is so loved on this forum
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  2. #17
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,714
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    PEWS is so loved on this forum
    This.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I got great enjoyment in going to the game and shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowd
    Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.

  3. #18
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,954
    Longevity obviously matters; the very fact Sachin is still one of the best (let's be conservative) dozen or so batsmen in the world over two decades from his debut is incredible.

    However I personally hate the retrospective downgrading of a player's achievements because they went on after their peak. Ponting's current travails are the best current example, but the history of cricket is littered with other examples. After 82 tests and at 35 years of age Garry Sobers's average was still north of 60. George Headley's average before WW2 was 66.72, but he played two further tests in 1948 when he was nudging 40 and a final one in 1954 when well into his fifth decade and scored just 55 runs in the 5 bats he got, lowering his career mark to 60.83.

    Does playing on past their peaks lessen their youthful genius? Not IMHO. Very few people downgrade (say) Muhammad Ali for being a washed up ghost of his former self in his last two bouts against Holmes & Berbick but because cricket is so stat orientated there's more of a tendancy to amongst some quarters.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Longevity obviously matters; the very fact Sachin is still one of the best (let's be conservative) dozen or so batsmen in the world over two decades from his debut is incredible.

    However I personally hate the retrospective downgrading of a player's achievements because they went on after their peak. Ponting's current travails are the best current example, but the history of cricket is littered with other examples. After 82 tests and at 35 years of age Garry Sobers's average was still north of 60. George Headley's average before WW2 was 66.72, but he played two further tests in 1948 when he was nudging 40 and a final one in 1954 when well into his fifth decade and scored just 55 runs in the 5 bats he got, lowering his career mark to 60.83.

    Does playing on past their peaks lessen their youthful genius? Not IMHO. Very few people downgrade (say) Muhammad Ali for being a washed up ghost of his former self in his last two bouts against Holmes & Berbick but because cricket is so stat orientated there's more of a tendancy to amongst some quarters.
    The entire point of respecting longevity is exactly that, though. Ponting playing poorly now doesn't change what he did earlier and when assessing his career it shouldn't make people rate him any lower than if he'd retired two years ago. However, a Ponting from an alternate universe who continued to average 60 odd in 2009, 2010 and 2011 would've been of significantly more cricketing value than the Ponting we have or indeed a Ponting who just retired, so players who do manage to sustain their greatness for longer - or even those who play on past their prime but remain an asset to their side and command their places - should be rated higher.

    Maintaining long-term success within a cricket side is not about finding players who can reach a mystically high level of skill for a couple of years and be a passenger either side of the peak, or even about finding players who come in, do their stuff and retire right at the top of their games in short careers; it's about finding players whose values remain high for long periods. The longer a player can maintain high standards or even just play better than the next best player left out the side, the more value he is, the more he'll help his side win/save games and the better he should be rated. The romanticist in us all naturally makes us look for and remember what players were like at their best, particularly when they're from the team we support, and there's nothing wrong with discussing players peaks and they're interesting, emotional and artful. These peaks and highs represent the part of cricket that makes us want to watch it and not just compile databases on it; but from a performance analysis perspective it means comparatively little to the length of time a player can positively contribute.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-12-2011 at 05:18 AM.
    ~ Cribbage

    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simonlee48 View Post
    Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga.
    Sanga isn't the best off spinner in the history of cricket? News to me.


  5. #20
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The entire point of respecting longevity is exactly that, though. Ponting playing poorly now doesn't change what he did earlier and when assessing his career it shouldn't make people rate him any lower than if he'd retired two years ago. However, a Ponting from an alternate universe who continued to average 60 odd in 2009, 2010 and 2011 would've been of significantly more cricketing value than the Ponting we have or indeed a Ponting who just retired, so players who do manage to sustain their greatness for longer - or even those who play on past their prime but remain an asset to their side and command their places - should be rated higher.

    Maintaining long-term success within a cricket side is not about finding players who can reach a mystically high level of skill for a couple of years and be a passenger either side of the peak, or even about finding players who come in, do their stuff and retire right at the top of their games in short careers; it's about finding players whose values remain high for long periods. The longer a player can maintain high standards or even just play better than the next best player left out the side, the more value he is, the more he'll help his side win/save games and the better he should be rated. The romanticist in us all naturally makes us look for and remember what players were like at their best, particularly when they're from the team we support, and there's nothing wrong with discussing players peaks and they're interesting, emotional and artful. These peaks and highs represent the part of cricket that makes us want to watch it and not just compile databases on it; but from a performance analysis perspective it means comparatively little to the length of time a player can positively contribute.
    :

    Ass Ankit mentioned that I love long posts

  6. #21
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Cliffs?
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  7. #22
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The entire point of respecting longevity is exactly that, though. Ponting playing poorly now doesn't change what he did earlier and when assessing his career it shouldn't make people rate him any lower than if he'd retired two years ago. However, a Ponting from an alternate universe who continued to average 60 odd in 2009, 2010 and 2011 would've been of significantly more cricketing value than the Ponting we have or indeed a Ponting who just retired, so players who do manage to sustain their greatness for longer - or even those who play on past their prime but remain an asset to their side and command their places - should be rated higher.

