Graham Thorpe vs Kevin Pietersen

[Arachnodouche]

Always thought Thorpe was a very elegant batsman and cricketer in general. He played some of the greatest spinners and quick bowlers of all time, and acquitted himself quite well.

 

[Jack1]

Pietersen

 

[Teja.]

It's pretty close but I'll go Thorpe.

 

[Tom Flint]

Thorpey is probably my favourite England cricketer, so I'm unashamedly biased.

Pietersen had the higher ceiling, I don't think too many would demur from that, but Thorpe wasn't just a Collingwoodesque grinder (which sounds like the worst niche gay dating app ever), he really could play too.

As Cozza suggests earlier, there was a completely false dichotomy between them at the start of the 2005 Ashes and, although obviously, yay we won, it's pretty hard to imagine Graham wouldn't have contributed more to the cause than Ding Dong Bell in doing so. I've still haven't forgiven Fletcher for that call and will never be convinced he didn't crap the bed.

I'll just float this out: if Thorpe had been born ten years later and surrounded by a better class of batting conferes there's a very strong case this career would've been even more impressive than it was as he'd have had more shoulders to help carry that burden.

However if KP had been born ten years earlier and had to endure the schissershow that was 90s English cricket, given his temperament and fondness for a flounce, could one really imagine he'd have had the career he did with less sympathetic handling?

I mean, Thorpe once cried off a tour because his missus was diddling her tennis coach and he was decried by the ever understanding gentlemen (it's invariably gentlemen) of the fourth estate as a softmember. If a ****old's horns and the death throes of a marriage weren't considered reasonable grounds, KP's (comparatively) piddling concerns would've been laughed out of Fleet Street.

It wasn't all peeled grapes and pedicures in Pietersen's time, but he was generally treated with a lot more understanding than Thorpey was.

If KP had been born 10 years earlier he would have been playing for south africa

 

[GIMH]

Cook wasn't crazy talented. Didn't have the eye or the technique for that to be said.

An ability to score the runs he did opening the batting can only be down to talent. If that's not talent then Flem really was right all those years ago that there's no such thing.

 

[chris.hinton]

Better test match batsman? One from a prolonged period of being ****e for England and the other from a brief stay at the top.

Loved Thorpe and i think he shouldnt have been dropped in the 2005 ashes and Bell should have gone, Nevertheless its all hindsight. KP was a better player at all levels then Thorpe, Just wished both was in the same test side

 

[harsh.ag]

An ability to score the runs he did opening the batting can only be down to talent. If that's not talent then Flem really was right all those years ago that there's no such thing.

Talented, yes. Crazily talented, no. Has to be a difference between him and someone like ABdV who was crazily talented.

 

[harsh.ag]

 

[GIMH]

Talented, yes. Crazily talented, no. Has to be a difference between him and someone like ABdV who was crazily talented.

Why? To succeed as he did, at the top of a sport, from the age of 21 is impossible without absolute excesses of talent. Unless the word means something different to its definition.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Was he really less talented or was he just a bit weird looking shot maker? He made an immediate impact as a young lad. Classic high SR = talented logic.

Not necessarily - Dravid was immensely talented, just not as talented as Sachin, and the same would probably apply even if their S/Rs were reversed in tests. Root doesn't have a crazy S/R, and is generally considered immensley talented but also a disappointment. It's 'relative' talent isn't it? Cook was, IMO, less talented than Pietersen.
Or maybe Pietersen really did get the most out of his own talent too, we'll never know - but I think the general cricket fan will agree there at least SEEMED to be more possible from him (regardless of off-field issues), which never came, or only came in flashes/glimpses.

Whereas I don't think anyone would argue that Cook didn't make the most of his talent.

In essence, apart from very few like Sachin, you could always argue that those we consider the 'most talented' probably had more to give than what we saw (Lara is another example). Part of that is obviously the 'unknown' - i.e. what could have been. Whether it's injury, consistency (partly fuelled by injury) or off field issues or whatever. It is, we think, unfulfilled. But it could be argued that it was fulfilled and that's the most you're ever likely to get from a player like that.
But then, hell, some even seem to argue that we didn't see the full extent of Sachin's talent so who knows...

