Greatness and Longevity

[benchmark00]

Cliffs?

 

[Hurricane]

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

 

[smash84]

lol

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS is so loved on this forum

Yes, indeed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cliffs?

"Won't someone please think of the averages?"

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

"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?

 

[benchmark00]

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.

 

[smash84]

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

 

[G.I.Joe]

To me, picking points in a player's career to paint him in better light than his entire career does smacks more of stats-mongering than anything else.

 

[BoyBrumby]

To me, picking points in a player's career to paint him in better light than his entire career does smacks more of stats-mongering than anything else.

I'd agree, but equally with someone like Waqar the whole of his career up until his injury was borderline superhuman & when he came back he was still an effective test perfromer, but had lost some of his previous nip.

It's not stats-mongering to my way of thinking to say he was an AT great bowler prior to an injury and merely a very good one thereafter. I'd say to solely judge a player's merit on their overall average devoid of context is closer to what I'd understand by the term.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'd agree, but equally with someone like Waqar the whole of his career up until his injury was borderline superhuman & when he came back he was still an effective test perfromer, but had lost some of his previous nip.

Not really. Waqar was pretty ineffective on a lot of important tours after 98.- India 99, West Indies 00, England 01 and South Africa 02.

 

[smash84]

i think Brumby is talking about Waqar's major back injury in 1994. Waqar was pretty good from 1994-98

 

[kiwiviktor81]

This thread makes me for Shane Bond.