peak era or longevity?

[Harsh Thakor]

One of the most debatable questions in cricket is whether one should judge a player in the peak part of his career or his overall career.Some cricketers have been absolutely outstanding in their peak years but not had great longevity or consistency.Others have displayed overwhelming consistency but not the same flashes of brilliance. If we went by performances at their peak then Ian Botham would rank closest to Gary Sobers,above Imran Khan or Jaqcues Kallis.Viv Richards would rank only 2nd to Don Bradman as a batsman.Imran Khan would then rank as arguably the best paceman of them all.Brian Lara would rate above Sachin Tendulkar.It is consistency or longevity which may rtae Kallis or Imran above Botham,Tendulkar above Viv Richards or Glen Mcgrath above Imran Khan etc.Infact W.G.Grace has been rated as arguably the greatest cricketer of all because of his longevity.Jack Hobbs is evaluated in similar light. Glen Mcgrath could hardly equal Dennis Lillee's ferocity at his peak nor could Sachin Tendulkar euqal Viv Richard's domination of bowling at their peak. When choosing an all-time 11 it is difficult to make the choice between performance at peak and overall longevity.Geniuses have created greater impact at their peak but those with longevity have been more effective in the long run. My best cricketers at their peak 1.Viv Richards 2.Ian Botham 3.Imran Khan 4.Malcolm Marshall 5.Brian Lara 6.Barry Richards/Ricky Ponting My cricketers with best longevity and consistency 1.Glen Mcgrath 2.Jacques Kallis 3.Sunil Gavaskar 4.Alan Border 5.Courtney Walsh 6.Geoff Boycott My best Cricketers with genius at peak and longevity 1.Gary Sobers 2.Don Bradman 3.Sachin Tendulkar 4.Jack Hobbs 5.Shane Warne 6.Dennis Lillee Imagine choosing between Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara or similarly Geoff Boycott with Barry Richards or Dennis Lillee and Glen Mcgrath.I am here quoting from Brian Ashivardhan article in sportinginquirer Written by Brian Asirvadham on 06 February 2011 How big a role does longevity play, when assessing sporting greatness. The comparison between Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, essentially comes down to whether you favor a sportsman who produces consistent excellence over an extended period of time, or whether you place more emphasis on the peak years of an athlete’s career, and prefer a pure sporting genius, who was just frighteningly brilliant. Don’t get me wrong, Lara had over a decade, as arguably the game’s best player, it’s just that Tendulkar has had an even more extraordingary reign at the pinnacle of his sport. Most people feel that Brian Lara, in his prime, was the better player. He was more dynamic, more likely to take an attack by the throat, and played more match-winning innings. The reality is that most of Tendulkar’s records are purely a product of longevity, which is obviously a talent in itself, but not the most important criteria, for assessing sporting greatness. Longevity is a result of mental hunger, and obviously great physical fitness and endurance. While the bodies of some professional sportsmen break down quite early, others take great pride in their diet, nutrition, and physical preparation, and carry on close to the age of 40. These types of athletes seem to have an insatiable appetite for success, and genuinely love to compete. But, what of the sportsperson that retires in the prime of his career. What do we make of them. Do we acknowledge, that they have simply accomplished everything they set out to do, and now want to explore other opportunities in life. When both Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from international cricket in 2007, they were still good enough to carry on playing for another couple of years. Is their legacy diminished, because the likes of Tendulkar and Muttiah Muralitharan ended up playing for longer, and eclipsing all of their records. Only a very, very hard marker would believe that to be the case. At no level, is longevity a product of skill, brilliance, or any real form of sporting greatness. Like any job, it’s simply a result of a desire to keep performing. You can’t penalize a sportsman, because they choose to end their career at a certain point, and do something else with their life. The real key to assessing sporting greatness, is to base it on quality, not quantity. For however long an athlete chooses to compete, you evaluate their impact in that period of time, and then compare their resumes to their peers. As long as you have at least seven or eight years of real dominance and pure brilliance, then the emphasis should be placed on those peak years, and not on the longevity of a sportsman. There have been plenty of sporting champions who had more of an impact in 10 seasons, than other greats had in close to 20 seasons. The gap between Lara and Tendulkar is minute, and you can make an argument for either of them, depending on whether you prefer the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or the sheer genius and pure brilliance of Lara. Interestingly enough, I have always felt that there are plenty of differences in their styles of play to determine who was better, without even considering the issue of longevity, which to me is not all that important, for the simple reason that Lara was still good enough to continue his career for another couple of years, when he announced his retirement. I don’t plan on penalizing him for wanting to spend more time with his family, and do something else with his life. For most of his career, Brian Lara was regarded as the world’s most dangerous, and formidable batsman. His best has always been the best. He had the stunning ability to destroy an attack, and play the type of innings that literally dragged his team over the finish line. If you had to choose one of them