On my favourite batsman, and what I believe makes him special
On his longevity:
He only retired in 2013, when roughly double the age of some international cricketers. He outlasted numerous other greats of his era , despite being older at the time. While I'll admit that by his own high standards, success was a little elusive at the very tail-end of his career, it forms such a small sample of his career that I'm willing to overlook it.
On his consistency:
Home and away, against all comers, the man has performed at a level of consistency seldom touched by other batsman. Some may hold his lack of a triple hundred against him. I say it only serves to enhance how consistent he truly was. Outperforming the mean must be balanced by a corresponding degree of failure. I don't feel that his team would be better served if he had enough ducks to counterbalance a triple century- it is a surprisingly high number.
On the explosive nature of his batting:
The efficacy of a batsman is not based on his batting style- a team should choose a batsman who wins games above one who entertains, but there is no denying that all things being equal, entertainment value and the ability to hit out count for something.
While he may not have the highest average of his era, I can promise that criticisms like 'accumulator' have never been levied against him, unlike some of the other greats. Few would claim other modern-day greats to be more exciting- he is not only an exceptional batsman, but also one of the great entertainers. On top of this, few players in history fall within even 10% of batting average.
On his talent:
You could argue that players like Lara and Sobers had more natural talent with the bat. This will beck no argument from me. I'm not here to disparage other greats. Let's just say that few players approximating his level of talent have ever held a bat in international cricket.
On his support from his own fans:
Fans from his own country have never loved a batsman as they do him.I have seen less wild cheering from spectators when a player reaches a hundred than he does when scoring any run in an innings. Is this simply a result of partisan fanboys? No, because-
On his support from opposition fans:
The greats are often afforded a grudging respect by opposition fans. He achieves more than this. I would go as far as to say that frequently opposition fans would rather watch him bat than even the best batsman in their own team, and in this regard he is peerless. If you think I'm being myopic, bear in mind that I'm one of those opposition fans.
On his technical mastery:
Few other batsmen in history would even consider playing some of the the shots in his repertoire, let alone attempt them. I would say that for a batsman who does not possess a similar level of talent, to even attempt similar shots could be classed as irresponsible. Even with his level of genius, you could class some shots as irresponsible. However, this the nature of genius- irrepressible and fascinating.
On his role as an impact player:
The sense that the game is moving forward, and that something is bound to happen when he is at the crease is unparalleled.
On his psychological impact:
His ability to make a bowler feel like a complete pillock when unable to get him out is something special. While much is often made about success against the greats as a measure of a player, the effect of failure against a great like him should not be underestimated.
On the weight of expectation:
Let me state even though his country's population could be regarded as a statistical outlier in cricketing terms, I'm not willing to make the population/pressure correlation argument- we just don't know. Instead, let me state that with the exception of Bradman, no player has ever been expected to differentiate himself from the pack to such a degree, and needless to say, he delivered spectacularly in this regard
On his bowling:
When analysing one of the greats, I prefer to focus on the primary skill of a player. In the case of my favourite batsman I'm willing to make enough of an exception to mention that he bowls a bit as well (with the caveat that his bowling should not be allowed to detract from his primary discipline of batting, and admitting that I've allowed it to do so). I'm in no way suggesting that he is an allrounder, but the man has over 200 wickets in international cricket, and that must count for something. While I'll admit his bowling average could be a bit better, his impact on some games speaks to the fact that he is more than a batting great. The relatively ineffective nature of his bowling peers adds weight to this argument.
Will we ever see his like again?
I doubt it, and I for one find the world a much colder, darker, and emptier place in his absence.
Chris Martin,
You will forever remain my favourite batsman
On his longevity:
He only retired in 2013, when roughly double the age of some international cricketers. He outlasted numerous other greats of his era , despite being older at the time. While I'll admit that by his own high standards, success was a little elusive at the very tail-end of his career, it forms such a small sample of his career that I'm willing to overlook it.
On his consistency:
Home and away, against all comers, the man has performed at a level of consistency seldom touched by other batsman. Some may hold his lack of a triple hundred against him. I say it only serves to enhance how consistent he truly was. Outperforming the mean must be balanced by a corresponding degree of failure. I don't feel that his team would be better served if he had enough ducks to counterbalance a triple century- it is a surprisingly high number.
On the explosive nature of his batting:
The efficacy of a batsman is not based on his batting style- a team should choose a batsman who wins games above one who entertains, but there is no denying that all things being equal, entertainment value and the ability to hit out count for something.
While he may not have the highest average of his era, I can promise that criticisms like 'accumulator' have never been levied against him, unlike some of the other greats. Few would claim other modern-day greats to be more exciting- he is not only an exceptional batsman, but also one of the great entertainers. On top of this, few players in history fall within even 10% of batting average.
On his talent:
You could argue that players like Lara and Sobers had more natural talent with the bat. This will beck no argument from me. I'm not here to disparage other greats. Let's just say that few players approximating his level of talent have ever held a bat in international cricket.
On his support from his own fans:
Fans from his own country have never loved a batsman as they do him.I have seen less wild cheering from spectators when a player reaches a hundred than he does when scoring any run in an innings. Is this simply a result of partisan fanboys? No, because-
On his support from opposition fans:
The greats are often afforded a grudging respect by opposition fans. He achieves more than this. I would go as far as to say that frequently opposition fans would rather watch him bat than even the best batsman in their own team, and in this regard he is peerless. If you think I'm being myopic, bear in mind that I'm one of those opposition fans.
On his technical mastery:
Few other batsmen in history would even consider playing some of the the shots in his repertoire, let alone attempt them. I would say that for a batsman who does not possess a similar level of talent, to even attempt similar shots could be classed as irresponsible. Even with his level of genius, you could class some shots as irresponsible. However, this the nature of genius- irrepressible and fascinating.
On his role as an impact player:
The sense that the game is moving forward, and that something is bound to happen when he is at the crease is unparalleled.
On his psychological impact:
His ability to make a bowler feel like a complete pillock when unable to get him out is something special. While much is often made about success against the greats as a measure of a player, the effect of failure against a great like him should not be underestimated.
On the weight of expectation:
Let me state even though his country's population could be regarded as a statistical outlier in cricketing terms, I'm not willing to make the population/pressure correlation argument- we just don't know. Instead, let me state that with the exception of Bradman, no player has ever been expected to differentiate himself from the pack to such a degree, and needless to say, he delivered spectacularly in this regard
On his bowling:
When analysing one of the greats, I prefer to focus on the primary skill of a player. In the case of my favourite batsman I'm willing to make enough of an exception to mention that he bowls a bit as well (with the caveat that his bowling should not be allowed to detract from his primary discipline of batting, and admitting that I've allowed it to do so). I'm in no way suggesting that he is an allrounder, but the man has over 200 wickets in international cricket, and that must count for something. While I'll admit his bowling average could be a bit better, his impact on some games speaks to the fact that he is more than a batting great. The relatively ineffective nature of his bowling peers adds weight to this argument.
Will we ever see his like again?
I doubt it, and I for one find the world a much colder, darker, and emptier place in his absence.
Chris Martin,
You will forever remain my favourite batsman
