What is the best way to judge ATGs with imbalanced careers?

[subshakerz]

On a different note, it is interesting that the three pacers who get rated unanimously the highest here, Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, none of them had a prolonged decline towards the end of their career, just a slight dip after a fairly long peak, which cemented their reputation as the best of the best.

So to me, it shows that the effectiveness of managing a career end is the key to securing a legacy.

 

[Starfighter]

On a different note, it is interesting that the three pacers who get rated unanimously the highest here, Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, none of them had a prolonged decline towards the end of their career, just a slight dip after a fairly long peak, which cemented their reputation as the best of the best.

So to me, it shows that the effectiveness of managing a career end is the key to securing a legacy.

Marshall's career end isn't quite comparable with the other two's as he was dumped when he was a couple of years younger, even though he was still better than, say, the Benjamins.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall's career end isn't quite comparable with the other two's as he was dumped when he was a couple of years younger, even though he was still better than, say, the Benjamins.

True, kicked out after the 92 World Cup. Still, he was past his best but even then was fairly productive in his last years.

 

[Blenkinsop]

You'd also need to factor in the other end of a player's career. One reason why someone like Adam Voges has such a crazy high average is that it was extremely difficult to break into the Australian team in the late 90s and 00s. Players like Voges and Mike Hussey had to score big in domestic cricket year after year before they got an international break, so they were highly experienced and ready. By contrast England in the 90s were desperate and thus arguably much more ready to take a punt on inexperienced cricketers. Flintoff for example was picked on promise and took quite a while to really come good. So do you mark a player down because they did their learning at international level and maybe didn't do so well for the first couple of years?

 

[subshakerz]

You'd also need to factor in the other end of a player's career. One reason why someone like Adam Voges has such a crazy high average is that it was extremely difficult to break into the Australian team in the late 90s and 00s. Players like Voges and Mike Hussey had to score big in domestic cricket year after year before they got an international break, so they were highly experienced and ready. By contrast England in the 90s were desperate and thus arguably much more ready to take a punt on inexperienced cricketers. Flintoff for example was picked on promise and took quite a while to really come good. So do you mark a player down because they did their learning at international level and maybe didn't do so well for the first couple of years?

Virtually every ATG has a period of early 10 -20 tests in which their figures arent that hot. So I dont see anyone getting marked down, unless its players like Wasim and Tendulkar who debuted exceptionally early and dont get that factored in.

 

[Blenkinsop]

I was thinking more of the eternal debate about Jimmy Anderson. Across the first five years of his Test career he averaged almost 40, through a combination of inexperience, mismanagement and misguided attempts to remodel his action. I'd say there is a stronger case for disregarding those years and focusing on his amazingly extended peak than there is in the case of players who kept going past their prime.

 

[Coronis]

I was thinking more of the eternal debate about Jimmy Anderson. Across the first five years of his Test career he averaged almost 40, through a combination of inexperience, mismanagement and misguided attempts to remodel his action. I'd say there is a stronger case for disregarding those years and focusing on his amazingly extended peak than there is in the case of players who kept going past their prime.

People don’t mark him down for coming into tests too young or anything. They mark him down for struggling overseas or when not using the Duke or when its not cloudy.

 

[thierry henry]

A related issue is the uneven spread of test matches over a players career.

• In my view, most people/players judge a player they see play, by how long (years) they play at a certain level.
• While cricket averages are based on how may tests they play at a certain level.

When there is an uneven spread of tests over a players career, the players opinion
will differ from the averages (70/80's players are an example of this).

If where judging Ponting decline, would you look at the number of years it lasted or would you
calculate the number of tests it lasted. Being lazy I would look at the years.

Silly Imaginary Example

Imaging a batsmen who

• averages 57 for 15 years
• averages 40 for 3 years
• plays half his tests in the final 3 years so his final batting average is 48.5

How should this player be judged ???

• players will rate him as one of the greatest of all time
• 20 years later young cricket followers will say he is not an ATG (average only 48.5)

Examples of Unbalanced career

There where

• More tests played per year in the 1950's than the 1940's
• More tests played per year in the 1980's than the 1970's

A good person to look at Richard Hadlee

• played 4 tests a year in the 1970's and had a bowling average of ~ 30
• played 5.5 tests a year in the 1980's and had a bowling average of ~ 20

I you calculate his average by Years rather than by Test matches, Hadlee's is in the range 23.5 ~ 24.
Imran has a similar issue and the reverse happens for Viv Richards.

