GuyFromLancs
State Vice-Captain
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...co-pilot-keaton-jennings-pakistan-second-test
Right, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this, but I have voiced concerns about Cook before and been (perhaps rightfully) shouted down. But it’s not jus this, my gut (always a scientific method of analysis) has forever told me that Cook’s utlility to the team is significantly less than his statistics tell us. And don’t get me wrong, in a era of famine for great English openers (a demoralised bunch of borderline troubled individuals, virtually by definition)- 150+ caps and 13,000 runs is a biblical-scale achievement.
I just can’t help but feel this is a Billy Beane moment, and even within the context of English cricket’s … mixed ... achievements, Cook’s utility is less than his numbers, and perhaps even talent, suggest.
It’s not just cricket this phenomena presents itself in – Manchester United finally won the Champions League 2 years after Cantona retired, they started winning the Premiership for fun when Bryan Robson declined and left. Liverpool won the Champions League 10 months after selling Michael Owen. Glenn Hoddle knew Scholes was more useful to the team than Gascoigne I don’t believe events like this happen by accident and nor at they as anomalous as people think.
Skill and aggregate output across time doesn't always correspond directly with Utility.
Back to Cook – I have a problem when and where his runs come from. Daddy hundreds in favourable conditions prop up prolonged spells where he bats like a scarecrow holding a toothpick. He’s capable of scoring 300, followed shortly by 57 scores of under 20 (I exaggerate somewhat) I have neither the time nor the ability truth be told to unpick in great detail the circumstances of his successes and failures (beyond mere high-level statistics). But I suspect there’s more to it than meets the eye. I’ve predicted with horrible success the series’ he’d go missing at exactly the wrong time, and with grim consistency! Cricket is a hellishly complex game and there are important intangibles that the stats (or commentards) don’t come close to touching.
... and the peaks, of which are huge (it still wouldn’t surprise me if he broke Lara’s or Gooch’s Innings or match records in the future) come at a time where I thought others could have filled that same role, albeit perhaps with less aplomb. (think our wonderful 2010-2011). Raiding the sweet cupboard when Mum and Dad are out.
I can’t put my finger on it and I’ll likely get murdered for this, but I think Cook will be fortunate to be remembered as an England elite in hindsight, in all but a statistical domain.
Anyways, I await the knives ...
(edit: typos, etc)
Right, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this, but I have voiced concerns about Cook before and been (perhaps rightfully) shouted down. But it’s not jus this, my gut (always a scientific method of analysis) has forever told me that Cook’s utlility to the team is significantly less than his statistics tell us. And don’t get me wrong, in a era of famine for great English openers (a demoralised bunch of borderline troubled individuals, virtually by definition)- 150+ caps and 13,000 runs is a biblical-scale achievement.
I just can’t help but feel this is a Billy Beane moment, and even within the context of English cricket’s … mixed ... achievements, Cook’s utility is less than his numbers, and perhaps even talent, suggest.
It’s not just cricket this phenomena presents itself in – Manchester United finally won the Champions League 2 years after Cantona retired, they started winning the Premiership for fun when Bryan Robson declined and left. Liverpool won the Champions League 10 months after selling Michael Owen. Glenn Hoddle knew Scholes was more useful to the team than Gascoigne I don’t believe events like this happen by accident and nor at they as anomalous as people think.
Skill and aggregate output across time doesn't always correspond directly with Utility.
Back to Cook – I have a problem when and where his runs come from. Daddy hundreds in favourable conditions prop up prolonged spells where he bats like a scarecrow holding a toothpick. He’s capable of scoring 300, followed shortly by 57 scores of under 20 (I exaggerate somewhat) I have neither the time nor the ability truth be told to unpick in great detail the circumstances of his successes and failures (beyond mere high-level statistics). But I suspect there’s more to it than meets the eye. I’ve predicted with horrible success the series’ he’d go missing at exactly the wrong time, and with grim consistency! Cricket is a hellishly complex game and there are important intangibles that the stats (or commentards) don’t come close to touching.
... and the peaks, of which are huge (it still wouldn’t surprise me if he broke Lara’s or Gooch’s Innings or match records in the future) come at a time where I thought others could have filled that same role, albeit perhaps with less aplomb. (think our wonderful 2010-2011). Raiding the sweet cupboard when Mum and Dad are out.
I can’t put my finger on it and I’ll likely get murdered for this, but I think Cook will be fortunate to be remembered as an England elite in hindsight, in all but a statistical domain.
Anyways, I await the knives ...
(edit: typos, etc)
Last edited:
