Will Alastair Cook go on to surpass Tendulkar's test run tally?

[Stace]

Cook always strikes me as pretty sane, on which basis I can't see him wanting to play for too much longer

I can see him playing for a very long time at least 5 more years. He's a real team player and without him England would seriously struggle with the lack of Test quality openers. Even if he has a couple of years averaging low 30's he'll hang around until someone steps up.

A real hero and a credit to the sport as well as England.

 

[Zinzan]

While the number of Tests England play pretty much always comes up in Cook discussions, what's outstanding about him is that he is the only player to actually take that chance and turn it into what it could be with is an absolute shedload of runs.

Gooch played 118 Tests to set the record for most runs for England but over his 20-year career England actually played well over 200 tests. If Gooch were more consistent and convincing in the early part of his career he would've had more than enough time to score the kind of runs Cook has. But he wasn't good enough to actually go ahead and do it, because that's a whole other matter. Cook's runs are hard earned.

This is all well & good, but only really applies to other English players, given England consistently play more tests than any other nation,

The point raised about how many Tests Cook gets to play is to compare him to players from other countries, not against players from his own nation. It's not like anyone is arguing against him deserving to be England's no.1 opener for the last decade.

 

[Victor Ian]

I really hope Cook gets the most runs record. Why? Because scoring the most runs ever is one of those meh records. Sure, you need to have runs on the board, but after, say, 6000, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Contra]

I really hope Cook gets the most runs record. Why? Because scoring the most runs ever is one of those meh records. Sure, you need to have runs on the board, but after, say, 6000, it really doesn't matter.

I'd much rather have someone who scores 15k runs at a reasonable average than someone who scores 6k at that same average.

 

[Victor Ian]

If you took Cook, I'd bet you are taking him based on his purple patch. That might only account for 6000 odd runs. When I take Ponting, I am not taking him in his early or late years.

 

[Jono]

I really hope Cook gets the most runs record. Why? Because scoring the most runs ever is one of those meh records. Sure, you need to have runs on the board, but after, say, 6000, it really doesn't matter.

Lol. Test runs are so easy.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you took Cook, I'd bet you are taking him based on his purple patch. That might only account for 6000 odd runs. When I take Ponting, I am not taking him in his early or late years.

Might as well stop playing once you get to 6000 then. Are these wanker runs too?

 

[Victor Ian]

Might as well stop playing once you get to 6000 then. Are these wanker runs too?

Nah, Wanker runs wouldn't kick into aggreagates until about 11200.

 

[Pratters]

Would prefer Tendulkar to have the record. However England has played more tests forever compared to India. In the first 8 years Tendulkar player some 30 tests or so.

 

[indiaholic]

Wow people really undervalue longevity. I mean we managed to replace Tendulkar with Kohli but he is still not close to seeming like a Tendulkar calibre test batsman.
A test opener who plays a majority of his tests in England, manages to average 45+ and does this for 17-18 years is pretty much irreplaceable.

 

[cnerd123]

Whether or not you rate longevity depends on what you are evaluating IMO.

If I am picking a strongest possible ATGXI kinda thing, I'm picking players on how good they were at their peak, and I'd probably have some sort of minimum requirement for how long that peak should have lasted for. Longevity isn't a factor beyond that minimum requirement.

But If I am evaluating the overall career of a player, longevity definitely carries a lot more weight.

 

[Zinzan]

Wow people really undervalue longevity. I mean we managed to replace Tendulkar with Kohli but he is still not close to seeming like a Tendulkar calibre test batsman.
A test opener who plays a majority of his tests in England, manages to average 45+ and does this for 17-18 years is pretty much irreplaceable.

Yeah, I must admit I probably underrate longevity slightly. I mean I think players should play a minimum number of Tests before selecting them for my ATG sides, with the notable exceptions of Barry Richards & Graeme Pollock, simply because it's hardly their fault they played so few tests, but both displayed in their few test matches and in other forms of cricket that they were head and shoulders above most rivals.

Other than them, I feel about 5000 test runs & 200 Test wickets is about the minimum criteria. I don't however really think there's much difference between 10000-15000 runs in terms of assessing greatness.

 

[marc71178]

Would prefer Tendulkar to have the record. However England has played more tests forever compared to India. In the first 8 years Tendulkar player some 30 tests or so.

How is number of Tests a nations plays relevant when Tendulkar's played about 20% more games then anybody else in history?

 

[ImpatientLime]

still find it weird that his biggest strength is dominating quality spin.

 

[weldone]

How is number of Tests a nations plays relevant when Tendulkar's played about 20% more games then anybody else in history?

such a stupid post

Tendulkar played 200 tests between 15-Nov-1989 and 14-Nov-2013.
He missed 16 tests for India. England played 283 tests in the same time. Conservatively assuming he'd miss 23 of his tests if he played for England, he'd still play 260.
If 200 is 20% more than anybody else, then 260 is 63% more than anybody else.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar's run tally would be absurd if he played a Cook-like schedule. 1998 especially would've been even more insane. He was smashing a hundred every time he walked out to bat regardless of format, but India only played 6 tests or someting that year.

 

[Zinzan]

I do hope you chaps remember this logic when KW ends up just short of 11,000 test runs at an average of 63 due to him only managing to play 110 tests in his 16 year career due to NZ's piss-poor test schedule.

 

[GIMH]

Tendulkar's run tally would be absurd if he played a Cook-like schedule. 1998 especially would've been even more insane. He was smashing a hundred every time he walked out to bat regardless of format, but India only played 6 tests or someting that year.

His average might be lower though, as he'd have played more in his mid-00s slump

I know the thread is about run totals so I'm not sure what my point really is

You smell

 

[Pratters]

Would please my heart if Cook doesn't get the record. Ponting tries and fails. Cook tries and fails. Smith tries and fails. Williamson tries and fails. So good.

 

[Mike5181]

Would please my heart if Cook doesn't get the record. Ponting tries and fails. Cook tries and fails. Smith tries and fails. Williamson tries and fails. So good.

It won't ever be a realistic goal for Williamson considering the amount of tests we play compared to the big three.