Cook will overtake Tendulkar

[moniker]

Who the eff cares? Tendulkar's legacy was being a symbol of hope for a decade where everyone else in the team was crap. Not because he had all those numbers, they were just a by-product. The fans have stubbornly latched on to this stats craziness and it seems to be unwavering even years after his retirement.

[Muloghonto]

I think this discussion will be interesting when or if Cook crosses 13K runs. Yes, England plays 14-15 tests per annum but it also means that English players have a higher tendency to suffer from burnouts. Remember Trott ? Cook has been showing early stages of burnout syndrome as well, lets see if he can manage it or it keeps growing bigger and bigger in his mind.

 

[cric_fan]

140 tests. I repeat Cook played 140 tests in 10 years. England are playing on an average of 14-16 tests per year. This year Joe Root played 31 innings already. Previously it used to be a maximum of 13 tests for England. Suddenly they realized if they increase the tests, Cook will beat Tendulkar. If cook plays for another 5  years he will still be 35 but would have played close to 200+ tests and will easily overtake Tendulkar. BCCI should watch this and do something. Thats the only player who is Pride of India and his record is also gone. 

  Either India has to increase the number of tests played or reduce the tests for England to 12 per year. It would be a sad day when garbage player like Cook overtakes Tendulkar, just because his board is smart enough to play so many tests.

Lol. What a big cry baby thread

[Temujin Khaghan]

the day cook retires after crossing tendy...i swear tendulkar will come out of retirement and hit a few more runs :D

Edited December 18, 2016 by Temujin Khaghan

[Sajid_Rana]

Cook is an opener face new ball fresh best bowlers on fresh pitch and had played most of the matches on juicy pitches. No comparison here with Tendulkar.

 

 

[vijay50]

England played 17 tests this year and Cook and Joe Root have padded up close to 1300 and 1500 runs in those 30+ innings.

  The end is nigh for Tendulkars test runs. Cook will cross it in another 5 years.

[zen]

Cook would have broken or equalled the record if he does it in less or same number of innings .... if he plays more, he will have more runs

 

Records should be for

a) fastest to 5000 runs, b) fastest to 10000, c) fastest to 15000, d) etc. So the record to break would be fastest to 15000 or first to 20000 (as first is automatically the fastest at that point in time) 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by zen

[nevada]

Let him break. And in  ODIs Kohli will probably become the leading scorer as well. But I doubt any batsman will own both the test as well as ODI records like Sachin did.

[Muloghonto]

On 12/18/2016 at 9:29 AM, Sajid_Rana said:

Cook is an opener face new ball fresh best bowlers on fresh pitch and had played most of the matches on juicy pitches. No comparison here with Tendulkar.

 

 

 

Clearly math isn't your friend. For more than half of Tendulkar's career, which is longer than Cook's entire career so far, teams made far less runs on average than in Cook's era. 

This alone proves that pitches were juicer in Tendulkar's era.

 

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Clearly math isn't your friend. For more than half of Tendulkar's career, which is longer than Cook's entire career so far, teams made far less runs on average than in Cook's era. 

This alone proves that pitches were juicer in Tendulkar's era.

 

but opener faces still bats more often than not wen the pitch is at its juciest than someone batting at 4.

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

This alone proves that pitches were juicer in Tendulkar's era.

 

So, it would also mean that the great pacers of that era and earlier had their stats embellished due to juicy pitches.

[CG]

25 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

but opener faces still bats more often than not wen the pitch is at its juciest than someone batting at 4.

Life of opener is easier in subcontinent and harder overseas,Where as abroad middle order batsman has the advantage.In case of sachin we hardly had proper openers so basically he went in to face new ball most times.

[rkt.india]

10 minutes ago, CG said:

Life of opener is easier in subcontinent and harder overseas,Where as abroad middle order batsman has the advantage.In case of sachin we hardly had proper openers so basically he went in to face new ball most times.

yes, in SC, opening is probably the best places to bat.

[Muloghonto]

40 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

but opener faces still bats more often than not wen the pitch is at its juciest than someone batting at 4.

In theory, true. But it matters not a jot on pitches where 300-325 are par scores for 1st innings (which is majority of AUS/RSA/ENG/NZ/WI of the 90s-early 2000s) and you are coming in at 11/2 on the 7th over. its not like Tendulkar batted behind Langer-Hayden or such. 

 

[Muloghonto]

36 minutes ago, express bowling said:

So, it would also mean that the great pacers of that era and earlier had their stats embellished due to juicy pitches.

Sure. to some extent. But cricket averages, like most averages, display asymptotic pattern. Which means, closer you are to the higher end of the spectrum, the more drastic the difference in conditions have to be to make a difference. In simple terms, what it means, is that the stats of most of the ATG greats are less inflated due to batting/bowling on friendlier conditions than middle-of-the-pack type guys. 

 

[express bowling]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. to some extent. But cricket averages, like most averages, display asymptotic pattern. Which means, closer you are to the higher end of the spectrum, the more drastic the difference in conditions have to be to make a difference. In simple terms, what it means, is that the stats of most of the ATG greats are less inflated due to batting/bowling on friendlier conditions than middle-of-the-pack type guys. 

 

Yes...but that would apply to the top batsmen of this era too.

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Yes...but that would apply to the top batsmen of this era too.

Yes, that applies to all top level players of all eras. 

IMO, this era's (post 2001) batting stats are inflated by 10-15%, bowling stats are depressed by 10-15%

But that doesnt mean that Stuart Broad would be a Curtley Ambrose in the 90s, it means that he would be averaging 26-27 instead of 29-30.

In the 90s, it was the other way round, especially for pacers.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, that applies to all top level players of all eras. 

IMO, this era's (post 2001) batting stats are inflated by 10-15%, bowling stats are depressed by 10-15%

But that doesnt mean that Stuart Broad would be a Curtley Ambrose in the 90s, it means that he would be averaging 26-27 instead of 29-30.

In the 90s, it was the other way round, especially for pacers.

 

Fair enough

 

Regarding modern batsmen,  there have been several factors which have improved as well as reduced their batting averages --

 

Improved - Slightly higher frequency of flatter pitches in tests,  better ability as stroke-players

 

Reduced - Much better ground fielding among the average fielders,  lesser ability to stay at the crease for long

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Fair enough

 

Regarding modern batsmen,  there have been several factors which have improved as well as reduced their batting averages --

 

Improved - Slightly higher frequency of flatter pitches in tests,  better ability as stroke-players

 

Reduced - Much better ground fielding among the average fielders,  lesser ability to stay at the crease for long

 

 

Not better ability as stroke players, just better bats.

IMO what has improved batting averages the most is the desire to make tests last whole 5 days. 

[kosingh]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not better ability as stroke players, just better bats.

IMO what has improved batting averages the most is the desire to make tests last whole 5 days. 

Don't we have more results in tests now than years ago? That is, a higher percentage of tests were lasting 5 days before without producing a result.