subshakerz
International Coach
One of the points that comes up in discussion is whether it is justified to pick a cricketer based on a peak or not. The question is, when you are selecting such a cricketer for an ATG side, what sort of cricketer are you expecting will perform in the side.
This question is especially pertinent for cricketers who were spectacular in one phase and poor in another. When you pick a Waqar or a Botham, is it fair to pick them expecting them to perform like their early career all-star phase? Is greatness based on overall numbers? Or how long and poor their decline periods are? One of the things that I think is important for the true elites is to not be in any prolonged phase when you are a liability for your team.
If someone like Steve Smith suddenly became a useless bat for the next three years and was kicked out of the team, wouldnt that hurt his overall standing despite reaching the highest batting peak since Bradman?
I don't have a formula, but I tend to think that along with great numbers, ideally your peak should cover more than half of your career and your decline can't be too precipitous like Kohli or stretched out like Ponting, otherwise it will dampen your legacy.
If you think of Viv, after his early career super peak, he still had a long stretch when he was a quality bat and a lean but not disastrous last 20 tests. Botham followed a similar suit but his career end, he was so bad he didn't deserve to be in the side, which I think tarnished his legacy.
Any thoughts?
This question is especially pertinent for cricketers who were spectacular in one phase and poor in another. When you pick a Waqar or a Botham, is it fair to pick them expecting them to perform like their early career all-star phase? Is greatness based on overall numbers? Or how long and poor their decline periods are? One of the things that I think is important for the true elites is to not be in any prolonged phase when you are a liability for your team.
If someone like Steve Smith suddenly became a useless bat for the next three years and was kicked out of the team, wouldnt that hurt his overall standing despite reaching the highest batting peak since Bradman?
I don't have a formula, but I tend to think that along with great numbers, ideally your peak should cover more than half of your career and your decline can't be too precipitous like Kohli or stretched out like Ponting, otherwise it will dampen your legacy.
If you think of Viv, after his early career super peak, he still had a long stretch when he was a quality bat and a lean but not disastrous last 20 tests. Botham followed a similar suit but his career end, he was so bad he didn't deserve to be in the side, which I think tarnished his legacy.
Any thoughts?