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

[Howe_zat]

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.

People did start discussing it after he had a crap run against Australia in 2013. People were wrong, but they were discussing it.

I think his scapegoating and axe from ODI cricket shows he's not quite got to 'here as long as he wants' status.

 

[Howe_zat]

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.

The reason it's unlikely for Cook to get it is because he probably won't play 200 Tests, though. When you brought up his average runs per test you implied that Cook would need a lot more than 200 Tests but he actually wouldn't if he keeps up his current rate. What you meant was his batting average or runs per wicket, which is a measure of batting skill, not how many runs are scored over time.

Tendulkar was a better batsman than Cook, which is the main reason his average runs per wicket is higher. But Cook has more oppertunity to score as he's an opener and England need to bat twice more often than India did. So as Marc showed he actually scores about the same number of runs per test as Tendulkar.

 

[Shri]

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?

You are talking about players like Sehwag which is fair but it will be a serious issue since he is also an opener who has to deal with the swing that the new ball brings. And I didn't mention reflexes and reactions that will also decline, which are important for an opener who has to deal with pace and swing more than the ones coming down the order, usually.

Middle order players might have it easier in that respect.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Sorry, I don't get the point when someone else says that Cook is nowhere near the runs per match of Tendulkar and I prove that to be a completely false comment. How else was I going to prove his comment wrong, by stinking up the thread in the way you do all over the Cricket Chat?

 

[weldone]

You got owned by me in this thread yesterday....shouldn't have come back if you had any shame

 

[Furball]

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

Are you confusing him with Root?

 

[GIMH]

People did start discussing it after he had a crap run against Australia in 2013. People were wrong, but they were discussing it.

I think his scapegoating and axe from ODI cricket shows he's not quite got to 'here as long as he wants' status.

We hadn't spent four years failing to replace Strauss then though.

 

[Howe_zat]

We probably did fail to replace Strauss as Keiswetter, KP, Bell and Moeen all had a go at opening with Cook in the one day team, and then when Cook lost form in both formats people decided he couldn't be a one day player and was responsible for the team losing. But I digress.
.

 

[Furball]

I think Cook's axing from the ODI team had much to do with the idea that playing ODIs was affecting his Test form. And I'd say he's certainly left the ball better in Tests over the last couple of years compared to the couple of years before that (and as far as Cook is concerned, IMO how well he's leaving the ball is indicative of the sort of form he's in.)

 

[Red]

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.

No, it's silly to compare longevity with average. 23 is not outstanding. Ponting played for 17 years, SWaugh for 19 and Kallis for 18. Gooch played for 20 years as well. All those guys maintained their standard just like Tendulkar.

And FWIW, Bradman's test career lasted for 20 years as well...

 

[Furball]

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

unfortunately...

I do hope you chaps remember this logic when KW ends up just short of 11,000 test runs at an average of 63 due to him only managing to play 110 tests in his 16 year career due to NZ's piss-poor test schedule.

 

[weldone]

No, it's silly to compare longevity with average. 23 is not outstanding. Ponting played for 17 years, SWaugh for 19 and Kallis for 18. Gooch played for 20 years as well. All those guys maintained their standard just like Tendulkar.

And FWIW, Bradman's test career lasted for 20 years as well...

Actually 24, and that's unprecedented after the Wilfred Rhodes-era afair

 

[AndrewB]

Actually 24, and that's unprecedented after the Wilfred Rhodes-era afair

Brian Close is turning in his grave... (not that Close - or Rhodes - was a regular pick for as long as Tendulkar).

This reminds me that I once worked out who had actually played Test cricket in the most calendar years:

25: SR Tendulkar
22: S Chanderpaul
20: MC Cowdrey, SR Waugh
19: GS Sobers, CH Lloyd, Imran Khan, A Ranatunga, PA De Silva, M Muralitharan, JH Kallis
18: FE Woolley, CG Greenidge, IVA Richards, Javed Miandad, CA Walsh, Wasim Akram, A Kumble, RT Ponting, DPMD Jayawardene

 

[Burgey]

Cook's a very very good player in his own right but not in Tendulkar's league, let's be honest. If he gets this record he gets it, but you'd have to be an Englishman who's very advanced on the Spectrum to consider him in SRT's class.

 

[Furball]

As a cricketer or in terms of hearing ability?

 

[Burgey]

As a cricketer. No one can approach Tendulkar's level of selective deafness. What a **** of a human being he is.

 

[Shri]

You are over fifty and not far off, probably.

 

[honestbharani]

Can come in handy for lawyers, tbf.

 

[OverratedSanity]

As a cricketer or in terms of hearing ability?

As a cricketer. No one can approach Tendulkar's level of selective deafness.

Cmon guys, atleast troll with truths like Tendulkar being a record-obsessed **** and a dirty ball-tampering cheat instead of citing total myths.

 

[sledger]

Who was it who tried to troll Indian fans by saying Tendulkar had Down's Syndrome? Blocky was it?