Graeme Swann retires

[Aditya]

Shocking. My obvious first reaction to this sudden retirement from the undisputed best spinner of England, in recent times. He may not be performing to the fullest of his potential recently but that doesn't mean that it was 'time'.

There's a lot more to this than we know. If anything, he should have at least played a farewell test or else retired soon after the Perth test. Retiring 3 days before the next test raises doubts in my mind but then it could be just me.

A fantastic career with 2 Ashes, take a bow, Swann!

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Craig White was a decent test player?

What wizardry is this?

 

[War]

Craig White was a decent test player?

What wizardry is this?

Were you and Sharvi who liked your post on a different planet when White was putting in key performances as England beat windies for the 1st time in 31 years in 2000, won away series in Pakistan/Sri Lanka in 2000/01 or was scoring unlikely test hundreds in - India 2001?.

 

[cricket_icon]

But i'm not getting carried away, by slotting in the two words "it seems" in that statement, that should have been a clear indication to anyone who read the post that i'm not saying Stokes is the 100%, clear Flintoff replacement.

Also i don't believe any serious ENG fan ever thought Broad was the Flintoff replacement either.

As i keep alluding to people, you compare Stokes at this stage of his career to Flintoff or Craig White at a similar age - ENGs other notable all-rounder of the 2000s & you will find that Stokes is already ahead of them in that perspective.

His obviously challenge is to keep building on his impressive international career start.

Come off it, I met a tonne of English fans who thought Broad was the next Freddie and in the run up to some major series (can't remember which one) newspapers had comparison pieces on Broad and how his career at that stage ranked alongside Botham, Freddy and even Imran Khan lol

But this is neither here nor there, Stokes has done well in this series in patches, but the problem is, Swann retiring just makes it much worse for England, what with Trott's problems, KPs terrible turn and almost "meh" attitude, add to that Anderson looking like a lost schoolboy...it's just so worrying, rarely do top teams crumble so emphatically.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Were you and Sharvi who liked your post on a different planet when White was putting in key performances as England beat windies for the 1st time in 31 years in 2000, won away series in Pakistan/Sri Lanka in 2000/01 or was scoring unlikely test hundreds in - India 2001?.

I'm on the planet where in 30 test matches he scored 1 century and took 3 5fers

you describe it as an unlikely test hundred, of course it's unlikely if it's his only one in about 50 attempts.

 

[Epic]

Ha fans & journalist always state this mistake. ENG were never # 1. That was a ranking system error just like when IND were # 1. The only time ENG were # 1 in test history was - 1951-1958.

Random dates?. So when historians regularly say Australia was # 1 from 95-2007 or Windies # 1 from 76-91 - were those random strung up dates as well?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the claim here is that South Africa are the undisputed #1 Test side from 2007-present day?

I don't think you wanted to using anything the ICC does as a guide of correctness. They were about to hand Michael Clarke to mace if they had defeated S Africa in Perth last year -

Surely that's how it should work, beating the #1 side in a series makes you better than them?

 

[War]

Come off it, I met a tonne of English fans who thought Broad was the next Freddie and in the run up to some major series (can't remember which one) newspapers had comparison pieces on Broad and how his career at that stage ranked alongside Botham, Freddy and even Imran Khan lol

But this is neither here nor there, Stokes has done well in this series in patches, but the problem is, Swann retiring just makes it much worse for England, what with Trott's problems, KPs terrible turn and almost "meh" attitude, add to that Anderson looking like a lost schoolboy...it's just so worrying, rarely do top teams crumble so emphatically.

Just because you met a ton of English fans, who may have made that incorrect assertion of Broad - doesn't mean that is how the majority of ENG fans felt about how Broad's all-rounder credentials.

I'm very confident that wasn't the case. ENG regular sky sports commentary team of Ian Ward, David Gower, Botham, David Lloyd, Atherton, Hussain wasn't saying that about Broad ever - nor was the notable ENG cricket journalist such as J Agnew, Boycott, George Dobell, David Hoops, Syd Berry, Paul Newman, Lawrence Booth, Tom Fordyce, Simon Hughes...

 

[sami ullah khan]

I was shocked to say the least. He is young enough to play a couple more years as an offie. He has been my favorite spinner for a long while now. I will miss viewing him in action.

 

[War]

I'm on the planet where in 30 test matches he scored 1 century and took 3 5fers

you describe it as an unlikely test hundred, of course it's unlikely if it's his only one in about 50 attempts.

Based on your comments here, I would now seriously if you or the favourite poster liker Sharvi, actually watched Craig White play. This is first time since White's international retirement, that i've heard any fan or journalist actually question his all-round credentials.

Firstly Craig White at his peak did not encapsulate his entire 30 tests, you might appreciate that ever player has a peak period and no player in cricket history, was good from their 1st test to their final test.

White debut in 1994 under the era of selector Ray Illingworth who made a lost of weird selection, some overtly Yorkshire biased & White was one of the obvious. So by following White's career, its pretty clear than any test he played before 2000 he was nothing more than a joke cricketer.

White's peak from from 2000-2003 when he averaged 28 with the ball, 36 with the ball, scoring all of the hundreds and 5-wicket hauls you mentioned.

Note i never said he was as good as Flintoff as an all-rounder - just that he was all-rounder. Under the early days of Duncan Fletcher/Nasser Hussain coach-captaincy partnership - good enough to bat regularly @ # 7 an enabled England to play 5 bowlers strategy. Were you as English fan or Sharvi as Indian fan, circa 2000-2003 questioning the balance of ENG team when White batting in such a position, calling Fletcher & Hussain mad for giving White such a role for eg?

Its funny how you ignore the role White played in ENGs famous triumphs in PAK/SRI 2000. Since those 2000 series win in Pakistan, ENG next tour visits to PAK/neutral venue resulted 2-0 & 3-0 defeats in 2005 and 2012 respectively. While since the 2-1 win in SRI, they have lost 2 and drawn one off their last 3 series their in 2003, 2007 & 2012.


Finally with regards to White sole test hundred, don't make it sound as if it was a fluke. It was unlikely because of the circumstances it was scored under - instead of it being just out of the blue scored a hundred after various attempts.

ENG as i hope you recall went to IND 2001, with basically a A-team because some key player did not want to tour Asia, after the 9/11 attacks. ENG were hammered in the 1st test in Mohali & the under strength team looked to being whitewashed. But White's hundred helped sparked a revival on tour which saw the draw the final two test and the preceding ODI series.

White missed 2 other hundreds @ MCG 2002 & TB 2002 basically because he ran out of partners after batting well. These are two test i watched a large majority of and i hope any potential rebuttal of these two innings would revolve around your recollection of watching these games as it happened. The sanity of discussions would be rendered useless, if you attempt to dispute it based on just watching the scorecard now 11 years later, if you did not see the game.

 

[War]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the claim here is that South Africa are the undisputed #1 Test side from 2007-present day?

Not since 2007. At least since late 2008/09 when they won in AUS for the 1st time in history. People seem to forget S Africa have only lost 2 test series since 2006. SRI beat them in 2006 & AUS in 2009 - no test team comes close to this record.

Fact is AUS dynasty ended after the 2006/07 ashes with all those great players leaving.

Just as how the Windies dynasty ended after their 1991 tour to England, although they didn't lose a series until 1995.

Rating every team including AUS started fresh from February 2007, since AUS clearly were never going to be the same again and were going to rebuild and that has been shown pretty conclusively by their performances over the last few years. Unfortunately the ranking system given it just studies form over a 3-year period, didn't consider that Warne, McGrath, Langer, Martyn, Hayden, Gilchrist, MacGill, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, all existed within a year of each other.

So AUS according to the ranking system were still termed # 1 until S Africa beat them in 2008/09.

Then the ranking system some ridiculously penalize S Africa for the lack of activity in the test arena in 2009, since IIRC India ascended to that # 1 status in December after they beat SRI Lanka after heavy activity in 2009.That was madness.


With regards to England the ranking system added up points they attained by winning all of their series (except for the draw in S Africa 2009/10) after that 1-0 loss in the Caribbean 2009. Thus after they defeated AUS in Ashes 10/11 and IND 2011, that were ranked higher than them at the time - that gave them the # 1 tag.


That new ENG team had not won enough series to reach that accolade when they beat india 4-0 last year , since they were only 8 months into their potential dynasty.

Yet when they immediately lost 3-0 to Pakistan in UAE 2012, everyone was saying ENG were not a complete # 1 etc crap - when actually they were never # 1.


English cricket after the Moores/Pietersen saga between West Indies 2009 - Pakistan 2010 where the embryonic stages of the Strauss/Flower partnership and development. No one in their right mind was ranking or speaking of England as anything close to best team in the world then and rightly so because they had a lot players who did not convince the world they good all-round players.

The 2010/11 Ashes win regardless of how far this team goes in the future, will be regarded by historians im sure as the starting point of this teams greatness. Now that they are struggling in Ashes and throughout 2013, you would have to say that teams greatness/peak ended when they won 2-1 in India last year.

That's why the West Indies 76-91 dynasty is always started in 1976 in England and AUS 95-2007 dynasty also begins from the 95 win in the Caribbean.

Players for ENG like Anderson, Tremlett, Cook, Bell, Bresnan came of age in Ashes 2010/11. The faulty ICC ranking system which judges form of the a short two year period, does not recognize this and its has incorrectly made a correlation with ENG of between of WI 09 - PAK 2010 to ENG between AUS 2010/11 - IND 2011. Those are two completely different ENG teams that one cannot compare.

All of this highlights why we need a proper test championship to accurately rank/assess teams, in order to accurately find out who is the # 1.

Surely that's how it should work, beating the #1 side in a series makes you better than them?

Of course not. When New Zealand beat Windies in 1980, that didn't make them the # 1 team in the world.

Neither did Sri Lanka, India or England when they beat AUS in 99, 2001 & 2005.

Some # 1 teams, actually can lose a series in their dynasty and still be the best, you don't have to super invisible like Windies were from 1980-1995, going 15 years without losing a series.


A # 1 test team needs to show longevity and the key ability of being able to win home/away, especially vs big teams over an extended period. IND & ENG # 1 teams never did that and post the AUS 95-2007 undisputed # 1 era team.

S Afirca is real # 1 since that AUS side, because they have done that - only a a win in SRI Lanka is lacking for them in a test record currently.

A record between 2006-2013 which as aforementioned, has seen them lose just two test series.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

The solitary century, regardless of how good it was means very little. He was a poor player who contributed a couple of times.

If after 20 more tests Stokes has no more hundreds, 3-4 50s and a bowling average of 36 people will be saying he isn't good enough to be in the team. They won't be saying "look at the century he scored in Aus 2013" (albeit there will be a case for he is still young and improving, of course)

Bresnan has better averages with both bat and ball (although at 8 he probably has it padded by some not outs and as part of a 4 man attack. I wouldn't describe him as anything other than a decent test player. White was a poor test player, a couple of good perfomances notwithstanding.

 

[War]

The solitary century, regardless of how good it was means very little. He was a poor player who contributed a couple of times.

If after 20 more tests Stokes has no more hundreds, 3-4 50s and a bowling average of 36 people will be saying he isn't good enough to be in the team. They won't be saying "look at the century he scored in Aus 2013" (albeit there will be a case for he is still young and improving, of course)

Bresnan has better averages with both bat and ball (although at 8 he probably has it padded by some not outs and as part of a 4 man attack. I wouldn't describe him as anything other than a decent test player. White was a poor test player, a couple of good perfomances notwithstanding.

Its utterly ridiculous to consider White a poor test player, once again i'm convinced that you didn't watch White's career at all. This is just a unfortunate statistical, career assassination, of a player who played a very key role in ENG revival as a cricket team at the start of the millennium, after they were heralded the worst test team in world at the end of the 20th century

Another well renowned ENG all-rounder in Trevor Bailey & former S Africa all-rounder Trevor Goddard got 1 test century as well - are they also poor test cricketers because of this???

As i asked you before were you an ENG fan who was criticizing Duncan Fletcher & Hussain for constantly having the faith to utilize White as a all-rounder @ the key # 7 role in order for ENG to have 5 bowlers? Because surely if he think he was so average, you must have surely had seriously reservations about the balance of the team back then??

There is old cricket adage that says "stats" don't tell the whole truth - i don't know if you subscribe to it - however in White bowling case during his peak years, it would explain why despite a 36 bowling - he was clearly a more incisive bowler than that.

To compare him to Bresnan also is part of the looking blindly at the stats debate. How long have you been watching English cricket? Because you might notice despite his higher average than White - Flower and captains Strauss/Cook have never took up the option bat Bresnan @ # 7 long term, so that they could play 5 bowlers consistently. How do you explain this dichotomy?

Were you an ENG fan in recent times complaining that ENG were making a mistake using just 4 bowlers & Bresnan's all-rounder talent was wasted?

Like Flintoff also, once also has to consider the amount of key series White missed due to injuries. This cannot be understated, since the constant stress of having to come back from injuries - prevented both all-rounders from having better records.

On Stokes - if plays another 20 tests & has that record i would more be in the camp that would say he is young and improving - instead of saying he is not good enough for the test team. His talent is that obvious - AUS Shane Watson has yet to fully live up to his all-rounder credentials statistically in tests - yet few AUS would question his importance to the team.

But even here, its futile to compare Stokes & White because of different circumstance of their career progression.

Stokes has come into international cricket a more complete article than most all-rounders at his age - so he can only go up from here. If he falters significantly at any point, people will say he is wasting his talent.

White as i mentioned before like Flintoff, played test cricket when they were not ready (selectors faux pas) and didn't look international standard. They then went back to county cricket & on their returns showed their worth. So when one judges them - it has to be their peak years & not their entire career records.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Look at me I'm War I'm a genius and everyone else is dumb.

Give it a rest pal. Just because someone doesn't agree with you don't go implying they are talking out of their arse and don't have a clue. It makes you look like an arrogant tool and it doesn't make me want to engage you in an actual debate.

 

[War]

Look at me I'm War I'm a genius and everyone else is dumb.

Give it a rest pal. Just because someone doesn't agree with you don't go implying they are talking out of their arse and don't have a clue. It makes you look like an arrogant tool and it doesn't make me want to engage you in an actual debate.

Ha i've had a good rest all day, its christmas after all. I have discussions with various people all across this forum and i never viewed anyone else as dumb, nor think my views are genius above anyone. I respect all posters - so get that part right.

You were the one who made the assertion that, White was a poor player. So i am simply asking you some hard questions, about your recollection of his career from watching him play live. Because as i've said before i've never heard a ENG fan or journalist, 11 years after White's retirement - question his all-rounder credentials like this.

Up to now in various posts, you haven't answered any particular question i've asked in this regard, but now want to accuse me of displaying arrogance towards you - which is furthest from the truth.

I might be in shocked about your position on White - however if i was truly arrogant towards you, I would not have even bothered to continue this discussion. As it stands i'm very curious to get to bottom of your thought process on White's career - so we can continue, if of course you want to...

 

[ste_mc_efc]

My argument is a simple one, he didn't perform that well with bat or ball that often. He wasn't good enough to bat at 7, I think that's pretty obvious. One brilliant century doesn't change that. You can't really compare bresnan at 8 with white at 7, as the two sides they played in were world apart. I suspect Bresnan would have been in at 7 then, I don't think White would have been in this team.

I was pretty young during most of his career, but if anything that just weights my recollection more to his 2nd career, which was better.

He had one excellent year with the ball averaging 23, and the rest of his career was spent bowling largely north of 35.

He played in a bad team and was probably worth his place in that team. He was a below average player.

----------

Actually I guess the main problem was he simply didn't contribute enough with the bat.

his bowling record was pretty average, purple patches of genuine quality, but lots of sustained poor spells. that'd be fine if he contributed more with the bat.

but 1 century and 3/4 half centuries simply isn't enough to carry his bowling.

to put it into perspective, he has a similar average to philander, 1 more century and 2 more 50s from 11 more tests. while averaging twice as much with the ball.

Obviously that isn't even a remotely fair comparison, but the point is Philander is a bowler who is useful with the bat, his batting doesn't really put him into the all-rounder category (it's close, maybe if they didn't have Kallis he'd be considered one)

Broad has a similar batting average, too, 1 century, 10 halves from twice as many tests. Similar record pound for pound, significantly better bowling average. He's not an all rounder.

----------

basically if his bowling was better, his batting might not have put him in the all-rounder category. he'd have been a bowler with a bit of batting. But his bowling was equally poor, so they were about the same.