Alistair Cook

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
38,543
Second only to Bradman?

According to Brendon Mcullum. He's entitled to his opinion of course but that's high praise for a batsman who I believe is highly talented but not for me someone who captures the imagination.

Averages aside

Sir Viv Richards is the greatest I've ever seen. Had the lot plus an aura about him that I've only felt with a few sportsmen: Woods,Federer in particular
 
Trying to get in his head. Undoubtably though hes as good of a batsman as england have ever produced, its not easy playing the bulk of your games in english conditions. Lots of indians have artificial averages due to the dead pitches they play on
 
He's arguably England's best ever player, and i expect that opinion to be un-arguable by the time his career is over.

I wouldn't put him into the elite of batsmen in history, bar a phenomenal run of form from now. But that's hardly a criticism.
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Second only to Bradman?

According to Brendon Mcullum. He's entitled to his opinion of course but that's high praise for a batsman who I believe is highly talented but not for me someone who captures the imagination.

Averages aside

Sir Viv Richards is the greatest I've ever seen. Had the lot plus an aura about him that I've only felt with a few sportsmen: Woods,Federer in particular
Click to expand...

images


Tendulkar and Lara are laughing.
 
samabachan said:
All nonsense. He's a terrific cricketer but he's not even the best batsman in this England team. And I love Cook.
Click to expand...

He is, he will go down as one of the all time great test batsman when he retires.

That was a poor shot by him to lose his wicket then though.
 
Colin129 said:
He's the real deal.

2nd to Bradman? Err no.
Click to expand...

That is going a bit far, at the moment I would just say he is one of the best opening batsman in the world today, where he ends up in a all time list can be judged when he retires because let's face it he probably has at least 8 years left in him.
 
What a disappointment, I thought this was going to be about Letter from America, I didn't realise which forum it was in.

But seeing as I've been brought to this god-forsaken place on false pretences I might as well say any comparison with Bradman is ludicrous. Statistically Bradman is the greatest sportsman the world has ever seen by a country mile. Any sport, anywhere.
 
Yeah "mind games" from Mccullum.

But he's a bloody good player. Going to break all significant English batting records and perhaps even world records.

Could easily come close to Sachin's runs record in tests if he stays healthy.
 
Quinton Fortune said:
Trying to get in his head. Undoubtably though hes as good of a batsman as england have ever produced, its not easy playing the bulk of your games in english conditions. Lots of indians have artificial averages due to the dead pitches they play on
Click to expand...

Yeah, those bloody Indians, playing Test cricket with themselves.
 
The quality of the bowling around is at the lowest I have seen.

Sachin faced the likes of Akram, Waqar, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Ambrose just to name a few.

Only Steyn of the present lot measures up with the very best of bowlers. Philander bowls well, too, as does Morkel in patches.

And Cook's record against that lot is pretty ordinary.

I think it's silly to call any batsman from the present era a great. If you're a batsman who has only a few risky shots and a great temperament, this is the era to play in. And that is why Cook has been so successful. The same with Kohli in ODIs -- he has a great array of strokes, but his shot selection is risk free in ODIs.

I think Cook is a very good batsman, but he is not tested at all. It's a run buffet for a batsman like him. It's been very impressive how he's gone about adding layers to his game -- he has improved against spin, was tremendous in India and even hit a few sixes coming down the track -- but it comes with an asterisk, IMO.

Hashim Amla, imo, would measure up with the better batsmen of the years gone by. Huge runs in alien conditions in India and a triple and some more good runs against a very good English bowling attack away.
 
And I don't buy into the notion that Bradman is the best ever. Cricket was so drastically different back then that it might well have been a different game. His records are very impressive, but I don't like the idea of comparing cricketing eras.

No Murali, Warne, turning pitches, very few opposition.. it was an entirely different game.
 
zing said:
And I don't buy into the notion that Bradman is the best ever. Cricket was so drastically different back then that it might well have been a different game. His records are very impressive, but I don't like the idea of comparing cricketing eras.

No Murali, Warne, turning pitches, very few opposition.. it was an entirely different game.
Click to expand...

Well no one else from his era had a record anywhere near to his.
 
I don't deny that and that's why I'm saying it's impressive. But to compare across eras and say that Bradman is a better player than Richards or Tendulkar or Dravid.. it's not the same sport.
 
Bradman is a statistical outlier, of course he is the greatest cricketer ever. Far superior to Tendulkar only jingoism could blind one from accepting that.
 
This is probably the most annoying thing about cricket: People ascertaining Bradman's supremacy like they were watching him bat while hanging out of his pocket.

It was a different sport. You might as well be comparing Babe Ruth and Lara.
 
Lets stick Tendulkar on the Aussie tour of England with Bradman.

He wouldn't have an average, as he would never have been dismissed.

I'im with Zing on this one.
 
We are talking about a mans ability to hit a cricket ball on a cricket pitch. Clearly Bradman, as supported so preposterously by mathematics was the greatest to ever do so.

You can compare Babe Ruth and Lara by establishing their importance, their efficiency in their sport compared to their peers.

Bradman's statistics almost don't stand to reason. He is like Messi.


Arguing otherwise is just an attempt to fit an agenda, like a childhood love of Sachin Tendulkar.
 
Different sport or not an average of 99+ over 50 tests and scoring almost 7000 runs is ridiculous. Not like he played only 10-15 tests and had a ridiculous purple patch. 29 centuries too which means better than a century every 2 tests.

Sometimes its hard to argue with the sheer numbers.
 
Donaldo said:
Don't think anyone is saying he's not as great as he's purported to be.
Click to expand...

I think some are tbh.

The thing is Bradman was head & shoulders above anyone around during his era, unless someone is in the same position today, then there is no real comparison.

Using the football comparison, Ronaldo & Messi are in a different league to anyone else, look back at players like Zidane, Maradona, Pele etc.

Find which cricketers were in a different league to their peers in each era & then you can start comparing the greats. Sobers, Richards, Warne etc.
 
Quinton Fortune said:
Trying to get in his head. Undoubtably though hes as good of a batsman as england have ever produced, its not easy playing the bulk of your games in english conditions. Lots of indians have artificial averages due to the dead pitches they play on
Click to expand...

Love it when a straight shooter like Quinton comes along and tells us how it is. Without any inhibitions or fear of ridicule, displays his in-depth knowledge and stumps everyone. I commend you, Quinton, on exposing the fraud that is Indian cricket. Batsmen making merry on docile pitches at home and falling like nine pins on pitches abroad. Batsman like Rahul and Sachin have fooled so many over two decades with their artificial averages. If we were communist, I would start a petition to seize their assets and put them behind bars.

Bravo Quinton, Bravo!

******

Records of some of the best Indian batsmen (& Gavaskar) over the last few years:

..................Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave
Rahul:
...........home 70 120 11 5598 222 51.35
...........away 94 166 21 7690 270 53.03

Sachin:
...........home 91 147 16 7041 217 53.74
...........away 106 176 17 8705 248 54.74

Laxman:
...........home 57 91 18 3767 281 51.60
...........away 77 134 16 5014 178 42.49

Sehwag:
...........home 52 89 3 4656 319 54.13
...........away 52 91 3 3930 309 44.65

Ganguly:
...........home 50 84 10 3180 239 42.97
...........away 63 104 7 4032 147 41.56

Gambhir:
...........home 32 55 2 2214 206 41.77
...........away 22 41 3 1807 167 47.55

Gavaskar:
...........home 65 108 7 5067 236* 50.16
...........away 60 106 9 5055 221 52.11

*******

Hang them!
 
I assume he said "and" because all the others are all from the same-ish generation.
 
Colin129 said:
Why do you say 'and Gavaskar'?

Apart from Sachin, who is/was better?

He played against the cream of West Indian fast bowlers &, apparently, averaged over 65 against them.
Click to expand...

I've read that Gavaskar didn't play against the cream of WI fast bowlers on his specific tours to the Caribbean.

Any truth to this?
 
Anyone bothered to do statistical analysis without zim/bangladesh or inside and outside subcontinent? Might be useful, but the stats posted do suggest that the players listed would be good in any conditions.

Edit: Actually cricinfo have it all, doesn't make that much of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.