Cricketers with similar careers

[ankitj]

Both retired with most test caps. Both were fighting batsmen without being considered among the most spectacular in their respective generations. Both part time bowlers. Both great captains playing a crucial role in Australia's ascendency to a world beater team. Both took their team to world cup victory. It's impossible for me to split the two if I had to pick just one of them.

 

[Burgey]

Both retired with most test caps. Both were fighting batsmen without being considered among the most spectacular in their respective generations. Both part time bowlers. Both great captains playing a crucial role in Australia's ascendency to a world beater team. Both took their team to world cup victory. It's impossible for me to split the two if I had to pick just one of them.

AB for the mo, obviously

 

[weldone]

Graeme Pollock and George Headley

Except total test runs and test average (and no. of matches obviously) I don't see any other similarity frankly.

Headley played test cricket for faaaaar many years, was the sole torch-bearer in a **** team, had far better FC record etc etc...

 

[weldone]

Both retired with most test caps. Both were fighting batsmen without being considered among the most spectacular in their respective generations. Both part time bowlers. Both great captains playing a crucial role in Australia's ascendency to a world beater team. Both took their team to world cup victory. It's impossible for me to split the two if I had to pick just one of them.

Yeah Border and Waugh is a fair shout.

 

[Prince EWS]

Except total test runs and test average I don't see any other similarity frankly.

Yeah it's something that 8ankitj brings up all the time but the circumstances behind the number of Tests they played were entirely different and I don't see them as being even remotely similar for that reason. Playing 20 Tests over 24 years and playing them over 7 are two entirely different things.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Chris Cairns and Andrew Flintoff

Both extremely talented and talismanic allrounders, but were cut short by injuries with unfortunate regularity. Though now I think about it, how often do we hear that exact sentence used to describe players. It's not exactly rare.

 

[morgieb]

Tait and Bond. Fantastic OD bowlers, probably could've been great test bowlers too but were plagued by injuries.

Probably a weak one though as Bond's much better.

 

[ankitj]

Except total test runs and test average (and no. of matches obviously) I don't see any other similarity frankly.

Headley played test cricket for faaaaar many years, was the sole torch-bearer in a **** team, had far better FC record etc etc...

Wow, that's a lot of similarities!

Yeah it's something that 8ankitj brings up all the time but the circumstances behind the number of Tests they played were entirely different and I don't see them as being even remotely similar for that reason. Playing 20 Tests over 24 years and playing them over 7 are two entirely different things.

Well, it's not like Pollock couldn't have played for 3 more years if SA were readmitted in 1980s, so that ain't very relevant IMO.

Of course their careers are not identical, different teams, different eras, different legacies but enough similarities for mine. Both had their careers cut down by circumstances beyond their control, yet in those limited opportunities both played some magnificent knocks to earn undisputed ATG status.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wow, that's a lot of similarities!



Well, it's not like Pollock couldn't have played for 3 more years if SA were readmitted in 1980s, so that ain't very relevant IMO.

Of course their careers are not identical, different teams, different eras, different legacies but enough similarities for mine. Both had their careers cut down by circumstances beyond their control, yet in those limited opportunities both played some magnificent knocks to earn undisputed ATG status.

It's very relevant IMO. Playing Test cricket for 25 years and ending up with only 20 Tests because your country doesn't play many is entirely different to playing for six or seven and ending up with that many because your country stops playing Tests altogether after that. One demonstrates longevity and sustained ability over a long period of time and one does not.

EDIT: To be fair though, Headley did pretty much nothing after 1939 - played 3 Tests and was dire in all of them. So you may have a point there. Still had a longer initial period than Pollock though.

 

[ankitj]

Hate to sound like a Headley critic but it's not like Headley set grounds on fire in the 3 matches that he played post-war, so it's not particularly relevant. If he had scored a big hundred after his return, one could consider that as an evidence of sustaining excellence for a long time. Again, I don't intend to criticize Headley; his greatness is undisputed and he is also one of most likable personalities to have embraced the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hate to sound like a Headley critic but it's not like Headley set grounds on fire in the 3 matches that he played post-war, so it's not particularly relevant. If he had scored a big hundred after his return, one could consider that as an evidence of sustaining excellence for a long time. Again, I don't intend to criticize Headley; his greatness is undisputed and he is also one of most likable personalities to have embraced the game.

Yeah, acknowledged that in the edit already.