 

[Flem274*]

as usual i was correct to question the correlation between strike rate/style/fandom and 'talent' back in the day but unless we get cook in a time machine for the reflex test i've seen mentioned by chris martin (comparing his not good scores to brendon mccullum) i guess we'll never know.

opening the batting is one of the three hardest jobs in cricket, probably the hardest, so to be really good at it from an age where most future test batsmen are still getting to grips with first class cricket shows cook had something in spades.

 

[_00_deathscar]

as usual i was correct to question the correlation between strike rate/style/fandom and 'talent' back in the day but unless we get cook in a time machine for the reflex test i've seen mentioned by chris martin (comparing his not good scores to brendon mccullum) i guess we'll never know.

opening the batting is one of the three hardest jobs in cricket, probably the hardest, so to be really good at it from an age where most future test batsmen are still getting to grips with first class cricket shows cook had something in spades.

Of course Cook is ALSO 'talented' - but we aren't saying one is talented and the other isn't. We are saying one is MORE talented than the other which is of course not quantifiable at all (which makes it an argument based on fandom more than anything else).

Let's take strike rate out of it then and say Dravid was more talented than Cook. It has nothing to do with strike rate and everything to do with a perception of talent. I admit that when comparing one flashy player with a gritty one, one could perceive the flashy player to be more talented (and that may or may not be a result of the strike rate - see also, range of strokes etc).

Cook had grit, much like Waugh. A large reason he suceeded, more so than pure talent (see also, Mark). Talent only gets you so far and all that.

 

[Flem274*]

i think it's all **** and doesn't matter tbh, and you also can't prove your claims. you're guessing.

we can prove cook achieved something very few batsmen achieve - a career as a genuinely world class opener.

only a handful of openers average 50 compared to about 100000 batsmen from #3 down. there's a reason for that; opening is a miserable job. the same is true when you compare the number of openers to average 45-49 compared to the middle order dandies.

cook managed this beginning as a 21 year old. most batsmen are **** at 21 - steve smith, kane williamson, virat kohli - they were crap (can't remember root's debut age soz).

cook vs dravid is a difficult argument and irrelevant because while dravid could open in an emergency realistically they're not competing for a spot in a fantasy side, but players of cook's quality in his role are rarer than players of dravid's quality in his role.

 

[_00_deathscar]

You're mixing achievements with talent.

Talent is/should be innate. Achievements are a mixture of talent (in small quantities) with much more of the other things - such as hard work, determination, grit, discipline etc. Many things that many of the more 'talented' lack.
It was clear that Kohli was talented at a young age, but it was his crazy determination that got him to where he is, not talent.

Of course 'talent' is unquantifiable, while achievements are. But we aren't judging achievement here.

Would you argue against Sachin or Lara being more talented than Cook?

 

[Flem274*]

'talent' is unquantifiable

yes, correct, you cannot measure it and therefore cannot compare across batsmen (bowlers have more obvious signs of talent - the ability to bowl 150kph is extremely rare) so attempts to use it as a factor in selection is fruitless and plauged the biases of the observer. when selecting from the first class level, results, mental game and technique are the only things that matter.

this is all that needs to be said. your sachin and lara comparisons are a pure example of 'aesthetics = ability'. could they have more 'time' than cook? sure. can we measure it? nah, so who cares lol

 

[harsh.ag]

Why? To succeed as he did, at the top of a sport, from the age of 21 is impossible without absolute excesses of talent. Unless the word means something different to its definition.

Okay cool, argumatronic. Cook was crazy talented.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Looking at home in international cricket from a very young age is a clear mark (but not the only one) of serious natural ability. Talent isn't just shot making.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Looking at home in international cricket from a very young age is a clear mark (but not the only one) of serious natural ability. Talent isn't just shot making.

great shout.

its a sign of good 'temperament' which is literally defined as 'a person or animals nature'.

actually on kp, root's debut innings was at nagpur and he joined KP at the crease. KP noted at some point afterwards how incredibly relaxed and at home root was in the middle that innings, talking to him like a veteran about how the pitch was playing etc.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

KP was a rare genius and a better batsman than Thorpe, but also a king sized prat.

This sums it up rather well. Thorpe my favourite England bat of the 90's by a long way.

 

[honestbharani]

Okay cool, argumatronic. Cook was crazy talented.

Two As and Two Bs, man... He will from now be the BABA of CW.