In summary it is entirely predictable that players will rate

• The 1970 stars (Lillee, Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Botham, Chappel) higher than there averages suggest they should be
• Hadlee and Imran much lower.

The same might apply to the stars of the 40's.

I get your point, but Hadlee seems like a particularly bad example as my observation is that Hadlee is rated extremely highly, at least in step with his record.

I think Hadlee is more an example of a guy where the earlier part of his career gets overlooked because he wasn't really an obviously world class player at that point as well as not playing a huge number of tests. It seems more to me that Hadlee benefits from his sustained excellence in the 80s coinciding with him playing more tests and being generally higher profile, so that's the bowler people remember.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Just accept that Barry Richards is great and Sehwag is a fool.

 

[subshakerz]

I was thinking more of the eternal debate about Jimmy Anderson. Across the first five years of his Test career he averaged almost 40, through a combination of inexperience, mismanagement and misguided attempts to remodel his action. I'd say there is a stronger case for disregarding those years and focusing on his amazingly extended peak than there is in the case of players who kept going past their prime.

Nah, virtually every ATG bowler has a warming in period. I don't see why Anderson should get a pass. Imran Khan and Wasim debuted at 18 and each had to remodel their actions.

Ultimately, cricketers needs to own the entirely of their records, even if it may seem unfair at times.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I get your point, but Hadlee seems like a particularly bad example as my observation is that Hadlee is rated extremely highly, at least in step with his record.

I think Hadlee is more an example of a guy where the earlier part of his career gets overlooked because he wasn't really an obviously world class player at that point as well as not playing a huge number of tests. It seems more to me that Hadlee benefits from his sustained excellence in the 80s coinciding with him playing more tests and being generally higher profile, so that's the bowler people remember.

Hadlee became world class, then ATG, after playing county cricket for Notts and really understanding professionalism, goal setting, and his own bowling. That coincided with NZ playing more tests in the 80s and having better players alongside him.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee became world class, then ATG, after playing county cricket for Notts and really understanding professionalism, goal setting, and his own bowling. That coincided with NZ playing more tests in the 80s and having better players alongside him.

Same for Imran Khan. He started out in 71, was rubbish, played a lot of county cricket in the mid-70s, then came back and became a regular, then went to WSC and became world class.

 

[Stefan9]

For me a player is judged on the whole career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm in the minority but for me how good a player was is how good they were. Shane Bond will always be better than Jimmy Anderson.

Jimmy achieved more for sure but Bond ws the better bowler.

 

[Migara]

I'm in the minority but for me how good a player was is how good they were. Shane Bond will always be better than Jimmy Anderson.

Jimmy achieved more for sure but Bond ws the better bowler.

Better bowler is the bowler who lasts the whole test match.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm in the minority but for me how good a player was is how good they were. Shane Bond will always be better than Jimmy Anderson.

Jimmy achieved more for sure but Bond ws the better bowler.

Would you rate Bishop as a better bowler than Walsh?

I guess but there will always be an * with guys like Bishop, Bond and Shoaib. I dont consider them to have full careers.

Perhaps Jimmy at no point was ever as good as Bond or Shoaib at their peak but to sustain that level of performance is another question.

Jimmy and Walsh never hit the same peaks but that had long quality phases in their careers which these worldclass bowlers didnt that should count for something.

Anderson after 30 years of age has taken over 300 wickets at less than 25. That should be enough to surpass guys who dont even have 200 wickets in their entire career.

 

[mr_mister]

On a different note, it is interesting that the three pacers who get rated unanimously the highest here, Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, none of them had a prolonged decline towards the end of their career, just a slight dip after a fairly long peak, which cemented their reputation as the best of the best.

So to me, it shows that the effectiveness of managing a career end is the key to securing a legacy.

Did McGrath even have a dip? Wasn't his act in international cricket winning man of the series in a world cup?

 

[subshakerz]

Did McGrath even have a dip? Wasn't his act in international cricket winning man of the series in a world cup?

Yes. But in tests, it was clear from his last few series post-Ashes 2005 he didn't have the same penetration as he used to though he still had good returns.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did McGrath even have a dip? Wasn't his act in international cricket winning man of the series in a world cup?

No and yes

 

[subshakerz]

All I care about is that if we equate their career lengths, Ponting had a greater and more accomplished career than Chappell.

The problem is that Chappell and Ponting had very different careers. Chappell never had a peak as high as Pontings or a decline as long and as bad as Pontings too.