What is the greatest feat of longevity in test cricket?

[a massive zebra]

Alf Valentine 2,535 balls bowled in just 4 Tests against England in 1950.

 

[BazBall21]

Got to be a bowling achievement hasn't it. Courtney Walsh bowled over 100,000 deliveries! More than Anderson.

 

[BazBall21]

Cook was a beneficiary of English test spam, but think it had a side effect too. It disproportionately bloats his longevity image, but think he was shattered by the end. Moreso than if he still played 12 years but say 95 tests instead.

The early years of a rough batting era probably sped up his retirement too as an opener.

 

[a massive zebra]

What about McGrath? 115 tests from 95 to 2007 with 540 odd wickets @ 20. Longest stretch of worldclass performance from a fast bowler ever with no drop in form.

Bit of a stretch to claim McGrath maintained world class performance across the 12 year period from 1995 to 2007. He averaged 30 in 2006 and played one Test in 2007.

95 to 2005 would be fair enough, but other players have maintained similar levels of performance over a decade, they just played in eras in which Tests were less frequent. For instance, Marshall and Hadlee both took about 300 wickets @ < 20 in the 1980s and Ambrose took 300 wickets @ 20 in the 1990s.

 

[BazBall21]

Walsh bowled just over 107,000 deliveries across FC+LA. 71,000 comparatively for Anderson.

 

[subshakerz]

Bit of a stretch to claim McGrath maintained world class performance across the 12 year period from 1995 to 2007. He averaged 30 in 2006 and played one Test in 2007.

95 to 2005 would be fair enough, but other players have maintained similar levels of performance over a decade, they just played in eras in which Tests were less frequent. For instance, Marshall and Hadlee both took about 300 wickets @ < 20 in the 1980s.

That is a bit misleading. McGrath had one poor series vs SA towards the end of his career but hard to claim he wasn't worldclass in that period as he excelled before and after that. Essentially, he was worldclass from 95 until retirement in 2007.

Hadlee, Marshall and others may have high quality decade performances but those are around 60/70 tests. In terms of raw tests, McGrath is at least 30-40 tests over the next best fast bowler in terms of a long sustained peak, who is Steyn.

 

[BazBall21]

The common age for a batsman starting to tail off is 33. After Gooch's 33rd birthday, he scored 2154 runs @ 40 in tests that had a below average runs-per-wicket. He was an extreme late bloomer though so it's more a case of peaking very late than longevity which is more about sustaining performance.

 

[a massive zebra]

That is a bit misleading. McGrath had one poor series vs SA towards the end of his career but hard to claim he wasn't worldclass in that period as he excelled before and after that. Essentially, he was worldclass from 95 until retirement in 2007.

Hadlee, Marshall and others may have high quality decade performances but those are around 60/70 tests. In terms of raw tests, McGrath is at least 30 tests over the next best fast bowler in terms of a long sustained peak, who is Steyn.

What is really misleading is to add a couple of years to his peak period in order to claim his world class streak was longer than anyone else, when in reality his performance in his penultimate year was far from world class (avge 30) and in his final year he played just one Test.

Yes Hadlee, Marshall played less Tests during their peaks and subsequently took less wickets, but as I already said this is because Tests were less frequent in their era. In reality, they were world class for just as long as McGrath.

If we judge peak periods in terms of raw Tests, Ponting and Sangakkara >>> Bradman, which is absurd. Obviously the best players of the 1995-2019 era will dominate these stats, not because they are necessarily the best ever players, but because Tests were most frequent in this era.

 

[subshakerz]

What is really misleading is to add a couple of years to his peak period in order to claim his world class streak was longer than anyone else, when in reality his performance in his penultimate year was far from world class (avge 30) and in his final year he played just one Test.

I didn't say McGrath played 12 years. I literally just mentioned the years his peak started to end to indicate the period I am talking about.

Yes Hadlee, Marshall played less Tests during their peaks and subsequently took less wickets, but as I already said this is because Tests were less frequent in their era. In reality they were world class for just as long as McGrath.

Sure but volume of tests is also a test of longevity, in fact to me it is better test since those are physical performances the body is going through. And Marshall's peak was 83-88. Hadlee's was longer at 78 until around 88/89 but still shorter in terms of years to McGrath. Lillee's was around 15 years but only played 70 tests overall as his entire career was largely worldclass.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Sachin averaging near 60 for nearly 150 tests, with a perfect record(including averaging 58 in the 90s).

 

[a massive zebra]

Sure but volume of tests is also a test of longevity, in fact to me it is better test since those are physical performances the body is going through.

But in earlier eras, the best players actually played more cricket and their bodies actually endured more physical strain. The difference being that unlike the last three decades, their careers were not dominated by international cricket. For instance, Malcolm Marshall bowled almost 100,000 balls in his professional career, Richard Hadlee just under 80,000 and Glenn McGrath around 60,000. To credit modern greats over older players for sustaining a peak over more Tests on the basis of the modern view that international cricket is the only thing that counts, is naive and ill informed. This wasn't the common consensus at the time the older players played, and their bodies went through more physical strain by playing more matches overall.

If we judge longevity and sustained peaks by volume of Test matches, 1995-2019 players are the best ever, irrespective of their relative level of play over a sustained period of time in comparison to players of earlier eras, purely because more Tests were played in this period.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah I’d say either Hobbs or Rhodes. Tbf to Rhodes that last test series was basically a second XI and 4(?) years after his previous series.

Hobbs though, you could argue he was the best batsman in the world from 1910-1928 when Hammond overtook him. And was world class in tests from 1908-1929.

Extending to FC you have Hobbs’ 197/199 total centuries with 100+ coming after the age of 40. Rhodes playing from 1898-1930, 1110 FC matches (132 clear of nearest rival), 4204 wickets @ 16.72 (428 clear of nearest rival).

Probably underrated in terms of longevity too since he was a much worse bowler at test level and his career overlapped with these other greats - Frank Woolley. From 1906-1938, 978 matches (2nd all time), 58959 runs (2nd all time) @ 40.77, 145 centuries, 2066 wickets (28th all time) @ 19.87

And of course the Dr. himself. 870 matches (3rd), 54211 runs (5th), 2809 wickets (10th), all over an FC career lasting 43 years (1865-1908), from age 17 to 60.

 

[subshakerz]

But in earlier eras, the best players actually played more cricket and their bodies actually endured more physical strain. The difference being that unlike the last three decades, their careers were not dominated by international cricket. For instance, Malcolm Marshall bowled almost 100,000 balls in his professional career, Richard Hadlee just under 80,000 and Glenn McGrath around 60,000. To credit modern greats over older players for sustaining a peak over more Tests on the basis of the modern view that international cricket is the only thing that counts, is naive and ill informed. This wasn't the common consensus at the time the older players played, and their bodies went through more physical strain by playing more matches overall.

Are those numbers correct for McGrath? Seems way off.

If we judge longevity and sustained peaks by volume of Test matches, 1995-2019 players are the best ever, irrespective of their relative level of play over a sustained period of time in comparison to players of earlier eras, purely because more Tests were played in this period.

We can disagree. You had plenty of 80s players who went to well north of 100 matches or thereabouts.

Ultimately, the bottomline for me is how long is your stretch of international games in which you had worldclass performance when I look at longevity. It's not a marathon where quality of runs and wickets don't matter.

 

[a massive zebra]

Rhodes playing from 1898-1930, 1110 FC matches (132 clear of nearest rival), 4204 wickets @ 16.72 (428 clear of nearest rival).

Probably underrated in terms of longevity too since he was a much worse bowler at test level and his career overlapped with these other greats -

This statement is misleading.

Rhodes hardly played any Test cricket in his bowling pomp between 1898 and 1902, during which time he must have been one of the best bowlers ever. Between 1898 and 1903, Rhodes took an incredible 940 county championship wickets at 13.63. He was Yorkshire's leading wicket taker in all of these years and the leading wicket taker in England three times. In the few Test matches he did play over this period, the great man was nothing short of a revelation, taking 66 wickets at 17.65 in his first 13 Tests, including a series winning 31 wickets @ 15 in the 1903/04 Ashes down under. He also played the major hand in bowling Australia out for 36 in 1902.

His overall Test bowling record is misleading because most of his Tests were played in a later period when he was batting up the order and his bowling had lost some of its zip. He also played on to the record breaking age of 52.

 

[a massive zebra]

Are those numbers correct for McGrath? Seems way off.

McGrath balls bowled:

First class cricket (including Tests): 41,759
List A (including ODIs): 15,808
T20 (including T20I): 432
Total: 57,999

We can disagree. You had plenty of 80s players who went to well north of 100 matches or thereabouts.

Not in the decade of the 1980s. The most Tests played by a pure bowler in the 1980s was Marshall with 63 (although all-rounders Kapil and Botham played 80 and 75 respectively).

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[capt_Luffy]

This statement is misleading.

Rhodes hardly played any Test cricket in his bowling pomp between 1898 and 1902, during which time he must have been one of the best bowlers ever. Between 1898 and 1903, Rhodes took an incredible 940 county championship wickets at 13.63. He was Yorkshire's leading wicket taker in all of these years and the leading wicket taker in England three times. In the few Test matches he did play over this period, the great man was nothing short of a revelation, taking 66 wickets at 17.65 in his first 13 Tests, including a series winning 31 wickets @ 15 in the 1903/04 Ashes down under. He also played the major hand in bowling Australia out for 36 in 1902.

His overall Test bowling record is misleading because most of his Tests were played in a later period when he was batting up the order and his bowling had lost some of its zip. He also played on to the record breaking age of 52.

I think that statement, of not being a great Test bowler, was about Frank Woolley.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think that statement, of not being a great Test bowler, was about Frank Woolley.

Ah I think you are right... I got confused because the statement was made before the player was mentioned... my bad

 

[subshakerz]

Not in the decade of the 1980s. The most Tests played by a pure bowler in the 1980s was Marshall with 63 (although all-rounders Kapil and Botham played 80 and 75 respectively).

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Sorry, I meant debuting in the 80s or earlier, you had many cricketers who ended up with careers of over 100 plus tests.

So setting a standard based on performance over long number of tests for longevity works fine for me.

 

[a massive zebra]

Sorry, I meant debuting in the 80s or earlier, you had many cricketers who ended up with careers of over 100 plus tests.

So setting a standard based on performance over long number of tests for longevity works fine for me.

Well you've moved the goalposts as we were originally talking about sustained world class performance over a long period of time, rather than overall output/calibre across whole careers. As you said, lets agree to disagree.

 

[Spikey]

That time ABD faced like 200 balls and didn't hit a boundary. Ricky Ponting and other Australians have taught me if you don't play your natural game you will literally explode and die after 7 minutes so it's amazing what ABD did