At What Point in a Player’s Career Can We Start Calling Them Great?

[SillyCowCorner1]

Poll is up

 

[honestbharani]

Whenever we feel like, tbh.

 

[Ali TT]

Whenever we feel like, tbh.

Well there is this but to compare against past pros fairness suggests waiting until careers are over. Kohli's example tells us why.

 

[sayon basak]

When should we start rating a player? After he's fully done.

When can we start rating a player? Whenever we want.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

When Jasprit Bumrah retires.

 

[honestbharani]

Well there is this but to compare against past pros fairness suggests waiting until careers are over. Kohli's example tells us why.

I can go back further coz I remember Ponting being compared to Bradman at his peak and such. Generally, I agree its easier to rate players after they have called time on their careers as its really the only point when the career is complete.

All that said, I still think "great" is such a subjective term that it really depends on the individual.

 

[honestbharani]

When Jasprit Bumrah retires.

Make Batting Great Again.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Before debut imo (see Hick, Graeme).

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

I voted during their prime but it can happen at any stage , I think modern cricketers have to work a lot harder to become great than years before ..

The 20th century had greater commentators,Historians , writers that promoted the game and it's stars better than they do now. Especially in test cricket.

Ian Botham the way he started Test cricket was absolutely phenomenal, nobody at the time knew it was his prime until reflection of his career ..

Waqar Younis the greatest teenage fast bowler ever, so there are two examples of youngsters becoming greats before the generally accepted age/experience of when cricketers hit their prime..

Then you get world class players who produce some outrageous performances that pushes them into the all time great category

I can think of Richard Hadlee monster series vs
Australia in 85 or Malcolm Marshall picking up 7/53 with a broken hand vs England in 84 ..

Others have their reputations enhanced after they have retired, guys like Allan Border who laid the foundations for Australian dominance in the 90's for example , Gavaskar's status probably got enhanced when you consider how hard it is to find world class openers in the last 30-40 years or so. There are various factors.

 

[ankitj]

When @subshakerz allows.

 

[Ali TT]

I voted during their prime but it can happen at any stage , I think modern cricketers have to work a lot harder to become great than years before ..

The 20th century had greater commentators,Historians , writers that promoted the game and it's stars better than they do now. Especially in test cricket.

Ian Botham the way he started Test cricket was absolutely phenomenal, nobody at the time knew it was his prime until reflection of his career ..

Waqar Younis the greatest teenage fast bowler ever, so there are two examples of youngsters becoming greats before the generally accepted age/experience of when cricketers hit their prime..

Then you get world class players who produce some outrageous performances that pushes them into the all time great category

I can think of Richard Hadlee monster series vs
Australia in 85 or Malcolm Marshall picking up 7/53 with a broken hand vs England in 84 ..

Others have their reputations enhanced after they have retired, guys like Allan Border who laid the foundations for Australian dominance in the 90's for example , Gavaskar's status probably got enhanced when you consider how hard it is to find world class openers in the last 30-40 years or so. There are various factors.

There's a football phrase - not necessarily a great goal scorer but a scorer of great goals. In cricket there are definitely some players who had careers with long periods of high productivity but not necessarily many earth-shattering performances, while you have someone like KP who could do extraordinary things but overall had a career below the very best. I guess the true greats combine the incredible and the consistency.

 

[Randomfan]

Many times, you can can call some one great based on that they have already done. You don't need to wait till they retire. Still need to have 40-50 tests to see output with a large enough sample size. You can be in top tier ATG class without having an ATG full career. If I am convinced of that then I think its safe to call a player great.

Examples I can give , SRT half way in his career was great due to being that much better than peer group. No need to wait till he hanged his boot. Same for Steven Smith, Steyn and Bumrah. But for most players, they are not that far ahead of peer group and we may have to wait till they have almost a full career.

If you had 7-8 years of cricket and far ahead of your peer group then you are a certified great for me given we have had only 5-6 decades of test cricket with many competitive cricket. I am struggling to find some counter examples who are not greats of the game despite being far ahead of peer group in 7-8 years of career.

But an exact status among greats, you got to wait for retirement for most players. Comparing half vs full career is going to be hard unless gulf in class is a big one. Except in some rare cases, gulf in class is not that huge among greats.

Having said that, there is no fixed cut off. Fans can call a player great at any phase.

 

[Coronis]

But an exact status among greats, you got to wait for retirement for most players. Comparing half vs full career is going to be hard unless gulf in class is a big one. Except in some rare cases, gulf in class is not that huge among greats.

Very accurate. This is why I generally refrain from voting in polls involving Root/Williamson/Kohli, as well as Bumrah/Cummins/Rabada, if it involves a player I consider to be in the same grouping as them.

My view however is that once a player has done enough to reach a certain level/grouping/tier, their decline can’t push them out of it.

 

[Ali TT]

Many times, you can can call some one great based on that they have already done. You don't need to wait till they retire. Still need to have 40-50 tests to see output with a large enough sample size. You can be in top tier ATG class without having an ATG full career. If I am convinced of that then I think its safe to call a player great.

Examples I can give , SRT half way in his career was great due to being that much better than peer group. No need to wait till he hanged his boot. Same for Steven Smith, Steyn and Bumrah. But for most players, they are not that far ahead of peer group and we may have to wait till they have almost a full career.

If you had 7-8 years of cricket and far ahead of your peer group then you are a certified great for me given we have had only 5-6 decades of test cricket with many competitive cricket. I am struggling to find some counter examples who are not greats of the game despite being far ahead of peer group in 7-8 years of career.

But an exact status among greats, you got to wait for retirement for most players. Comparing half vs full career is going to be hard unless gulf in class is a big one. Except in some rare cases, gulf in class is not that huge among greats.

Having said that, there is no fixed cut off. Fans can call a player great at any phase.

So where does this put a player like Kohli, who if he'd retired at 80 tests would be in the very top tier but now is being ranked a couple below?

 

[Sliferxxxx]

When they retire.

 

[h_hurricane]

You can call a fast bowler great when he learns to hit the deck hard.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

You can call a fast bowler great when he learns to hit the deck hard.

What about the ones that are considered 'skidders'?

 

[Randomfan]

So where does this put a player like Kohli, who if he'd retired at 80 tests would be in the very top tier but now is being ranked a couple below?

I think he has shown his class as top tier batsmen for sure, but he did not have a career of a top tier batsman.


For example, top 5 teams in 2010s were Ind, Aus, Eng, SA and NZ.

Batsmen record in 2010s in tests involving top 5 sides: 57 tests against your top oppositions is a large sample size to judge class.




I am not going to argue with anyone who thinks that Kohli is one of the greats based on his top tier output for one decade. Notice some one highly rated as Sanga averaged 44. His career record is also same so averaging 44 is not just due to cut off used above. Point is not that Kohli is better than Sanga over his career , but simply to show that even great batsmen struggle to avg 50 plus against top sides for 10 years. Kohli did and in the same period for away his record was fantastic So he was simply top class batsman for an entire decade.

But I am also not going to argue with anyone who thinks Kohli is not great due to his career average declining a lot.

You may ignore a period of decline while judging the class of players having a large sample size of top class output but you can't ignore the long period of decline when judging a career of any player. Kohli career rating surely goes down.

 

[Randomfan]

Very accurate. This is why I generally refrain from voting in polls involving Root/Williamson/Kohli, as well as Bumrah/Cummins/Rabada, if it involves a player I consider to be in the same grouping as them.

My view however is that once a player has done enough to reach a certain level/grouping/tier, their decline can’t push them out of it.

I agree mostly, but if decline becomes too long then it becomes a bit complicated situation. Kohli is recent example, then we have huge decline of Waqar where he played 40-50 tests with just 1 5-fers agaisnt non-minnows. I do think longer declines does start impacting your statures. Yes, playing 10-12 tests in decline is fine, that can be ignored. It happens with many.

I personally think Bumrah has broken away from peer group based on his performance away againt top teams. Veyr few in history have 125-150 cheap away tests wickets against top teams of their era. Across era can be difficult but for same era, it's easier. To put it in numbers,

Away record of pacers in tests involving top 5 sides:




Even if you take all non minnows then,

Away performance of pacers against non-minnows:



Bumrah seems like an outlier in his own era to me. He has as many test wickets as many greats of games had in entire career involving top 5 teams of their era home and away combined. So longevity against top teams is non-issue. Then against BD/WI/SL he averages 9-12. So not much to see there but he is not going to play too many tests against them. He won't get a game against Pakistan. So his longevity is large enough against top sides and he is never going to have longevity against weaker sides.

Cummins and Rabada have been fantastic in their home gorunds, but Cummins and Rabada have not outbowled Bumrah in their dens where they have bowled together. Given Bumrah avg in India being 17 and Rabada/Cummins in 32-45 range, I also doubt that Rabada and Cummins will outbowl Bumrah in India if they happen to bowl together.

Cummins and Rabada have only 100-115 away wickets against non-minnows and those wickets are far more expensive than their home. If both play lots of away tests with expensive avg their career avg will suffer as well. Looking at everything, I feel Bumrah has broken out of their bracket. Not necessarily his career is better right now, but I think he is in a different class. Just my opinion. It's perfectly fine if you keep 3 in the same bracket. I was only presenting why I think Bumrah is in a different class.

But yes, I agree that if you keep players in the same bracket then it's hard to make a call before they hang their boots.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

During their peak