when they were at the peak of their powers, a lot of good judges would choose Lara, because he was such a dynamic match-winner. He was a real game-changer, who so often played the defining innings of the match, that carried the West Indies to victory. Throughout the second half of his career, the fact that he did it in a very weak team, where all the opposition’s bullets were pointed at him, much like his legendary West Indian predecessor, George Headley, only adds to his greatness. A lot of batsman would have crumbled under that sort of pressure, but Lara took it in his stride, and never once complained. Then there are the aesthetic qualities of Lara’s batsmanship that made him such a compelling sportsman to watch. It would be a reasonable assumption to say, that in the minds of most neutral cricket fans, Lara was the batsman that most people genuinely loved watching. He was a box-office attraction, and you simply couldn’t take your eyes off the cricket, when he was at the crease. The man was mercurially brilliant, and the game has been poorer since his retirement. All cricket fans have the greatest admiration for Sachin Tendulkar’s meticulous approach, and his continued commitment. But, ultimately in the eyes of this cricket observer, it’s safe to say that Tendulkar’s longevity doesn’t trump the pure genius of Brian Lara. Ian Botham at his peak from cricinfo(S.Rajesh) A career of two distinct halves Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM First 51 Tests 2833 38.80 11/ 10 231 23.06 19/ 4 Next 37 Tests 1976 31.36 3/ 11 135 33.85 8/ 0 Last 14 Tests 391 20.57 0/ 1 17 57.52 0/ 0 Career (102 Tests) 5200 33.54 14/ 22 383 28.40 27/ During the six years when Botham was at his peak, he was the best of the four allrounders going around during that period. Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee were tremendous too - though Hadlee's best was to come later - but none of them matched Botham's consistency with bat and ball. During this period, the difference between Botham's batting and bowling average was 12.59. Imran and Hadlee had better bowling averages, but neither matched Botham as a batsman (though Imran's best as a batsman was to come later). The four leading allrounders between Jan 1977 and Dec 1982 Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff in ave Ian Botham 58 3229 37.11 11/ 13 262 24.52 20/ 4 12.59 Imran Khan 37 1429 29.16 1/ 4 186 21.79 13/ 3 7.37 Kapil Dev 44 1904 32.82 2/ 11 172 29.68 13/ 1 3.14 Richard Hadlee 23 767 21.91 1/ 4 114 23.22 11/ 2 -1.31 England had a few other top-class batsmen in their side in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but Botham's stats were good enough during this period to have got him into the side as a specialist batsman alone. In the seven years between 1977 and 1982, Botham's batting average was 37.11, a number that was topped by only three England batsmen. Geoff Boycott and David Gower were the only ones to average in the 40s, while Graham Gooch's average was only marginally ahead of Botham's. What's also incredible is the kind of conversion rate Botham managed, despite batting fairly low down the order: he scored 11 hundreds in 58 Tests, an average of 5.3 Tests per hundred. Gooch and Gower, on the other hand, averaged about 10 Tests per century, while Chris Tavare did even worse, scoring only one hundred in 21 matches during this period. Viv Richards in his peak(cricinfo by S.Rajesh) Viv Richards in Tests Matches Innings Runs Average 100s 50s Overall 121 182 8540 50.23 24 45 1974-1980 40 63 3629 60.48 11 16 1981-1988 62 89 3933 47.38 12 19 1989- 1991 19 30 978 36.22 1 10 Viv Richards in World Series Cricket Matches Innings Runs Average 100 50 14 25 1281 58.23 4 4 Richards' best years were between 1976 and 1988. In 92 Tests during this period he scored 22 hundreds and was the only batsman to average more than 55 (among those who scored more than 4000). That was an era when several all-time greats were around - Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad are all listed in the table below - but Richards' average was marginally higher than theirs (though he obviously didn't have to face his own bowlers, who were easily the most fearsome attack during that period). He averaged more than 50 in 13 out of the 23 series he played during this period. Performance of top batsmen in Tests between 1976 and 1988 (Qual: 4000 runs) Batsman Matches Innings Runs Average 100 50 Viv Richards 92 135 7091 55.39 22 34 Greg Chappell 50 87 4233 54.97 13 18 Javed Miandad 95 146 7033 54.94 19 35 Allan Border 100 175 7670 52.17 23 35 Sunil Gavaskar 108 180 8655 51.51 29 36 Gordon Greenidge 83 139 6025 48.58 14 30 The table below summarises Richards' career series averages. Of the 29 series he played, 14 times he averaged more than 50, and less than 30 on just seven occasions, most of them coming either during the early years or at the end. Imran Khan at his peak(from cricinfo by S.Rajesh) In his pomp, not only was Imran the best allrounder, he was also the best bowler in the world. At a time when a connoisseur of fast bowling would have been spoilt for choice, for there were so many great ones going around, Imran was still the best of the lot with an average of 17.77 and a strike rate of less than 44 balls per wicket. Hadlee was next in line, with three West Indians following in their wake. The top six all averaged less than 25, which is also a telling commentary on the balance of power between bat and ball during that period. Top bowlers in the world between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 150 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM Imran Khan 48 236 17.77 43.6 18/ 5 Richard Hadlee 51 284 19.03 47.0 28/ 7 Malcolm Marshall 58 297 20.20 44.7 18/ 3 Joel Garner 49 210 20.62 51.8 7/ 0 Michael Holding 45 184 23.38 50.3 9/ 1 Dennis Lillee 35 171 24.07 52.3 11/ 3

