Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He will take his place up there with the pantheons of the game and rightly so. His stats are pretty good despite a lower average than the best - although this can be attributed to opening as has been pointed out.
Top top player at his peak who ground down opposition line ups and had the fitness to match. England may struggle to replace him but now is probably the right time to give it up for him.
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
The man who is commentating on this series was an amazing batsman, Gavaskar averaged 51, with 34 hundreds and 10,000 runs playing against the amazing Windies and Aussie bowlers of the 70's and 80's, I heard he averaged 65 against the Windies attack.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
A god-like opening batsmen that will easily go down as one of England’s greatest players, no one got more out of their ability than he did, not the most technically talented, but scored a bang loads of runs.
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 18 hours, 48 minutes ago
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's certainly not an iconic figure around the world but England fans will remember him for years to come. His 2010/11 Ashes performances alone will be remembered by many for years to come.
comment by Wetherbyterrier (U2075)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
The man who is commentating on this series was an amazing batsman, Gavaskar averaged 51, with 34 hundreds and 10,000 runs playing against the amazing Windies and Aussie bowlers of the 70's and 80's, I heard he averaged 65 against the Windies attack.
=========================================
Yes, Gavaskar was a legend, he played in an era where many countries had good bowling line ups, not just WI and Aus, but also England, Pakistan and NZ with Hadlee were very dangerous too.
comment by TCM (U8959)
posted 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 18 hours, 48 minutes ago
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's certainly not an iconic figure around the world but England fans will remember him for years to come. His 2010/11 Ashes performances alone will be remembered by many for years to come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
You'd need to be deluded to not regard Cook as one of the greats of the game. He's one of the last few remaining true test cricketers that play test cricket the way it was meant to.
Will, and should, go down as one of the best openers of the game. In my opinion anyway.
Leading run scorer as an opener in test cricket history.. Yeah soon forgotten!
In an era of extremely poor fast bowlers (with the exception of Steyn and Anderson), an average of 45 does not represent a legend of the game.
Don't get me wrong, a very good player and deserves a lot of respect, but not a legend (in my opinion)
Bit harsh to say we are in an extremely poor era of fast bowlers. There may not be a plethora of all time greats but there's still decent quicks around the world and there has been over the past 12 years whilst Cook has been a test player.
It was harsh I agree.
Zaheer Khan and Morkel had some good years, there are some decent younger bowlers like Rabada and Hasan. I rate Boult too.
But if you compare it to the types of bowlers that openers like Boycott or later Atherton and Stewart had to face, then I think there's a big difference.
Also, there are very few quality spin bowlers too. Cook did face Warne and Murali, but AFAIK, not very much.
different era's very difficult to judge, I mean early 90's eng used to complain because they couldn't reverse swing the ball now all teams can do it, cricketers especially past generations are sometimes looked through rose tinted glasses similar to boxers of previous era's
Conversely, many people that only started watching sports in the past 10-15 years feel they can judge players from 20-25-30 years ago by simply looking at a few YouTube clips of them.
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
-------------------
pretty much all these bowers as great as they were played in a very defensive era of test and even odi cricket to a extent, since the explosion of t20 bowling has been made a lot more difficult as batsmen have adopted a much more aggressive game across all formats, now dnt get me wrong im pretty confident all those above mentioned would have more than likely adapted to the shorter format but its a challenge they never had to really face, a 240-250 score in odi was considered pretty daunting 20-25 years, now anything less than 300 is considered sub par
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
pretty much all these bowers as great as they were played in a very defensive era of test and even odi cricket to a extent
======================================
That is complete and utter nonsense
I was first of all talking about tests and not T20 or ODI so have no idea where that came from. But also, maybe the reason ODI batsman score more and at a faster rate are because the bowlers are nowhere near as good.
Secondly, why is it the moment there is a tough pitch, there are so many low scores in Tests, because in general the pitches are roads nowadays and have very little for bowlers.
Finally, did you ever even watch cricket in the 90s? the decade Afridi hit 100 off 37 balls, Jayasuriya hit 50 off 17 balls. In 1996, that Sri Lanka side were hitting 300 with ease. Literally every team had an opening pair that were aggressive and in the final overs. I could go on and on.
Only English players were behind the times and they rectified that in the 2000s with players like Trescothik, Flintoff and KP.
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th Masters Snooker Title) (U13155)
posted 41 seconds ago
Conversely, many people that only started watching sports in the past 10-15 years feel they can judge players from 20-25-30 years ago by simply looking at a few YouTube clips of them.
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there are many around at the moment that are better than them, I also think that if you look at how the game has changed, then maybe those bowlers would have had to change some things in modern cricket. Maybe not the ones who had outright pace and or height like Waqar, Donald, Ambrose etc. But would Pollock been as successful today? Would batsmen allowed him to bowl at them as he used to? T20 and One Day cricket has meant that batsmen are more aggressive and not willing to allow bowlers to settle in the same way.I'm not saying that would be the case, but I am saying it is very difficult to compare.
=========================================
Now you make a much better point than the other poster. Yes, Pollock and even an old Ambrose/MCGrath may struggle in T20 cricket, but I still think that not only their skill but the confidence with which they bowled and were able to find wickets for their Captain, they would've adapted really well.
I think a bowler like Wasim would probably be even more dangerous in T20, Donald,and Waqar may have had the odd bad match, but they would've been lethal with their yorkers and bouncers.
I was first of all talking about tests and not T20 or ODI so have no idea where that came from. But also, maybe the reason ODI batsman score more and at a faster rate are because the bowlers are nowhere near as good.
--------------
if you don't think the rise of t20 cricket has a ripple effect to all formats then your not worth debating
T20 has had both a bad and bad effect on batting, but you are not worth debating with I agree, because you seem clueless about cricket.
You call a whole era of cricket defensive becuase of no T20 yet you ignore that many aggressive players played in that era.
Stick to a subject you know about. Your knowledge of cricket is a joke.
you don't read very well do you, how does the odd player and innings negate the fact that that era was more defensive than now?
your the idiot who thinks cook is not a England great, pretty much sums up your knowledge of the game
Aggression can be in both batting, field setting and bowling, why should it be restricted to ONLY batting?
But I don't want to ruin this thread with the bickering, but if you watched ODI cricket worldwide in the 90s, the last thing you would call it is negative. This was the decade that Gilchrist started opening and I could give 100 examples, but it's nothing to do with this topic, so I say we agree to disagree here.
Sign in if you want to comment
Cook retires from international cricket
Page 3 of 4
posted on 4/9/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/9/18
I'm going to miss Cook
posted on 5/9/18
He will take his place up there with the pantheons of the game and rightly so. His stats are pretty good despite a lower average than the best - although this can be attributed to opening as has been pointed out.
Top top player at his peak who ground down opposition line ups and had the fitness to match. England may struggle to replace him but now is probably the right time to give it up for him.
posted on 5/9/18
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
posted on 5/9/18
The man who is commentating on this series was an amazing batsman, Gavaskar averaged 51, with 34 hundreds and 10,000 runs playing against the amazing Windies and Aussie bowlers of the 70's and 80's, I heard he averaged 65 against the Windies attack.
posted on 5/9/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/9/18
A god-like opening batsmen that will easily go down as one of England’s greatest players, no one got more out of their ability than he did, not the most technically talented, but scored a bang loads of runs.
posted on 6/9/18
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 18 hours, 48 minutes ago
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's certainly not an iconic figure around the world but England fans will remember him for years to come. His 2010/11 Ashes performances alone will be remembered by many for years to come.
posted on 6/9/18
comment by Wetherbyterrier (U2075)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
The man who is commentating on this series was an amazing batsman, Gavaskar averaged 51, with 34 hundreds and 10,000 runs playing against the amazing Windies and Aussie bowlers of the 70's and 80's, I heard he averaged 65 against the Windies attack.
=========================================
Yes, Gavaskar was a legend, he played in an era where many countries had good bowling line ups, not just WI and Aus, but also England, Pakistan and NZ with Hadlee were very dangerous too.
posted on 6/9/18
comment by TCM (U8959)
posted 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 18 hours, 48 minutes ago
Top Player, and great for England.
But lets be honest - He'll will be forgotton in years to come. Not a legend of the sport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's certainly not an iconic figure around the world but England fans will remember him for years to come. His 2010/11 Ashes performances alone will be remembered by many for years to come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
posted on 6/9/18
You'd need to be deluded to not regard Cook as one of the greats of the game. He's one of the last few remaining true test cricketers that play test cricket the way it was meant to.
Will, and should, go down as one of the best openers of the game. In my opinion anyway.
posted on 6/9/18
Leading run scorer as an opener in test cricket history.. Yeah soon forgotten!
posted on 7/9/18
In an era of extremely poor fast bowlers (with the exception of Steyn and Anderson), an average of 45 does not represent a legend of the game.
Don't get me wrong, a very good player and deserves a lot of respect, but not a legend (in my opinion)
posted on 7/9/18
Bit harsh to say we are in an extremely poor era of fast bowlers. There may not be a plethora of all time greats but there's still decent quicks around the world and there has been over the past 12 years whilst Cook has been a test player.
posted on 7/9/18
It was harsh I agree.
