Comments on: James Anderson and the very definition of greatness

By: daneel

daneel — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:48:26 +0000

In reply to BailOut. There's an error in that list, Mike. Some idiot has suggested that Collingwood scored 206 in a defeat in Adelaide in 2006. If that match had happened surely someone would remember it?

By: A P Webster

A P Webster — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:05:28 +0000

In reply to A P Webster. But also the 'not-losing-yet-est', Dave?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:34:05 +0000

In reply to BailOut.

Only the one I can find, Sam:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62712.html

Here’s the nice list from whence that stat was drawn:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/271285.html

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:32:30 +0000

In reply to BailOut. There can't be many who have scored 178 and still lost by an innings. Poor old Hicky.

By: BailOut

BailOut — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:06:06 +0000

In reply to BailOut. Vinod Kambli might deserve a special prize as "worst Great-At-His-Best to have nevertheless amassed deceptively Great-looking career stats". In 17 tests he averaged 54, had three 50s and four 100s - an excellent conversion-rate - with two of his centuries being doubles - an excellent daddy-conversion-rate. This being the early 90s, not sure which of those double-tons - in home conditions vs Zim, and another in home conditions vs Eng - is the more impressive! Incidentally, in that England match in Mumbai Hick scored his Test-best 178 and beat Kambli to Man of the Match. He might be one for the list with Ramps.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 08:59:39 +0000

In reply to BailOut. Rob Key? *cannot dodge flaming, dies in horrific fireball*

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 07:56:33 +0000

In reply to A P Webster. Chanderpaul has got to be the losingest of the the greats.

By: A P Webster

A P Webster — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 05:31:18 +0000

In reply to Bert.

If it helps, my spellchecker gives “winningest” a wobbly red underline and suggests “winnings”, “winning’s” and “winningness”, the latter of which is hardly less jarring than “winningest” itself.

Have you ever heard someone described as ‘losingest’?

By: daneel

daneel — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 05:27:36 +0000

In reply to BailOut. Kapil Dev? Shaun Pollock?

By: Bert

Bert — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:42:47 +0000

Good article in the Guardian this morning about Anderson and Cook, complete with some interesting stats and a swear.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/31/alastair-cook-james-anderson-england-the-spin

My conclusion from all this is that great batsmen are great at batting, whereas great bowlers are great at winning. That’s the nature of the game, of course, but you can ask how well England’s winningest two players would each have done without the other.

(Rather annoyed, by the way, that the spellchecker doesn’t want to correct “winningest”. I only used it ironically, but apparently it’s absolutely fine and part of the language and all that.)