weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I don't agree, thanks. For me, longevity carries some weight regardless of how high the longevity is. Tendulkar has played for 22 years now. If tommorrow someone plays for 28 years with similar performance, I won't blink once before saying 'Tendulkar has a low longevity compared to that player'. (which is different from saying that 'Tendulkar has a low longevity' FTR)Why on earth would you assume that I mean only a little higher than a Bond or Kambli?
I have argued that a difference of 8 Tests (132 vs 124) and 15 years vs. 11 (although I'm not certain those years are correct) doesn't matter.
20 years vs. 10 years is double PLUS your earlier example compared two players with EQUAL records (50 average). So it was an absolute no brainer, that I and everyone with a brain would select.
If I had to say a figure anyone who finishes up in the top perhaps 25% of matches played (or length of time if you really must) has played enough longevity wise and should all be considered equal.
25% is a random number not set in stone, but it's more of an accurate indication of my feelings compared to your assumption.
I am ready to accept that the difference between 5 yrs and 10 yrs longevity is not the same as the difference between 15 yrs and 20 yrs - but there's 'some' difference regardless.
The summary of my point: Does Tendulkar have a fabulous longevity? Yes. Will I love it more if he averages 50 for 5 more years? Yes. Will I rate him even higher in that case? Absolutely yes.
I don't think I can make myself any clearer. Thanks for having the debate.
Last edited: