Cook can go past Tendulkar says Peitersen

[G_B_]

as i said Cook's form has gone downhill ever since those KP comments

[vvvslaxman]

Hope he maintains the form :two_thumbs_up:

[Bumper]

LOL! People are talking as if Cook-ster crossing the 15k landmark is a matter of when and not if. Of course all this hype is based on Cook's recent exploits in the last couple of years (esp, against Aussies in the last Ashes Down Under and against India, the two hyped up test series). I see Cook as a very good batsman punching above his weight, not a great batsman hitting par. Cook is still young and at the peak of his abilities and there aren't very many good test teams around like the 90s. In spite of all this, Cook-ster has had only two great years in his career spanning 8 years (Tendulkar had a dozen great yrs, Ponting & Lara had 7). Once he crosses 30, couple of injuries, couple of bad series, Cook will slow down. My prediction is that he will retire with 13k runs, if he's lucky! Longevity is the biggest test facing a sportsman. It can never be taken for granted. The ones that retired gracefully (Gavaskar, McGrath etc) were wise enough to do so, before their decline began. But decline is a certainty beyond a time frame. The guy who will break Tendulkar's record is yet to be born. You know he's arrived when you see one. Cook is not the one...

[JaFanatic]

this guy has played 90 tests in just six years he is only 28 now with 8000+ runs behind sachin with this rate he can surely become the highest test scorer but there is still a lot of time left to even start a discussion about it

[goose]

When you are reduced to speaking in the future tense about an established player that can or may achieve something you know you're not talking about a truly great player.

[The Outsider]

LOL! People are talking as if Cook-ster crossing the 15k landmark is a matter of when and not if. Of course all this hype is based on Cook's recent exploits in the last couple of years (esp, against Aussies in the last Ashes Down Under and against India, the two hyped up test series). I see Cook as a very good batsman punching above his weight, not a great batsman hitting par. Cook is still young and at the peak of his abilities and there aren't very many good test teams around like the 90s. In spite of all this, Cook-ster has had only two great years in his career spanning 8 years (Tendulkar had a dozen great yrs, Ponting & Lara had 7). Once he crosses 30, couple of injuries, couple of bad series, Cook will slow down. My prediction is that he will retire with 13k runs, if he's lucky! Longevity is the biggest test facing a sportsman. It can never be taken for granted. The ones that retired gracefully (Gavaskar, McGrath etc) were wise enough to do so, before their decline began. But decline is a certainty beyond a time frame. The guy who will break Tendulkar's record is yet to be born. You know he's arrived when you see one. Cook is not the one...

You missed the underlying point - even if he gets to 13,000 or say 12,000 will he become a better batsman than Richards or Gavaskar or even Lara, for example? Goes to show that volume records beyond a certain point carry little meaning.

When you are reduced to speaking in the future tense about an established player that can or may achieve something you know you're not talking about a truly great player.

Brilliantly put. Greatness is greatness when it is bestowed in the present.

[vvvslaxman]

When you are reduced to speaking in the future tense about an established player that can or may achieve something you know you're not talking about a truly great player.

That is what the history says. At one point Mike Hussey remained untouchable with his average. Punter he 3 back to back outstanding years. Inspite of that he couldn't close out the gap. You will need to be a lot more consistent for a much longer period. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=66737

[SLICKR392]

He wouldn't even go past Sachin's Nissan.

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

he can, he can go past sachins house and admire. then wonder why I am English

[jalebi_bhai]

nah.......think he will decline quite a bit in 4 years time......will make around 11,500 runs......

[zep1706]

Cook can score 20K runs if he wants to but he will never be in the same league as Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc. He just doesn't have that in him.

[FischerTal]

move this thread to jokes section :phehehe:

[Bumper]

You missed the underlying point - even if he gets to 13,000 or say 12,000 will he become a better batsman than Richards or Gavaskar or even Lara, for example? Goes to show that volume records beyond a certain point carry little meaning.

