I have been thinking about this for a while and then I came across this on Cricket Chat over the last couple of days in various topics.
Whether it was Ponting vs Tendulkar or Botham vs Dev or analysing Waqar as a great bowler, it always seems to come up - how long a player managed to be at his peak, how long a player managed to be great.
I am very interested in reading some perspectives on this from you guys. I don't want this to become a debate between any two players but more in general about how important longevity is according to the cricket fans on this forum.
Say someone like Andrew Flintoff, at his peak has great but his peak lasted for at best 2-3 years? Is that enough for Flintoff to be considered among the great all rounders of his time?
Waqar Younis - I know he has a lot of fans on this forum and his record is great especially during his early years, but he was just not a match winning bowler from 98 onwards. Is that an important factor when looking at his career?
There are players who reach great heights but do not manage to be at that level for too long. There are players who reach heights but manage to maintain it for longer. How do you assess them?