The Ashes series that Cook played well in, was not won singlehandedly. Like any series win, it was a team effort. Anderson was awesome in that series (as far as I remember) and many more players too.
He can be honoured I don’t really mind, but there have been plenty of time as a batsman and as a captain that he crumbled under pressure and was a failure as an ODI player and captain, the team really improved without him. He was still a fantastic player and had a great temperament, but was below the true top dogs. I don’t understand why people can’t accept that small fact, it’s not even a criticism. No one is hating on him. Just think it was a stretch to honour him so early.
Also, why is it silly to compare Stewart and Bradman or Hadlee and Dev? You said quality and quantity are the same and It was a direct response to that and an example that quantity and quality stats are not the same.
Haha,JT well said & you remind me of a certain Mr England i.e. John Terry.
Secondly the Ashes are played every 2 years on average. Australia are not even the dominating side they were in the early to mid 2000s, in fact at times have been quite mediocre recently.
So if Cook was part of winning sides against Australia, he’s not exactly moving mountains is he?
Why are Ashes series thought of in the same light as a football World Cup win or a Gold medal at the olympics?
Even when Australia were a truly dominating side, the Ashes still mean beating only 1 side when you get the opportunity every 2 years. But when they are an average side, why the chest beating?
That’s where I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, most people in the sport regard him as one of the modern greats. He was awarded his knighthood for his notable contributions in a particular field, in this case cricket. They don’t google test match averages and compare him to Aussies and Indians when they decide this you know? Completely missing the point. And I never compared Brandman and Stewart, difference eras and if you like an exception to the rule. The big players with all the top stats are regarded as the best of their generation - Tendulkar, Khalis, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Lara etc. Definitely in test matches at least.
It’s relative to the sport, no one cares more about winning the ashes than England winning the World Cup. But you can’t disregard contributions in cricket simply because it’s not as important as winning the football World Cup.
Australian players value winning the cricket World Cup though don’t they? They want to be the best in all 3 formats. They want to beat all teams home and away like they did between 1998-2005
Why do England only care about the Ashes?
Arent England top of the ODI rankings?
Yes, after Cook was kicked out.
But the point is you keep pointing to Ashes victories as reasons for Cook being knighted. I asked why is that considered so important in this day and age, when Australia are a pretty average side. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a great feeling to beat them. But I don’t consider that to be reason to call someone a world beater.
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
I mean, that was one of the reasons I stated. And I suppose because it still actually means alot to everyone involved. Simply because it wasnt the best Australian team doesn't mean much. Can argue it was necessarily the best England team either.
"Yes, after Cook was kicked out."
Was merely replying to your question, do you still think they only care about the ashes?
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Tt... (U13155)
posted 4 seconds ago
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cook does not compare to"
Think you need to explain yourself more clearly, you obviously don't rate Cook that highly I've figured out. But explain why exactly? because he wasn't the prettiest batsmen?
No, I don’t anymore, which is a real positive for England that we are now thinking of being the best in all formats. This should’ve been done a long time ago in my opinion.
He doesn’t compare because he had a lower average, he wasn’t as feared, he never dominated or changed as many games as them, his technique seemed to falter against top class bowlers a lot more than the others. These are just my opinions. You can have different ones by all means.
But I can assure you many, many people will agree with my opinion that he is just below the greats.
This doesn’t mean I don’t rate him or attacking him, no need to get your knickers in a twist there. You asked why I didn’t feel he should be knighted and I gave an answer. Simple as that.
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Tt... (U13155)
posted 4 seconds ago
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cook does not compare to"
Think you need to explain yourself more clearly, you obviously don't rate Cook that highly I've figured out. But explain why exactly? because he wasn't the prettiest batsmen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His average was around 7-15 lower than the names given, if you like stats.
Are you English JustTrue?..or at least support England cricket?
I do support England, but I want us to be world beaters. I always think we have the talent to be world beaters, but we set our expectations too low. We give our players everything too early.
For example, Andy Murray became world number in tennis and was knighted straight away. Whilst a fantastic player, if you get knighted after only a few weeks of being world number 1, it is too early.
We should want to be number 1 and stay there, not just content to be ‘one of the best’. This is my opinion.
