The Cook Report

[oblongballs]

What a load of utter ****e.

We can't even find 1 to partner him in a very specialist position, so the idea of leaving him out as well is at best stupid and worst, really ****ing dumb.

I never said leave him out indefinitely, I said it would be best to use a rotation policy with him, especially against teams that England often easily beat.

Also mind your language lad, we aren't Millwall fans.

 

[oblongballs]

Cook's weaknesses have highlighted time and again over the years, he is far from a flawless batsman yet he has churned out runs on a regular basis over the years. There has been many more talented batsmen than Cook that haven't had half the career he has. He knows his areas, he knows his limitations and tries to play within those boundaries. He has shown tremendous mental strength over the years in many ways, whether that is the powers of concentration in batting hour after hour (with all these weaknesses people are quick to point out), or finding the scores he's needed for his team or when his own position has come under serious scrutiny. He is limited, but his patience in waiting for the ball in his area has to be commended.

Let's not forget, he has played 82 of his 152 Test matches as an opening batsman in English conditions. He hasn't had the luxury of a Warner, or a Hayden, or a Sehwag, where the ball might do a bit briefly at the start before you can start hitting through the line.

The issue is not denying or ignoring Cook's remarkable career. The issue is, should someone with Cook's recent performances, be a constant in English selection?

Since the start of 2017, across 12 tests, he has averaged 45.14, which on the face of it, seems quite good. Very good even but the reality is, he is not as consistent as his average suggests (a problem with the average system, but thats a separate discussion). By removing merely two innings, both of them doubles, his average would be almost halved. Now, I know, getting a double hundred is not child's play, but to do it after a string of innings where said player is not even reaching 30 is a bad look.

So Cook is no longer the consistent rock at the top of the order he used to be just 2 years ago. And his reflexes, timing and patience is getting progressively worse. Not to mention his inability to even last ten overs and at least get to 30 (he was out less than 30 in 14 of the 22 completed innings). For a team looking for consistency in its top 3, this is not good enough.

 

[Coronis]

I never said leave him out indefinitely, I said it would be best to use a rotation policy with him, especially against teams that England often easily beat.

Also mind your language lad, we aren't Millwall fans.

A rotation policy seems really ****ing stupid too. How do you expect anything from newer players without any sort of continuity?

 

[Woodster]

The issue is not denying or ignoring Cook's remarkable career. The issue is, should someone with Cook's recent performances, be a constant in English selection?

Since the start of 2017, across 12 tests, he has averaged 45.14, which on the face of it, seems quite good. Very good even but the reality is, he is not as consistent as his average suggests (a problem with the average system, but thats a separate discussion). By removing merely two innings, both of them doubles, his average would be almost halved. Now, I know, getting a double hundred is not child's play, but to do it after a string of innings where said player is not even reaching 30 is a bad look.

So Cook is no longer the consistent rock at the top of the order he used to be just 2 years ago. And his reflexes, timing and patience is getting progressively worse. Not to mention his inability to even last ten overs and at least get to 30 (he was out less than 30 in 14 of the 22 completed innings). For a team looking for consistency in its top 3, this is not good enough.

The issue and OP of this thread was denying Cook had had a remarkable career, hence the nature of my post, and that's someone's opinion which they are well entitled to, I was simply adding my thoughts on Cook's career, nothing to do with what England should do with him now or in the future.

 

[Gob]

Cook's weaknesses have highlighted time and again over the years, he is far from a flawless batsman yet he has churned out runs on a regular basis over the years. There has been many more talented batsmen than Cook that haven't had half the career he has. He knows his areas, he knows his limitations and tries to play within those boundaries. He has shown tremendous mental strength over the years in many ways, whether that is the powers of concentration in batting hour after hour (with all these weaknesses people are quick to point out), or finding the scores he's needed for his team or when his own position has come under serious scrutiny. He is limited, but his patience in waiting for the ball in his area has to be commended.

Let's not forget, he has played 82 of his 152 Test matches as an opening batsman in English conditions. He hasn't had the luxury of a Warner, or a Hayden, or a Sehwag, where the ball might do a bit briefly at the start before you can start hitting through the line.

Wait only 82?

Edit-**** it

 

[Adders]

A rotation policy seems really ****ing stupid too. How do you expect anything from newer players without any sort of continuity?

100% right but it is also extremely ****ing arrogant. Oh here comes the West Indies or Bangladesh......lets rest some players and try out some noobs. **** off. The Windies took a test off a full strength England side just last year and Bangladesh beat us in the last test series FFS.

Mark was right.......absolultely ****e idea.

 

[S.Kennedy]

He is not an especially gifted batsman but through understanding his game and perseverance he has used the tools that he does have, he has maximised his cricketing career. He was playing more cover drives in that Melbourne innings than the rest of his career! It is not normally a shot you associate with Cook.

 

[oblongballs]

The issue and OP of this thread was denying Cook had had a remarkable career, hence the nature of my post, and that's someone's opinion which they are well entitled to, I was simply adding my thoughts on Cook's career, nothing to do with what England should do with him now or in the future.

I agree, OP was particularly negative about Cook and overall, career wise, he deserves a lot of respect. He is one of the best England's had, especially in the last 30 or so years. But he can't keep living off of the reputation of what was, rather than what is.

 

[stephen]

The thing is that a guy who gets 29, 20, 25, 225, 0, 1 is going to win or draw a match based on that 225. Compare that to a guy who makes 60, 50, 35, 65, 70, 20. None of those innings are going to win or draw a match by themselves.

Both scenarios average 50 but the first guy is a match winner while the second guy is consistent but isn't going to win you matches.

That's why Cook had a better series with Root and why big hundreds are better for the team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The thing is that a guy who gets 29, 20, 25, 225, 0, 1 is going to win or draw a match based on that 225. Compare that to a guy who makes 60, 50, 35, 65, 70, 20. None of those innings are going to win or draw a match by themselves.

Both scenarios average 50 but the first guy is a match winner while the second guy is consistent but isn't going to win you matches.

That's why Cook had a better series with Root and why big hundreds are better for the team.

No that's rubbish. While the 225 is more likely to win you a match on it's own than each one of the 60s or 70s by themselves, the 60s and 70s are going to influence more matches.


edit: of course in the case of this series you're right. Cook's innings helped them to their only draw whereas all Root's 60s and 70s achieved absolutely nothing . . . but still I stand by what I said!

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah agree with Jedi here. Root way out performed Cook this series


60s and 70s look crap compared to Smith's output but they are way more useful than Cooks all or nothing record

 

[tooextracool]

I would put Cook in the same category as Trescothick and Strauss - all three of whom had some serious technical flaws but still managed to forge decent test careers primarily relying on their temperament. I would struggle to pick between the three but I would gladly take all three over the current batch of players

 

[stephen]

No that's rubbish. While the 225 is more likely to win you a match on it's own than each one of the 60s or 70s by themselves, the 60s and 70s are going to influence more matches.


edit: of course in the case of this series you're right. Cook's innings helped them to their only draw whereas all Root's 60s and 70s achieved absolutely nothing . . . but still I stand by what I said!

But that's the point right. Winning a game of cricket is about cashing in when you're on top. Half centuries are useful but if your top six are only scoring half centuries you're not really cashing in when you're on top. You're doing the opposite - throwing away a strong platform. When someone hits 150+, even if two or three batsmen throw their wickets away cheaply the rest of the team can bat around the big hundred to compile a good total.

Basically the first theoretical batsman wins you games while the second theoretical batsman is the support act for others to win games.

 

[mr_mister]

Call it what you want, but Cook may as well have not been there the first three matches. Root was there and he was always contributing something


Outliers are often excluded in mathematics when determinIng averages for a reason right

 

[TheJediBrah]

But that's the point right. Winning a game of cricket is about cashing in when you're on top. Half centuries are useful but if your top six are only scoring half centuries you're not really cashing in when you're on top. You're doing the opposite - throwing away a strong platform. When someone hits 150+, even if two or three batsmen throw their wickets away cheaply the rest of the team can bat around the big hundred to compile a good total.

Basically the first theoretical batsman wins you games while the second theoretical batsman is the support act for others to win games.

not really. 60s and 70s can win games. And if you're doing that regularly you're likely to win more games than a guy who makes nothing most of the time but an occasional big score.

 

[Adders]

I would put Cook in the same category as Trescothick and Strauss - all three of whom had some serious technical flaws but still managed to forge decent test careers primarily relying on their temperament. I would struggle to pick between the three but I would gladly take all three over the current batch of players

Get your hand off it......there is daylight between Cook and Tresco/Strauss. Not even same ball park mate (and I say that as a massive Trescothic fan)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Trescothick was a great ODI batsman

 

[Adders]

Yeah, I'm only talking tests here.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No that's rubbish. While the 225 is more likely to win you a match on it's own than each one of the 60s or 70s by themselves, the 60s and 70s are going to influence more matches.


edit: of course in the case of this series you're right. Cook's innings helped them to their only draw whereas all Root's 60s and 70s achieved absolutely nothing . . . but still I stand by what I said!

Yeah I think because of the Joe Root meme, people on CW have gone waaaaayyyy overboard with the "50s are useless" thing. Consistent good scores have their own value.

 

[vcs]

It really depends on the type of pitches. Root's 50s have been useless over 10 Tests in India and Australia. In relatively lower scoring conditions (like the current SA-India series, or early English summer), those 50s will be invaluable and making big centuries is virtually impossible, which would render Cook useless if he's nicking off in single figures every innings.