[Executioner]

Longevity

[fineleg]

Where is kapil dev in list?

[vamos_rafa]

I just want to know one thing. How is Lara a bigger match winner than Sachin?

[Sajid_Rana]

Longevity is overrated. I'll take peak performance over a good amount of time in a heart beat and over a decade like Imran Khan's is even better. Peak performance separates a good player from the rest but if you are ordinary no matter how long you play you will remain ordinary.

[Number]

Longevity is overrated. I'll take peak performance over a good amount of time in a heart beat and over a decade like Imran Khan's is even better. Peak performance separates a good player from the rest but if you are ordinary no matter how long you play you will remain ordinary.

:giggle:

[SLICKR392]

:giggle:

He means Imran>Tendulkar. :giggle:

[Vilander]

peak performance without longevity means they were found-out and they did not adapt.

[Jersey #10]

What a BS thread! Sachin :hail:

[FischerTal]

peak performance without longevity means they were found-out and they did not adapt.

:agree:

[trundlerNO1]

Sachin also has peek era as well, despite having a very long career and still going.

[Sandeep99]

peak performance without longevity means they were found-out and they did not adapt.

+10000000... Obviously, some people 'choose to' not understand it

[goose]

There's only one thing more annoying than a Tendulkar supporter making the case for his greatness based on longevity, and that's a Lara supporter emboldened by the same.

[The Outsider]

What a way to pigeonhole the top cricketers - peak era or longevity? It's nether - greatness is determined by on field performances. To imply that Tendulkar is great because of his longevity or Lara is great because of his peak misses the point by miles. Tendulkar and Lara were great way before they had the stats to justify their greatness, and universally accepted as so. Ponting and Kallis became great on the basis of statistics, and we have to retrospect to justify it. Therein lies the difference.