Zaheer Khan and Morkel had some good years, there are some decent younger bowlers like Rabada and Hasan. I rate Boult too.
But if you compare it to the types of bowlers that openers like Boycott or later Atherton and Stewart had to face, then I think there's a big difference.
Also, there are very few quality spin bowlers too. Cook did face Warne and Murali, but AFAIK, not very much.
posted on 7/9/18
different era's very difficult to judge, I mean early 90's eng used to complain because they couldn't reverse swing the ball now all teams can do it, cricketers especially past generations are sometimes looked through rose tinted glasses similar to boxers of previous era's
posted on 7/9/18
Conversely, many people that only started watching sports in the past 10-15 years feel they can judge players from 20-25-30 years ago by simply looking at a few YouTube clips of them.
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
posted on 7/9/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/9/18
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
-------------------
pretty much all these bowers as great as they were played in a very defensive era of test and even odi cricket to a extent, since the explosion of t20 bowling has been made a lot more difficult as batsmen have adopted a much more aggressive game across all formats, now dnt get me wrong im pretty confident all those above mentioned would have more than likely adapted to the shorter format but its a challenge they never had to really face, a 240-250 score in odi was considered pretty daunting 20-25 years, now anything less than 300 is considered sub par
posted on 7/9/18
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
pretty much all these bowers as great as they were played in a very defensive era of test and even odi cricket to a extent
======================================
That is complete and utter nonsense
I was first of all talking about tests and not T20 or ODI so have no idea where that came from. But also, maybe the reason ODI batsman score more and at a faster rate are because the bowlers are nowhere near as good.
Secondly, why is it the moment there is a tough pitch, there are so many low scores in Tests, because in general the pitches are roads nowadays and have very little for bowlers.
Finally, did you ever even watch cricket in the 90s? the decade Afridi hit 100 off 37 balls, Jayasuriya hit 50 off 17 balls. In 1996, that Sri Lanka side were hitting 300 with ease. Literally every team had an opening pair that were aggressive and in the final overs. I could go on and on.
Only English players were behind the times and they rectified that in the 2000s with players like Trescothik, Flintoff and KP.
posted on 7/9/18
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th Masters Snooker Title) (U13155)
posted 41 seconds ago
Conversely, many people that only started watching sports in the past 10-15 years feel they can judge players from 20-25-30 years ago by simply looking at a few YouTube clips of them.
McGrath, Ambrose, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Wasim, McDermott were the bowlers. You think current fast bowlers are better than them. Seriously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there are many around at the moment that are better than them, I also think that if you look at how the game has changed, then maybe those bowlers would have had to change some things in modern cricket. Maybe not the ones who had outright pace and or height like Waqar, Donald, Ambrose etc. But would Pollock been as successful today? Would batsmen allowed him to bowl at them as he used to? T20 and One Day cricket has meant that batsmen are more aggressive and not willing to allow bowlers to settle in the same way.I'm not saying that would be the case, but I am saying it is very difficult to compare.
=========================================
Now you make a much better point than the other poster. Yes, Pollock and even an old Ambrose/MCGrath may struggle in T20 cricket, but I still think that not only their skill but the confidence with which they bowled and were able to find wickets for their Captain, they would've adapted really well.
I think a bowler like Wasim would probably be even more dangerous in T20, Donald,and Waqar may have had the odd bad match, but they would've been lethal with their yorkers and bouncers.
posted on 7/9/18
I was first of all talking about tests and not T20 or ODI so have no idea where that came from. But also, maybe the reason ODI batsman score more and at a faster rate are because the bowlers are nowhere near as good.
--------------
if you don't think the rise of t20 cricket has a ripple effect to all formats then your not worth debating
posted on 7/9/18
T20 has had both a bad and bad effect on batting, but you are not worth debating with I agree, because you seem clueless about cricket.
You call a whole era of cricket defensive becuase of no T20 yet you ignore that many aggressive players played in that era.
Stick to a subject you know about. Your knowledge of cricket is a joke.
posted on 7/9/18
you don't read very well do you, how does the odd player and innings negate the fact that that era was more defensive than now?
your the idiot who thinks cook is not a England great, pretty much sums up your knowledge of the game
posted on 7/9/18
Aggression can be in both batting, field setting and bowling, why should it be restricted to ONLY batting?
But I don't want to ruin this thread with the bickering, but if you watched ODI cricket worldwide in the 90s, the last thing you would call it is negative. This was the decade that Gilchrist started opening and I could give 100 examples, but it's nothing to do with this topic, so I say we agree to disagree here.
Page 3 of 4