Peak vs Longevity - Best Way to Judge Players?

[Victor Ian]

For instance, the limit is longer than the time Johnson was exceptional, otherwise he'd be ATG 11. Five years seems a bit short, but it's not too much more than that. Perhaps it's the Bradman standard - however long it takes to play 52 tests in any players era.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah - you can't play much past your use by date when there is a good team coming through. You get axed before you hurt your average. Reduced figures are the fault of the selectors, rather than yourself, because they should have just offed you. I'm not sure where the limit is, but if you play at an exceptional level for that limit - you are rated on that, and not all the other stuff. Longevity should ONLY be a bonus, and never a negative.

Except there are plenty of players who have built so much cred based on their peak that it becomes hard for selectors to remove them and they overstay their stay. Happens all the time. It is the player's fault for taking their place in the team for granted as much as the selectors. If Kohli didn't rediscover his form earlier this year and continued to play for India without scoring, wouldn't that be blameworthy of him?

For instance, the limit is longer than the time Johnson was exceptional, otherwise he'd be ATG 11. Five years seems a bit short, but it's not too much more than that. Perhaps it's the Bradman standard - however long it takes to play 52 tests in any players era.

Can't have the same standard for bats and bowlers as far as peak goes.

 

[subshakerz]

I think this is right. Botham was capable of better performance with either bat or ball, although I have a very small margin for him for both.

On the flipside, wasn't Botham capable of being a much worse player than Kapil as well?

The way I look at it, is for in an all-time greati match if you were to take a random version of a player throughout their career, what is the expected value of that aggregate (given he had an, admittedly subjectively determined, adequately voluminous Test career). That would seem to favor longevity, but for me there is extra impact in this match provided by a player if at any of those slices in time you have access to a truly transcendent force with either ball or bat. It's not worth the same as a simple "average" of all those slices, if that makes sense.

Yeah tend to agree with this.

 

[Ali TT]

What about Ian Bishop or Botham? Do you rate them based on their peaks alone?

Goes back to my original post and the context of the discussion. I'd never rate a player overall based on one criterion though.