[rkt.india]

What a way to pigeonhole the top cricketers - peak era or longevity? It's nether - greatness is determined by on field performances. To imply that Tendulkar is great because of his longevity or Lara is great because of his peak misses the point by miles. Tendulkar and Lara were great way before they had the stats to justify their greatness, and universally accepted as so. Ponting and Kallis became great on the basis of statistics, and we have to retrospect to justify it. Therein lies the difference.

Even Ponting was a child prodigy. http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/relive-ricky-pontings-amazing-journey-from-tasmanian-wonderkid-to-the-australia-test-captain/story-fn2mcu3x-1226526886610#.UiVlT3-BbSM http://www.cricketweb.net/blog/features/465.php

[FischerTal]

Pujara will combine both :pray: :om: :om: :pray: :om: :om:

[The Outsider]

Even Ponting was a child prodigy. http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/relive-ricky-pontings-amazing-journey-from-tasmanian-wonderkid-to-the-australia-test-captain/story-fn2mcu3x-1226526886610#.UiVlT3-BbSM http://www.cricketweb.net/blog/features/465.php

Oh bhai, I know! But, having watched cricket more closely than I do these days I also know that Ponting was never considered a great till he began his golden form from 2002. Tendulkar and Lara were acknowledged as greats well before a similar run in their career. Tendulkar was earmarked for greatness after Perth '92 and Lara after Sydney '93 - they had jack***** as far as stats were concerned at that point.

[Chandan]

What a way to pigeonhole the top cricketers - peak era or longevity? It's nether - greatness is determined by on field performances. To imply that Tendulkar is great because of his longevity or Lara is great because of his peak misses the point by miles. Tendulkar and Lara were great way before they had the stats to justify their greatness, and universally accepted as so. Ponting and Kallis became great on the basis of statistics, and we have to retrospect to justify it. Therein lies the difference.

How can you explain this difference to new fans who haven't been following cricket in depth, who know that stats is everything in cricket, who can't appreciate a coverdrive in trying circumstances, who can't differentiate the battle between champion bowler and batsman on a bowler friendly track and a drab comp between mediocre players on flat track. How????

[The Outsider]

How can you explain this difference to new fans who haven't been following cricket in depth, who know that stats is everything in cricket, who can't appreciate a coverdrive in trying circumstances, who can't differentiate the battle between champion bowler and batsman on a bowler friendly track and a drab comp between mediocre players on flat track. How????

You ask, how? My question will be why? Why bother? I criticize them to the point of not knowing cricket, but if cowlashing is cricket then so be it and I am out of here, as can be seen by the number of posts I've made about Modi than cricket. I love stats. They pay our daily bills,, my problem is about stats being taken out of context or more seriously, too seriously - pun intended. Stats cannot capture Tendulkar's back pain in '99 or Gavaskar's ordeal in '87. And to prove I am not biased, I have not seen a single stat which could capture the innings Gooch played at Headingly '92. You mentioned cover drives? But one of my favorite Tendulkar innings is in which he did not cover driver on his way to 241* - how do you capture that magnificence in stats? You ask how - if someone is interested watch the '02 test series and watch how Tendulkar and Dravid stood out. Not a great bowling attack by stat, but if you want to see what differentiates good from great that's an able start.

[vamos_rafa]

You ask, how? My question will be why? Why bother? I criticize them to the point of not knowing cricket, but if cowlashing is cricket then so be it and I am out of here, as can be seen by the number of posts I've made about Modi than cricket. I love stats. They pay our daily bills,, my problem is about stats being taken out of context or more seriously, too seriously - pun intended. Stats cannot capture Tendulkar's back pain in '99 or Gavaskar's ordeal in '87. And to prove I am not biased, I have not seen a single stat which could capture the innings Gooch played at Headingly '92. You mentioned cover drives? But one of my favorite Tendulkar innings is in which he did not cover driver on his way to 241* - how do you capture that magnificence in stats? You ask how - if someone is interested watch the '02 test series and watch how Tendulkar and Dravid stood out. Not a great bowling attack by stat, but if you want to see what differentiates good from great that's an able start.

Top post sir! Absolutely top post! This is such a fitting reply to all those who fight tooth and nail with every new stat out there on statsguru. The intangibles, something which has to be seen to be believed, which can't be captured. Awesome!