I was responding some of the other posts in the thread, not yours. Now that i noticed yours:

Well' date=' Tendulkar's volume records are shown in the light of him being greater than Bradman, so it's only natural that the wheel turn a circle and a very good player like Cook breaks them or comes close to them to show the reality behind 99.94.[/quote'] Speaking only for myself, I never stated that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Bradman because of his volume records. My argument on this topic has always been that Bradman was simply not tested enough against stiffer competition to be called the greatest ever. And getting back to volume, if Tendy's volume record is one dimensional, you could dismiss that as an anomalous record piled on by a very good batsman (as you would with Cook or a Jayawardane). But the guy has volume records on pretty much on every aspect of batting: years, no. of games, no. of runs @50+ avg in tests, no. of 100s (and a 200 in a ODI), world cup records etc - in either forms of the game he has played. All this coupled with the no. of great years he has had at the top level, while playing against some of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game - IMO that's what separates him from the Cook, Jayawardane, Sangakarra & the likes. So Tendy's volume records are very much comparable to 99.94. In fact, Tendy's one hundred 100s, is about 30% better than his peers (if it matters). Its sad he has tarnished a bit of his greatness by meaninglessly prolonging his career. In sum, to me the Bradman topic ends before it starts. We simply don't have enough video data to assess Bradman's prowess nor the bowlers he has faced, so i'll stick to what i believe!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Speaking only for myself, I never stated that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Bradman because of his volume records. My argument on this topic has always been that Bradman was simply not tested enough against stiffer competition to be called the greatest ever. And getting back to volume, if Tendy's volume record is one dimensional, you could dismiss that as an anomalous record piled on by a very good batsman (as you would with Cook or a Jayawardane). But the guy has volume records on pretty much on every aspect of batting: years, no. of games, no. of runs @50+ avg in tests, no. of 100s (and a 200 in a ODI), world cup records etc - in either forms of the game he has played. All this coupled with the no. of great years he has had at the top level, while playing against some of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game - IMO that's what separates him from the Cook, Jayawardane, Sangakarra & the likes. So Tendy's volume records are very much comparable to 99.94. In fact, Tendy's one hundred 100s, is about 30% better than his peers (if it matters). Its sad he has tarnished a bit of his greatness by meaninglessly prolonging his career. In sum, to me the Bradman topic ends before it starts. We simply don't have enough video data to assess Bradman's prowess nor the bowlers he has faced, so i'll stick to what i believe!

I don't need convincing of Tendulkar's greatness - I consider him the second greatest batsman of all time in tests, ODIs, as well as overall. My problem with the usage of volume records to justify his greatness. Back in the late 90s, Tendulkar did not possess any of the volume records and was still considered the greatest after Bradman by many, and if not that was certainly considered among the top 5 batsmen ever. That shows the flimsiness of volume records beyond a point. I keep emphasizing beyond a point, so that someone does not pull some exception to derail the discussion. I'll give you an example of volume and stats being used to big up a player beyond reputation - and I'll give you one from a time when none of us were there to watch cricket. Barrington and Sobers have similar averages, but no one from their era then or in retrospect even tries to compare Barrington to Sobers. The only comparisons that you see of them are of ridiculous number crunching. Yeah, no point going into the Bradman topic since your argument is not based on volume records, and this thread has more relevance to volume records.

[Sachin=GOD]

In sum, to me the Bradman topic ends before it starts. We simply don't have enough video data to assess Bradman's prowess nor the bowlers he has faced, so i'll stick to what i believe!

that is the problem - for most "experts", Statsguru is more than enough to make a judgement on a player even if they have only watched about 10-15 minutes of his batting.

[Muloghonto]

I was responding some of the other posts in the thread, not yours. Now that i noticed yours: Speaking only for myself, I never stated that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Bradman because of his volume records. My argument on this topic has always been that Bradman was simply not tested enough against stiffer competition to be called the greatest ever.

