Choosing a good time to retire

[Langeveldt]

I've heard time and time again today that Pollock has chosen a spot on time to retire, because he leaves the game at his peak, when he is at the top of his own game..

I'd argue that it's not necessarily a good thing.. Doesn't that imply wasted potential? If Polly can bowl like he did today at Johannesburg, doesn't he have a lot more to offer? Sure, personal reasons mean we obviously respect his decision, but I'd rather see someone retire like Donald did, okay it wasn't great for him, but at least we knew he'd given SA cricket all he had to offer...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If I was a professional cricketer I would carry on for as long as I was enjoying it and for as long as I was able to hold a place in the team on merit as one of the best XI players, I wouldn't want to be picked on past reputation. I wouldn't worry in the slightest about the stats guru showing a decline from peak performance as long as I was still good enough to be chosen on the afforementioned merit.

 

[Richard]

I've heard time and time again today that Pollock has chosen a spot on time to retire, because he leaves the game at his peak, when he is at the top of his own game..

I'd argue that it's not necessarily a good thing.. Doesn't that imply wasted potential? If Polly can bowl like he did today at Johannesburg, doesn't he have a lot more to offer? Sure, personal reasons mean we obviously respect his decision, but I'd rather see someone retire like Donald did, okay it wasn't great for him, but at least we knew he'd given SA cricket all he had to offer...

Most cricketers do indeed choose said Donald route, and I'd bet more of them than not regret it. Jeff Thomson, talked out of retirement for the 1985 Ashes, was patently no longer close to Test-class and tainted his record with his performances on that tour. He's one of the best examples.

Most cricketers tend to have a period - mostly short, thankfully - at the end of their careers where they're no longer among the best options for their team nor doing themselves any good by playing. But they've played on because they knew that they risked cutting themselves off when they might have had more to offer if they retired when still going brilliantly.

Players like Pollock are very much in the minority in going when they're still patently among the very best. And if a player wishes to do that, it's entirely his choice. If he prefers to give all he's got to give then have a short period where he has nothing sufficient left, that's also his choice. You take a risk either way - you taint your legacy, or you don't expand it as far as you might have.

No player can ever know for certain the exact time his performances are going to start dropping-off.

 

[Swervy]

Most cricketers do indeed choose said Donald route, and I'd bet more of them than not regret it. Jeff Thomson, talked out of retirement for the 1985 Ashes, was patently no longer close to Test-class and completely tainted his record with his performances on that tour. He's one of the best examples.

Regarding Thomson, I would be very surprised if he regretted that 1985 series. I am sure he would have loved another bash at the Poms....and Australia needed him. Out of that series, which he played little part in , and when he did, he got England at a time they were batting as well as they had done for years, he managed to hit the 200 test wicket barrier.

Did he really taint his record with that series? Not a chance, no-one in their right mind would ever judge Thommo on anything but his 70's heyday

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Regarding Thomson, I would be very surprised if he regretted that 1985 series. I am sure he would have loved another bash at the Poms....and Australia needed him. Out of that series, which he played little part in , and when he did, he got England at a time they were batting as well as they had done for years, he managed to hit the 200 test wicket barrier.

Did he really taint his record with that series? Not a chance, no-one in their right mind would ever judge Thommo on anything but his 70's heyday

The notion that he completely tainted his record by playing two Test Matches in 1985 is obviously nonsense, but it was quite sad to see him in action, he was barely fast-medium in those two matches and didn't have the skill to cut down his pace and still be effective in the same way as Dennis Lillee did latterly.

 

[Richard]

Regarding Thomson, I would be very surprised if he regretted that 1985 series. I am sure he would have loved another bash at the Poms....and Australia needed him.

Well he performed as badly as the David Gilberts and Simon O'Donnells, so it's fair to say they'd have done no worse had he not toured. In any case, here's what he had to say about that tour: "You always think you have more to offer. Years after you retire you look back at footage of your last couple of years and think 'what a heap of **** I bowled then'."

Out of that series, which he played little part in , and when he did, he got England at a time they were batting as well as they had done for years, he managed to hit the 200 test wicket barrier.

200 wickets at 28 <<<<< 198 wickets at 26.5.

Did he really taint his record with that series? Not a chance, no-one in their right mind would ever judge Thommo on anything but his 70's heyday

Plenty of people do, and you know it. To some, all that matters is the simple stat they're spoon-fed by TV presenters or a CricInfo page, they're incapable of realising the benefits of knocking off 3 games (those on that 1985 tour and his first with the broken-foot). Doing so gives you the realisation that for the vast part of his career he averaged 26.5, not 28.

You can't just judge Thomson on 1974\75-1976\77 (in which he only bowled 9 overs) though, that's nothing of a career. He actually continued to bowl reasonably well after returning from that shoulder injury up to the 1982\83 Ashes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And it's even more obvious that no-one said he "completely" tainted his legacy.

You said "he completely tainted his record", which is nonsense, and the fact that you've now gone back and edited that post presumably means you know it was nonsense.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Or it could mean that you're imagining things... as there's no way of proving what a post said pre-edit, and I edit posts ATT.

And no doubt Swervy edited his quote of your post and added the word "completely" to it. Not forgetting the 37 minutes between post and edit. Not quite ATT

 

[silentstriker]

I'd play until the selectors told me to go.

 

[Swervy]

Well he performed as badly as the David Gilberts and Simon O'Donnells, so it's fair to say they'd have done no worse had he not toured.

yeah, with the benefit of hindsight

200 wickets at 28 <<<<< 198 wickets at 26.5..

That would only matter to those who really care about things like that...it certainly doesnt make me think any less of Thommo as a bowler

Plenty of people do, and you know it. To some, all that matters is the simple stat they're spoon-fed by TV presenters or a CricInfo page, they're incapable of realising the benefits of knocking off 3 games (those on that 1985 tour and his first with the broken-foot). Doing so gives you the realisation that for the vast part of his career he averaged 26.5, not 28..

And plenty of people do not need to look at the averages full stop in oder to make a judgement

You can't just judge Thomson on 1974\75-1976\77 (in which he only bowled 9 overs) though, that's nothing of a career. He actually continued to bowl reasonably well after returning from that shoulder injury up to the 1982\83 Ashes.

I know you cant judge him purley on those early series, however that is what most will think of when they recall Thommo.

However I do remember working up a genuine pace in 1982

 

[Swervy]

Or it could mean that you're imagining things... as there's no way of proving what a post said pre-edit, and I edit posts ATT.

my god, you are such a liar Richard, you have obviously editted your original post, as unfortunately for you, I have got the quote from you in my posting just after it.

Shown to the bone fella

 

[Lillian Thomson]

my god, you are such a liar Richard, you have obviously editted your original post, as unfortunately for you, I have got the quote from you in my posting just after it.

Shown to the bone fella

I've already pointed that out, I'm expecting him to come back and say it was a conspiracy between us to ridicule him.

 

[Richard]

my god, you are such a liar Richard, you have obviously editted your original post, as unfortunately for you, I have got the quote from you in my posting just after it.

Yeah given you quote every single post you reply to, I'd forgotten that. Of course I've obviously edited it, but had you not quoted it no-one would know I removed the word "completely". Anyway, yes, I removed it to more accurately reflect the truths of the matter. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Richard]

yeah, with the benefit of hindsight

I don't think it'd have been that difficult to guess he'd have no impact really - people coming back into international cricket after massive 2-and-a-half year breaks, especially at an old age, don't tend to have much success.

That would only matter to those who really care about things like that...it certainly doesnt make me think any less of Thommo as a bowler

If you care about wickets milestones, it seems a bit odd not to care about average. Not caring about either would be fair enough, but I cannot fathom how you'd be happy to see a bowler go on to take 500 wickets at 35 if he'd had 400 wickets at 27.

And plenty of people do not need to look at the averages full stop in oder to make a judgement

If you completely ignore them, you're making a gross error.

 

[western_warrior]

id rather take 500 hundred wickets...

 

[Richard]

Why?

Why would anyone want to take 100 wickets at 67? That'd woefully taint your legacy, and hopelessly hold back whatever team you were playing for.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah given you quote every single post you reply to, I'd forgotten that. Of course I've obviously edited it, but had you not quoted it no-one would know I removed the word "completely". Anyway, yes, I removed it to more accurately reflect the truths of the matter. Let's leave it at that.

well its a good job I quoted it then isn't it, because you would have made out that LT had just made it up, making it look like we had total misread what you had said

'And it's even more obvious that no-one said he "completely" tainted his legacy.'

and then this:

'Or it could mean that you're imagining things... as there's no way of proving what a post said pre-edit, and I edit posts ATT.'

Its pretty sly to be honest.

Of course we will leave it at that, you have been exposed a bit there and of course you don't want too many people (esp. your MSN buddies?) thinking too badly of you do you.

 

[Richard]

They won't do regardless, but they're not just MSN "buddies". They're CWers.

And yes, it would be sly (if it worked, obv - it's not when it doesn't) - you seem to suggest it's in some way wrong? The fact that Lillian Thomson's behaviour towards me has been several times as appalling not register to you?

If not, I'd have to say I'd not be terribly surprised.

 

[Swervy]

If I was a professional cricketer I would carry on for as long as I was enjoying it and for as long as I was able to hold a place in the team on merit as one of the best XI players, I wouldn't want to be picked on past reputation. I wouldn't worry in the slightest about the stats guru showing a decline from peak performance as long as I was still good enough to be chosen on the afforementioned merit.

anyway, back to the topic...


That pretty much sums it up

 

[BoyBrumby]

And yes, it would be sly (if it worked, obv - it's not when it doesn't) - you seem to suggest it's in some way wrong? The fact that Lillian Thomson's behaviour towards me has been several times as appalling not register to you?

If not, I'd have to say I'd not be terribly surprised.

I think as a general rule of thumb I'm confortable saying it's wrong to lie to present yourself in a better light, yes.

But as to the matter at hand, it depends on the player enitrely IMHO. It's nice for someone to go out at the top of their game on their own terms (like McGrath retiring as the world cup's leading wicket taker), but equally I'd never look less favourably on a bloke who carried on if he was the best option available to his team even if it meant his average took a hit.

I think most reasonable observers would say Gilchrist has been as his best for a while, but there is still an argument that he might actually still be better than Haddin.