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Ti... (U13155)
posted 40 seconds ago
He doesn’t compare because he had a lower average, he wasn’t as feared, he never dominated or changed as many games as them, his technique seemed to falter against top class bowlers a lot more than the others. These are just my opinions. You can have different ones by all means.
But I can assure you many, many people will agree with my opinion that he is just below the greats.
This doesn’t mean I don’t rate him or attacking him, no need to get your knickers in a twist there. You asked why I didn’t feel he should be knighted and I gave an answer. Simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
knickers in a twist? is that what you say when you find someone who has a different opinion to you?
Don't worry about me mate, I'll gladly fight my corner.
You can point to his lower average, but I can point to his test runs scored and test hundreds. Like i said, we have a difference of opinion. Can say he was easily feared, anyone with that longevity and mental toughness is always going to be feared.
And I suppose, like I said, you don't quite understand why they award knighthoods.
Notable contributions to a particular field:-
- 12k test runs
- 33 centuries
- most runs by an opening batsmen
-most runs by an overseas player in asia
and a few more that I can't be bothered to type.
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
Quantity, not quality stats again
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
comment by (U19770)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the criteria given yes, he does deserve it, but for any sportsman or woman (not just Cook) I'd rather they not hand them out straight away, or at least just after they retire.
Hope that clears that up for you
Anyway, I don’t want to bicker about it, I’m giving my opinion. You have given yours. Scoring as many runs as he had for that long is a great achievement, so we are in agreement there.
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by (U19770)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the criteria given yes, he does deserve it, but for any sportsman or woman (not just Cook) I'd rather they not hand them out straight away, or at least just after they retire.
Hope that clears that up for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No deserved then but would have been if he got it in say 20 years time.
I have no real issue with him getting one but not now. Way too soon.
Sign in if you want to comment
Sir Alastair Cook
Page 3 of 3
posted on 6/1/19
The Ashes series that Cook played well in, was not won singlehandedly. Like any series win, it was a team effort. Anderson was awesome in that series (as far as I remember) and many more players too.
He can be honoured I don’t really mind, but there have been plenty of time as a batsman and as a captain that he crumbled under pressure and was a failure as an ODI player and captain, the team really improved without him. He was still a fantastic player and had a great temperament, but was below the true top dogs. I don’t understand why people can’t accept that small fact, it’s not even a criticism. No one is hating on him. Just think it was a stretch to honour him so early.
Also, why is it silly to compare Stewart and Bradman or Hadlee and Dev? You said quality and quantity are the same and It was a direct response to that and an example that quantity and quality stats are not the same.
posted on 6/1/19
Haha,JT well said & you remind me of a certain Mr England i.e. John Terry.
posted on 6/1/19
Secondly the Ashes are played every 2 years on average. Australia are not even the dominating side they were in the early to mid 2000s, in fact at times have been quite mediocre recently.
So if Cook was part of winning sides against Australia, he’s not exactly moving mountains is he?
Why are Ashes series thought of in the same light as a football World Cup win or a Gold medal at the olympics?
Even when Australia were a truly dominating side, the Ashes still mean beating only 1 side when you get the opportunity every 2 years. But when they are an average side, why the chest beating?
posted on 6/1/19
That’s where I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, most people in the sport regard him as one of the modern greats. He was awarded his knighthood for his notable contributions in a particular field, in this case cricket. They don’t google test match averages and compare him to Aussies and Indians when they decide this you know? Completely missing the point. And I never compared Brandman and Stewart, difference eras and if you like an exception to the rule. The big players with all the top stats are regarded as the best of their generation - Tendulkar, Khalis, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Lara etc. Definitely in test matches at least.
posted on 6/1/19
It’s relative to the sport, no one cares more about winning the ashes than England winning the World Cup. But you can’t disregard contributions in cricket simply because it’s not as important as winning the football World Cup.
posted on 6/1/19
Australian players value winning the cricket World Cup though don’t they? They want to be the best in all 3 formats. They want to beat all teams home and away like they did between 1998-2005
Why do England only care about the Ashes?
posted on 6/1/19
Arent England top of the ODI rankings?
posted on 6/1/19
Yes, after Cook was kicked out.
