Arguably someone who doesn't get a lot of big scores but who hangs around regularly for 30 or 40 on 200 tracks (not that we really see 200 tracks in test cricket any more) is more useful to the team overall than someone who has long runs of blobs when the ball moves but makes up for it by slowly gorging himself on flat tracks when more talented players could be scoring more quickly and moving the game on.
It's kind of like the US military and aircraft carriers, though. Many people just assume without question that openers who have giant scores on their cv are the best kind of openers, and that great big scores are the best and most valuable innings.
Ye pretty much. When you study Cook's career, its divided up into 4 distinct parts:
Phase 1: Good start in 2006, debut hundred in India & hundred vs Australia in Adelaide
Phase 2 : Post Adelaide when AUS found out his technical faults to balls outside off-stump - he spends 2007-2010 period scoring easy runs every time he faced an average attack on flat wickets. But every time he faced a testing attack, those old faults would be exposed.
Twice during this period he almost was dropped & would have been if ENG had better options or if Trescothick had not retired due to his mental issues. i.e vs SA 2009 saved his career with hundred in Durban & vs PAK 2010 saved career with Oval ton.
Phase 3: Ashes 2010 - NZ 2013. His peak phase when you thought he was batting like Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe, Boycott, Gooch all combined and reincarnated.
Phase 4: His current mess since Ashes 2013. Old faults from 2007-2010 have crept in again & his role in the KP axing has further complicated things.
So when you study that in a 8 year career he has 3 good years & 5 crap. That not great over stuff at all really. In the 90s he would have struggled like Hick - but instead he has the most test hundreds for ENG