But the same argument applies both in favour and counter to both batsmen. Yes, Bradman didnt face nearly as many amazing bowlers as Tendy has, neither did he bat on that many different types of surfaces. But Tendy never had to bat into his late 30s/early 40s without a helmet and neither did he bat on uncovered pitches, plus Bradman faced bowlers when the front foot noball rule was not in effect, it was the backfoot noball. Can you imagine if a bowler like Harmison or Morkel or anyone approaching 6'5 could bowl at you with the backfoot plonked behind the line instead of the front ? Tendy's resume is easily better in terms of facing more challenging opposition. Bradman's is easly better for facing more challenging conditions ( uncovered pitches). So it evens out on that score IMO. Today the best batsmen average usually in the 50-55 zone when they are done their careers. Best batsmen of the last few eras ( Sobers, Viv, Lara, Tendy) end up averaging 57-60+ overall in their prime. Back then, it wasnt that much different either: almost all the batsmen who played in the pre-WWII era and were considered great( between WWI and WWII periods) averaged 55-60 at their peak or career rates. Its also not like a few were boosting their averages significantly by having some sort of 'pro in the era of amatuers' stuff happening- everyone else too batted in the 55-60ish category. IMO, bradman is to cricket as babe ruth is to baseball: a statistical freak of such proportions that it doesnt matter what Tendy does or anyone else does, unless he too ends up averaging 20-50% better than the next-best guy of his era, he wont be considered better than braddles by history. Make all arguments you like, that is how sporting history reverberates.

[rkt.india]

Can you imagine if a bowler like Harmison or Morkel or anyone approaching 6'5 could bowl at you with the backfoot plonked behind the line instead of the front ?

How do you know bowlers like Morkel and Harmison bowling 90 mph were existed back then?

[Muloghonto]

How do you know bowlers like Morkel and Harmison bowling 90 mph were existed back then?

There has never been an era of recorded cricket where atleast one 90mph bowler was not present. I dont see why they wouldnt be present in the 20 years of cricket that was the interwar period. Even in the 70s, sporadic testing showed 90+mph bowlers in operation. Heck, i bet you cant find a single year in the 1990-current era when there were zero 90mph+ bowlers around. So why should they not be around back then, given that bowlers were fitter back then than they are now ? And dont worry, harmison or Morkel would be bloody unplayable with the old noball rule. We'd have somoene like Zaheer Khan making Ponting at his prime hop all over the place if he could plonk his backfoot behind the line only. For someone who spends so much time about bowling speeds and bowlers, i am surprised you take the front foot no-ball introduction with nary a comment on how much easier it is on the batsman when the front foot noball came into effect.

[rkt.india]

There has never been an era of recorded cricket where atleast one 90mph bowler was not present. I dont see why they wouldnt be present in the 20 years of cricket that was the interwar period. Even in the 70s, sporadic testing showed 90+mph bowlers in operation. Heck, i bet you cant find a single year in the 1990-current era when there were zero 90mph+ bowlers around. So why should they not be around back then, given that bowlers were fitter back then than they are now ? And dont worry, harmison or Morkel would be bloody unplayable with the old noball rule. We'd have somoene like Zaheer Khan making Ponting at his prime hop all over the place if he could plonk his backfoot behind the line only. For someone who spends so much time about bowling speeds and bowlers, i am surprised you take the front foot no-ball introduction with nary a comment on how much easier it is on the batsman when the front foot noball came into effect.

I am not talking about the effect of nonexistence of front foot no ball, but I am contesting the way bowlers used to bowl. You are emphasizing it a bit too much. Firstly, I do not think we had such menacing fast bowlers at that time. Bowling was not the way it developed later on. We hear about one body line series where bowlers used bouncers towards body as a weapon but in consequent years since 60s-70s bouncer became an important weapon of fast bowlers repertoire and they started using it more regularly they way they did it in bodyline series. Against the bowlers likes of Holding, Garner, Roberts, Ambrose, Croft, Sylvester Clark, every series would look like bodyline series.