But the point is you keep pointing to Ashes victories as reasons for Cook being knighted. I asked why is that considered so important in this day and age, when Australia are a pretty average side. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a great feeling to beat them. But I don’t consider that to be reason to call someone a world beater.
posted on 6/1/19
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
posted on 6/1/19
I mean, that was one of the reasons I stated. And I suppose because it still actually means alot to everyone involved. Simply because it wasnt the best Australian team doesn't mean much. Can argue it was necessarily the best England team either.
"Yes, after Cook was kicked out."
Was merely replying to your question, do you still think they only care about the ashes?
posted on 6/1/19
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Tt... (U13155)
posted 4 seconds ago
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cook does not compare to"
Think you need to explain yourself more clearly, you obviously don't rate Cook that highly I've figured out. But explain why exactly? because he wasn't the prettiest batsmen?
posted on 6/1/19
No, I don’t anymore, which is a real positive for England that we are now thinking of being the best in all formats. This should’ve been done a long time ago in my opinion.
posted on 6/1/19
He doesn’t compare because he had a lower average, he wasn’t as feared, he never dominated or changed as many games as them, his technique seemed to falter against top class bowlers a lot more than the others. These are just my opinions. You can have different ones by all means.
But I can assure you many, many people will agree with my opinion that he is just below the greats.
This doesn’t mean I don’t rate him or attacking him, no need to get your knickers in a twist there. You asked why I didn’t feel he should be knighted and I gave an answer. Simple as that.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Tt... (U13155)
posted 4 seconds ago
And even if you are talking about modern greats, Cook does not compare to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sangakarra etc. Just a level below them, which is still a fine place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cook does not compare to"
Think you need to explain yourself more clearly, you obviously don't rate Cook that highly I've figured out. But explain why exactly? because he wasn't the prettiest batsmen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His average was around 7-15 lower than the names given, if you like stats.
posted on 6/1/19
Are you English JustTrue?..or at least support England cricket?
posted on 6/1/19
I do support England, but I want us to be world beaters. I always think we have the talent to be world beaters, but we set our expectations too low. We give our players everything too early.
For example, Andy Murray became world number in tennis and was knighted straight away. Whilst a fantastic player, if you get knighted after only a few weeks of being world number 1, it is too early.
We should want to be number 1 and stay there, not just content to be ‘one of the best’. This is my opinion.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 7th UK Snooker Ti... (U13155)
posted 40 seconds ago
He doesn’t compare because he had a lower average, he wasn’t as feared, he never dominated or changed as many games as them, his technique seemed to falter against top class bowlers a lot more than the others. These are just my opinions. You can have different ones by all means.
But I can assure you many, many people will agree with my opinion that he is just below the greats.
This doesn’t mean I don’t rate him or attacking him, no need to get your knickers in a twist there. You asked why I didn’t feel he should be knighted and I gave an answer. Simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
knickers in a twist? is that what you say when you find someone who has a different opinion to you?
Don't worry about me mate, I'll gladly fight my corner.
You can point to his lower average, but I can point to his test runs scored and test hundreds. Like i said, we have a difference of opinion. Can say he was easily feared, anyone with that longevity and mental toughness is always going to be feared.
And I suppose, like I said, you don't quite understand why they award knighthoods.
Notable contributions to a particular field:-
- 12k test runs
- 33 centuries
- most runs by an opening batsmen
-most runs by an overseas player in asia
and a few more that I can't be bothered to type.
posted on 6/1/19
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
posted on 6/1/19
Quantity, not quality stats again
posted on 6/1/19
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
posted on 6/1/19
comment by (U19770)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the criteria given yes, he does deserve it, but for any sportsman or woman (not just Cook) I'd rather they not hand them out straight away, or at least just after they retire.
Hope that clears that up for you
posted on 6/1/19
Anyway, I don’t want to bicker about it, I’m giving my opinion. You have given yours. Scoring as many runs as he had for that long is a great achievement, so we are in agreement there.
posted on 6/1/19
Yeah agreed mate
posted on 6/1/19
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by (U19770)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 26 seconds ago
I agree that sportsmen should be long retired before being awarded the honour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but you said he knighthood is deserved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the criteria given yes, he does deserve it, but for any sportsman or woman (not just Cook) I'd rather they not hand them out straight away, or at least just after they retire.
Hope that clears that up for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No deserved then but would have been if he got it in say 20 years time.
I have no real issue with him getting one but not now. Way too soon.
posted on 6/1/19
*not deserved*
Page 3 of 3