    Maintaining long-term success within a cricket side is not about finding players who can reach a mystically high level of skill for a couple of years and be a passenger either side of the peak, or even about finding players who come in, do their stuff and retire right at the top of their games in short careers; it's about finding players whose values remain high for long periods. The longer a player can maintain high standards or even just play better than the next best player left out the side, the more value he is, the more he'll help his side win/save games and the better he should be rated. The romanticist in us all naturally makes us look for and remember what players were like at their best, particularly when they're from the team we support, and there's nothing wrong with discussing players peaks and they're interesting, emotional and artful. These peaks and highs represent the part of cricket that makes us want to watch it and not just compile databases on it; but from a performance analysis perspective it means comparatively little to the length of time a player can positively contribute.
    tl;dr

  8. #23
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,435
    lol

  9. #24
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    PEWS is so loved on this forum
    Yes, indeed.

  10. #25
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The entire point of respecting longevity is exactly that, though. Ponting playing poorly now doesn't change what he did earlier and when assessing his career it shouldn't make people rate him any lower than if he'd retired two years ago. However, a Ponting from an alternate universe who continued to average 60 odd in 2009, 2010 and 2011 would've been of significantly more cricketing value than the Ponting we have or indeed a Ponting who just retired, so players who do manage to sustain their greatness for longer - or even those who play on past their prime but remain an asset to their side and command their places - should be rated higher.

    Maintaining long-term success within a cricket side is not about finding players who can reach a mystically high level of skill for a couple of years and be a passenger either side of the peak, or even about finding players who come in, do their stuff and retire right at the top of their games in short careers; it's about finding players whose values remain high for long periods. The longer a player can maintain high standards or even just play better than the next best player left out the side, the more value he is, the more he'll help his side win/save games and the better he should be rated. The romanticist in us all naturally makes us look for and remember what players were like at their best, particularly when they're from the team we support, and there's nothing wrong with discussing players peaks and they're interesting, emotional and artful. These peaks and highs represent the part of cricket that makes us want to watch it and not just compile databases on it; but from a performance analysis perspective it means comparatively little to the length of time a player can positively contribute.
    That's all well and groovy, but what about those players (like Sobers, actually) who'd already had very long and distinguished careers (he'd been a test player for well over a decade and a half by the time he reached 35) but who went on because they were still of use to their team? A batsman averaging 40+ is still a good test performer, even if he's not a superhuman anymore.

    To my way of thinking it shows a healthy disregard for personal glory and is almost praiseworthy in itself. & I don't think the first 15+ years of someone's career is cherry picking.

    With someone in Ponting's current nick it's more debateable, as averaging <30 isn't cutting the mustard but the selectors must still think he can turn it around or he wouldn't keep getting picked.

  11. #26
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,954
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Cliffs?
    "Won't someone please think of the averages?"

  12. #27
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    That's all well and groovy, but what about those players (like Sobers, actually) who'd already had very long and distinguished careers (he'd been a test player for well over a decade and a half by the time he reached 35) but who went on because they were still of use to their team? A batsman averaging 40+ is still a good test performer, even if he's not a superhuman anymore..
    Yeah, that's my point though. Sobers deserves far more credit for continuing on like that than if he'd just stopped because he realised he wasn't quite as awesome as he was previously. That's what longevity is about; giving respect to players who contribute for a long time. I rate Sobers in the top 3 or 4 batsmen of all time.

  13. #28
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    "Won't someone please think of the averages?"
    Not even remotely true. The opposite, if anything. Long career averaging 50 > short career averaging 60. Especially since the former is likely to have the latter contained in it somewhere.

    Seriously, did you actually read my post or just assume I'd say what people expect me to?

  14. #29
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    That's all well and groovy, but what about those players (like Sobers, actually) who'd already had very long and distinguished careers (he'd been a test player for well over a decade and a half by the time he reached 35) but who went on because they were still of use to their team? A batsman averaging 40+ is still a good test performer, even if he's not a superhuman anymore..



    The best start to a post I've ever seen.

  15. #30
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah, that's my point though. Sobers deserves far more credit for continuing on like that than if he'd just stopped because he realised he wasn't quite as awesome as he was previously. That's what longevity is about; giving respect to players who contribute for a long time. I rate Sobers in the top 3 or 4 batsmen of all time.
    yeah but Sobers just didn't become **** overnight did he? And his "slump" post 35 didn't just go on and on and on did it?

    Also it must be questioned as to what point is a player an asset and up to what point a liability to the team?

    I know you mentioned that until garry sobers was better than the next best alternative he was adding value but if garry adds only 20 runs per match and he has even more pathetic people as the next best alternative then what does that imply? Doesn't that mean that Sobers was just less **** than the next **** player but essentially both are ****?

    Effectively that brings us back to the same point that players who excelled for a long period deserve more accolades

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WHY do they say this?
    By hang on in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 848
    Last Post: 13-04-2011, 06:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •