Will Alastair Cook go on to surpass Tendulkar's test run tally?

[Victor Ian]

I suppose I care about longevity once all other things are equal, but not until. All longevity shows me is that the batsman was rather consistent. It allows me to believe his average better than Vogues or early Hussey. I might take Cook over B Richards because Cook WILL score me his 80 per test, whereas Barry MIGHT score me 130. With a larger sample I am more sure of the expectation, but beyond a certain number of tests, that confidence increase is so marginal that it doesn't really matter. That is why the aggregate record is kind of cool, but not really meaningful in sorting players.

 

[cnerd123]

Why isn't longevity a factor after the minimum requirement?

Practical reasons.

If I'm picking players for an ATG XI based on their peak, what's to stop me from defining that one ball Sreesanth bowled to Kallis as his 'peak', and thus picking him purely on the basis of that, ignoring all else?

This 'peak' has to be suitable size to ensure that what occurred within it wasn't simply a fluke or a one off. Anyone can bowl a really good ball once. Many, many players can bowl really good spells (Devon Malcom) or play incredible innings (Marlon Samuels) without being able to do it consistently over a reasonable period of time. So clearly in order to understand who a great player is, in order to differentiate actual high level ability from a purple patch, you need a minimum criteria of some sort. A minimum number of matches/innings over which this 'greatness' has to be demonstrated.

And what this level is will be arbitrary. It's essentially drawing a line in the sand. But it is necessary I feel, if for nothing else but to dwindle the pool of eligible players down to a more manageable size.

And yea, once you have this defined minimum level, you don't need to factor longevity in anymore. All players who have made the cut have proved that their brilliance was sustainable to your satisfaction. So if you are picking an ATG squad to take on another ATG squad, you might simply want a peak that lasts the length of a 5 match test series. If you're picking an ATG Squad to go on a world tour and play every other nation's ATG XI, you might want sustained brilliance over 30-40 test matches. If you want an ATG XI to win you 1 test match against a Martians XI, then I can see the argument of picking the 11 best single-test performances of all time.

This, however, is quite different to defining the overall 'Greatness' of a player. When it comes to overall Greatness, I feel longevity can only add value to a player, and not hurt them - IE, a player who averaged 50 over 30 tests isn't superior to one who averaged 50 over his first 30, and then 20 over his next 30, thus ending with an overall average of 35. If anything, the latter is superior, as he accomplished the same things the first player did + has those extra 30 tests at the end to boot.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Practical reasons.

If I'm picking players for an ATG XI based on their peak, what's to stop me from defining that one ball Sreesanth bowled to Kallis as his 'peak', and thus picking him purely on the basis of that, ignoring all else?

The fact that you will be slated and ripped apart on CricketWeb?

#practicalreasons

 

[marc71178]

I dunno if I've posted here but no...no he won't. That's a lot of runs, a lot of big scores and Cook isn't going to do that. He just isn't as vast an accumulator of runs at a high enough average per match to do so. Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting were rare.

SR Tendulkar*(INDIA)	79.61
RT Ponting*(AUS)	79.63
JH Kallis*(ICC/SA)	80.05
R Dravid*(ICC/INDIA)	81.02
KC Sangakkara*(SL)	92.54
BC Lara*(ICC/WI)	91.24
S Chanderpaul*(WI)	72.36
DPMD Jayawardene*(SL)	79.29
AR Border*(AUS)	71.63
SR Waugh*(AUS)	65.04
AN Cook*(ENG)	79.22
SM Gavaskar*(INDIA)	80.98

Seems more than a little contrived to be classing Tendulkar as one of the rare few with a high average per match.

I can see though that that 0.39 runs per match will be critical...

 

[Coronis]

SR Tendulkar*(INDIA)	79.61
RT Ponting*(AUS)	79.63
JH Kallis*(ICC/SA)	80.05
R Dravid*(ICC/INDIA)	81.02
KC Sangakkara*(SL)	92.54
BC Lara*(ICC/WI)	91.24
S Chanderpaul*(WI)	72.36
DPMD Jayawardene*(SL)	79.29
AR Border*(AUS)	71.63
SR Waugh*(AUS)	65.04
AN Cook*(ENG)	79.22
SM Gavaskar*(INDIA)	80.98

Seems more than a little contrived to be classing Tendulkar as one of the rare few with a high average per match.

I can see though that that 0.39 runs per match will be critical...

Some of that might be due to batting positions to be fair. Might. Also Waugh's is so low cause 90% of the time he'd never get to bat in a second innings, duh.

 

[Victor Ian]

that still doesnt discount the fact that Cook is going to score at rates equal to the current record holder. Barring injury, or the appearance of two exceptional openers, the record is Cooks for the taking.

 

[weldone]

Lol. Marc still doesn't get the point. It's not about runs per match. It is about Tendulkar's longevity. His longevity was unbelievable by modern standards. It was even better than what '200 test matches' suggests.

He played for 23 years continuously at the highest level! Some cricketers are regarded as ATGs with one-third of that longevity.

In the modern era, Tendulkar's longevity is almost like Bradman's average.

 

[cnerd123]

that still doesnt discount the fact that Cook is going to score at rates equal to the current record holder. Barring injury, or the appearance of two exceptional openers, the record is Cooks for the taking.

How bad will Cook have to be batting/how good will his potential replacements need to be for him to be dropped?

In India it was always clear that Sachin was never, ever, ever going to be dropped. He would still be in the middle order now had he not retired. But does Cook have the same luxury? He's only 31, so he definitely has another 4 years in him, but once he hits 35 and has a slight slump in form and Joe Root is standing there waiting to take over the captaincy...how safe is his spot?

 

[GIMH]

Forget the captaincy. We're four years on from Strauss retiring and he's not been replaced. Cook could average 30 for two years before we even considered discussing whether he might need a spell.

 

[Flem274*]

i hope some random pleb gets picked for tests at 18-20 and plays until they're 42-45 and breaks the most runs record for a mighty average of 38 or something

 

[weldone]

i hope some random pleb gets picked for tests at 18-20 and plays until they're 42-45 and breaks the most runs record for a mighty average of 38 or something

I hope he's an Indian seam-bowling all-rounder.

 

[Coronis]

that still doesnt discount the fact that Cook is going to score at rates equal to the current record holder. Barring injury, or the appearance of two exceptional openers, the record is Cooks for the taking.

Assuming he lasts another 60 odd tests? I can't see him doing that, and I can't see him keeping up that pace anyway.

 

[Shri]

Everyone is forgetting how quickly your form could drop off a cliff once your eye goes. It will happen to him and it all depends on how well he adjusts when it does in a few years. It might expose technical deficiencies that have always been present in his batting and also introduce new ones. We can only take a call when he gets to that bridge really.

 

[Victor Ian]

Why not. Tendulkar did. According to that article that re-sparked this thread, long term players have a quality where their output remains pretty much the same over time. Sure, you can think Cook will have a drop in form that necessitates him being dropped, but you can also justifiably imagine that he wont. Thinking Cook wont score as he already has over 11 years seems like wishful thinking.

 

[Jarquis]

Everyone seems to be forgetting he has a pretty **** back doesn't he?

 

[Victor Ian]

Everyone is forgetting how quickly your form could drop off a cliff once your eye goes. It will happen to him and it all depends on how well he adjusts when it does in a few years. It might expose technical deficiencies that have always been present in his batting and also introduce new ones. We can only take a call when he gets to that bridge really.

I'm not familiar with Cooks technique, but isn't the 'eye' thing more a problem for certains types of players which Cook is not? All he has to do is turn up to test matches, take home his 70+ runs and the record is his. Cook is stalwart enough that he is leaving when he feels like leaving, barring the smaller, than some are hoping, chance that he turns into a different player and is forced out of the game.

Cook has come out of his ugly lean form with some above average years again. I'm betting on him managing to keep performing as he has, because that is what long term players do.

 

[duffer]

Everyone seems to be forgetting he has a pretty **** back doesn't he?

Out on parole man?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well presuming Cook plays every game (he has played the last 132 in a row) he will play another 20 tests before the start of the English 2018 summer which should see him reach 12000+ runs by then without having a great year/18 months. That means he will be 33 years old ahead of Lara and close to Sangakkara and I guess we will be able to return to this discussion then.

 

[listento_me]

SR Tendulkar*(INDIA)	79.61
RT Ponting*(AUS)	79.63
JH Kallis*(ICC/SA)	80.05
R Dravid*(ICC/INDIA)	81.02
KC Sangakkara*(SL)	92.54
BC Lara*(ICC/WI)	91.24
S Chanderpaul*(WI)	72.36
DPMD Jayawardene*(SL)	79.29
AR Border*(AUS)	71.63
SR Waugh*(AUS)	65.04
AN Cook*(ENG)	79.22
SM Gavaskar*(INDIA)	80.98

Seems more than a little contrived to be classing Tendulkar as one of the rare few with a high average per match.

I can see though that that 0.39 runs per match will be critical...

Cook is an opener and has a lot o time to but I still don't understand these numbers. Is it the average number of runs he scores a test? Because he averages less than 50 per test, which is a better indication because it looks at the number of times said batsman gets out.

I guess hos avg dropped because he spent almost 2 years without a century. That could certainly happen again.

But like I always say, it's not just statistics. It's about actually watching a batsman bat. I prefer doing that than some cricinfo analysis and I don't feel cook is good enough to be at this level 4 or 5 years down the line. Like I said, he'd have to be scoring more centuries at a higher rate.

Anyway well see in about 5 years time. That's a long way to go.

 

[Victor Ian]

those numbers are how many runs he makes per test (runs/matches). Not outs have no effect on this number. It is mainly effected by form, and by team form, where a period of English dominance may deny Cook many innings. Being an opener, he is more insulated to the effects of the later, than someone like Waugh was.