People 'tarnishing their legacy' by going on too long...

[AlanJLegend]

Maybe it is just a cliche, but in the past couple of years there has been a lot of talk about how Ponting should have retired earlier, and especially in the last month it has constantly been said how Tendulkar should retire before his legacy is ruined etc etc.

The question is, after a few decades following a player's retirement do people actually remember the last few years where many will inevitably lose some form? Are any legendary cricketers remembered as being **** towards the end of their career?

When I think of the 'legendary' batsmen (that were before my time) I think of the likes of Viv Richards, Border, Botham, Gavaskar, Khan, Crowe, Hobbs, Trumper, the Chappells and a whole host of others. Did these any of these people have a slump at the end of their career like Tendulkar is now? If so I have never heard about it.

Is this whole 'legacy tarnishing' business something that actually affects how a player is viewed decades from now? Or just a myth?

[benchmark00]

Only matters to stats goblins #viv4eva

[flibbertyjibber]

Add Bradman to the list, if he hadn't been so selfish and toured England one last time he'd have averaged over 100. Legacy ruined there.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Only matters to stats goblins #viv4eva

This is basically it.

[Cabinet96]

Originally Posted by AlanJLegend

When I think of the 'legendary' batsmen (that were before my time) I think of the likes of Viv Richards, Border, Botham, Gavaskar, Khan, Crowe, Hobbs, Trumper, the Chappells and a whole host of others. Did these any of these people have a slump at the end of their career like Tendulkar is now? If so I have never heard about it.

Viv and Hobbs did. Hobbs would have averaged over 60 if he hadn't played into his 40's. I doubt it really makes a huge difference to their legacies though. Even the spreadsheet brigade know how to look at a players career before an end of career slump.

[Teja.]

There are two acceptable sets of cricket fans; those who don't give a **** about stats, there are those who like stats and analyze them in context.

The entire 'legacy is tarnished because average went from 55 to 53.87' argument is an extremely frivolous one which is used purely by the ****wits in between who rely on stats but use them prima facie, without context.

[Neil Pickup]

Most of Botham's career was a slump.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by AlanJLegend

Maybe it is just a cliche, but in the past couple of years there has been a lot of talk about how Ponting should have retired earlier, and especially in the last month it has constantly been said how Tendulkar should retire before his legacy is ruined etc etc.

The question is, after a few decades following a player's retirement do people actually remember the last few years where many will inevitably lose some form? Are any legendary cricketers remembered as being **** towards the end of their career?

When I think of the 'legendary' batsmen (that were before my time) I think of the likes of Viv Richards, Border, Botham, Gavaskar, Khan, Crowe, Hobbs, Trumper, the Chappells and a whole host of others. Did these any of these people have a slump at the end of their career like Tendulkar is now? If so I have never heard about it.

Is this whole 'legacy tarnishing' business something that actually affects how a player is viewed decades from now? Or just a myth?

Pretty sure almost all of them had it. it's natural.


There's definitely short-term memory bias that greatly affects our perception without us realizing it.


For example, get the English to vote right now who the best batsman has been over the last 20 yrs, and they will mostly go for Lara and it's mainly because they have seen tendulkar struggle against their team just recently and even in the last few yrs he hasn't had any stand out performances against Eng relatively speaking.

thoughts/images that will enter their mind wrt tendulkar-

recent series
1) low scores, batting like ****
2) anderson getting him
2011 series in eng
3) having a merely ok series, while dravid having a blast
4) failing at lords ?
stand out innings
5) chennai last innings ton

Maybe in 5 yrs they will forget few of those negatives and start to rate him higher.

Lara-

1) will prob recall couple of his best innings against Eng (400* maybe)
2) remember his attacking style, flair etc



Ponting-

1) failing in the last ashes series
2) arrogant ****
3) old trafford ton

going by this, you can see why a typical english fan will go with Lara easily.


Then get the Australians to vote, and you will find completely different results. They'll probably go with Tendulkar for obvious reasons. ( 1) they have probably never seen him struggle against their side. 2) seen him do well against aus even in the recent past 3) will easily remember his stroke-making, a few of his standout knocks etc..)



If someone just started watching cricket in the last few yrs then he would obviously find it hard to rate a Ponting or a Tendulkar higher than say a Kallis.

However, the same person in 10-20 yrs time will not remember much about the slump, so through constantly hearing about how good tendulkar was etc, he would probably start to rate him higher.

[Neil Pickup]

I look forward to posting here in 20 years time (let's face it, enough of us have been here one decade, we may get less regular but we're still here) to hear about how Tendulkar's end-of-career slump, leaving him with an average of 52, means that's he's definitely not as good as Pieter de Kolpak, who's currently averaging 61.

It's what we've heard about Richards ad nauseum, so it's what we have to expect to hear again when the circle of stat wars continues. As they say, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by AlanJLegend

Maybe it is just a cliche, but in the past couple of years there has been a lot of talk about how Ponting should have retired earlier, and especially in the last month it has constantly been said how Tendulkar should retire before his legacy is ruined etc etc.

The question is, after a few decades following a player's retirement do people actually remember the last few years where many will inevitably lose some form? Are any legendary cricketers remembered as being **** towards the end of their career?

When I think of the 'legendary' batsmen (that were before my time) I think of the likes of Viv Richards, Border, Botham, Gavaskar, Khan, Crowe, Hobbs, Trumper, the Chappells and a whole host of others. Did these any of these people have a slump at the end of their career like Tendulkar is now? If so I have never heard about it.

Is this whole 'legacy tarnishing' business something that actually affects how a player is viewed decades from now? Or just a myth?

You think about cricket without too knowing much I suppose

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

I look forward to posting here in 20 years time (let's face it, enough of us have been here one decade, we may get less regular but we're still here) to hear about how Tendulkar's end-of-career slump, leaving him with an average of 52, means that's he's definitely not as good as Pieter de Kolpak, who's currently averaging 61.

It's what we've heard about Richards ad nauseum, so it's what we have to expect to hear again when the circle of stat wars continues. As they say, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

LOL

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Most of Botham's career was a slump.

By far the best illustration of the fact that the decline doesn't really matter when it comes to remembering the highlights

[Daemon]

I think there's just an ever so slight difference in judging how good a player was, and how much he contributed to the team. If you're measuring the former, then sure that final decline should rightfully be ignored, but if you want to judge the latter then surely if a player is being a deadweight for too long in the dying stages, it can be held against him.

[sledger]

Not convinced it has a lot to do with stats tbh. A slump at the end of a career might not tarnish a reputation, and it certainly doesn't undermine past achievements. But, there's something inescapably sad about seeing someone who's obviously a long way past their prime continue to struggle on in futile fashion. Like Old Yella. They really loved that dog, but there came a time when he had to be put out of his misery, for the benefit of everyone.

[Tangles]

When Pontings slump started he was captain and a bad one at that. He was given much more time than Taylor was when he had his slump and his team was still #1 and winning.

Sachin's continued playing on, in what looks like the massing of runs and stats for the sake of it, is what also hurts him.