What's new

Are we seeing the decline of the phenomenon called Hashim Amla?

S

Scrolln

Local Club Star
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Runs
2,102
I considered Amla the single biggest threat with the bat during the test series.

But he seems to have carried forward his ODI form during the tests. His captaincy/leadership has been under scrutiny and it even looks like he has put on some weight. Looks unfit.

He averages 29 in tests so far this year. His test record in the SC has taken a huge hit with him averaging 13 against Bang and 18 against India so far in the series.

His ODI average during the year looks good overall, but paints a sorry picture when you exclude weak teams like West Indies and Ireland with an average of 27 over 15 matches. Again he failed against India and the strongest Bangladesh ODI side in history.

Between 2010-2014 i considered Amla to be the best test batsman in the world. He played some vital knocks in India (averaged 400+ in the series in 2010, being dismissed only once) Sri Lanka, England and Australia during this phase. But 2015 has been a nighmare for him so far. Is the best of Hashim Amla behind him?
 
Overreaction. He is human. It is natural to have off days. Even ATGs went through patches like this.
 
Mamoon has mentally destroyed him
 
Cricket is sometimes funny. Most players some how replicate their domestic stats at international level.

He is a 50-51 averaging Test batsman. This slump in form was to remain fair to his master (FC stats). Lol.
 
Itachi said:
Overreaction. He is human. It is natural to have off days. Even ATGs went through patches like this.
Click to expand...

I believe Amla is already an ATG in tests. Really really close even if you happen to be his harshest critic.
 
This is why people who write off Tendulkar's achievements saying that he got it all because he played the longest, are the biggest idiots. Longevity and consistency are Cricket's ultimate game changers. You could have 10 great years but 1 bad season could ruin all your averages. Averaging 55 in 80 tests does not equal averaging 55 in 180 tests. The longer it gets, the more difficult it is for players to maintain high standards,
 
freelance_cricketer said:
This is why people who write off Tendulkar's achievements saying that he got it all because he played the longest, are the biggest idiots. Longevity and consistency are Cricket's ultimate game changers. You could have 10 great years but 1 bad season could ruin all your averages. Averaging 55 in 80 tests does not equal averaging 55 in 180 tests. The longer it gets, the more difficult it is for players to maintain high standards,
Click to expand...

Longevity is good, but I don't personally see anything in longevity beyond a certain threshold, eg 125 tests. 125, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 tests all should mean approximately the same whenever longevity is considered. Of course, 50, 60 and 70 are small numbers that fail the longevity test.
 
So the fickleness finally starts - have never rated him much anyway!
 
dandapinda said:
Overrated by some people..AB is better match winner.
Click to expand...

If anything, Amla is incredibly under-rated in tests. AB has yet to reach that level in tests, and after 100 odd tests i doubt he ever will.

In ODI's , i would agree with you.
 
Too classy a player to not come back with a bang.
Always rated him one of the best bat in test cricket for last 5 years.
 
Should bat at 3 not at 4. Should have opened the batting at Mohali in the 2nd inns and had he done so, he would have increased the chances of the Saffers winning.
 
AB is way ahead of everyone in recent couple of years.
Kohli,Amla,Wiliamson,Smith,Cook all are good but no match to AB
 
IndianWillow said:
Longevity is good, but I don't personally see anything in longevity beyond a certain threshold, eg 125 tests. 125, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 tests all should mean approximately the same whenever longevity is considered. Of course, 50, 60 and 70 are small numbers that fail the longevity test.
Click to expand...

Compare test stats for Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar after 100 tests to their retirements stats and you will discover how longevity affects careers and influences popular opinion.
 
Definitely struggling with form but shouldn't be written off after one poor series. I'm he sure he would still have scored runs if the pitches were not so difficult.
 
I don't get the Hash hate over here. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would even hate this guy. I bet you guys torture kittens too, you latent psychopaths.
 
There's a certain section who support him solely because he has a beard but there is also a section who dislike him for very same reason.

In reality he is a very good player but a level below Sachin,Sanga, Punter and Lara
 
Amla is third on my list of favourite South African players after Steyn and de Villiers, but his captaincy has been shocking. Pushing Philander to open, and then throwing Tahir up there twice in a row to protect himself is hardly becoming of a successful leader.

South Africa should pick Faf du Plessis as skipper next.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Compare test stats for Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar after 100 tests to their retirements stats and you will discover how longevity affects careers and influences popular opinion.
Click to expand...

Sachin had the advantage of making an early test debut. By the age of 27, Sachin had played about 100 tests, so his last 100 tests had much youth involved in it. For many other greats, this was not the case.
 
Batsmen will have slumps time to time and Amla is no exception. I won't call it a decline.
 
He was rusty in ODIs. Get going in the third test (feet movements and endurance), but it was impossible to survive long against quality spin on that track for long.

Should India prepare a non-rank turner, he would score a double next having gotten into groove again
 
Scrolln said:
If anything, Amla is incredibly under-rated in tests. AB has yet to reach that level in tests, and after 100 odd tests i doubt he ever will.

In ODI's , i would agree with you.
Click to expand...

What? They average same in tests...while AB played most matches in middle order and as Wicket keeper as well.
 
GLORY OF '92 said:
Choked v Johnson

Choked v spin in this series.

When the going gets tough he disappears.
Click to expand...

How many times he has not chocked against spin in past? -- Lots of times ( case in point - last tour of India, last series win in SL was due to him and AB went missing)

How many times he played gun knocks in away conditions to set up a win for SA -- Lots of times

Let's ignore all that and pick series where he didn't do well to judge. He is simply not in form and it's obvious.
 
GLORY OF '92 said:
Choked v Johnson

Choked v spin in this series.

When the going gets tough he disappears.
Click to expand...

Perth 2014 series win in Aus in Aus
India 2008 and 2010...he won them 1 test in 2010 and almost saved the 2nd test for them before Bhajji got Morkel out in the penultimate over or something (it was very close). Amla remained not out (scored 100+) and almost won SA the series.

Yes, he failed against Johnson but that wasn't choking. Everyone gets their bad series.

ABD is in the form of his life while Amla is out of form. The fight and heart he showed in the 4th innings against the spin troika just shows his character in tests. Amla the test bat is one of the most assured players.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indvrsa2010/engine/current/match/441826.html
 
He is out of form - probably a mental/confidence thing. His class was evident in the second innings. No batsman in decline could have lasted that many deliveries against those bowlers on that wicket.
 
GLORY OF '92 said:
Choked v Johnson

Choked v spin in this series.

When the going gets tough he disappears.
Click to expand...

like his 192 in Perth at RUN A BALL? Boy, that was some choke.

Of the 22 individuals playing the game, who didn't?

lol. Like his last India tour where he batted 8 hours in deathly heat to save the match? Or recently, the Galle test?
 
IndianWillow said:
He is out of form - probably a mental/confidence thing. His class was evident in the second innings. No batsman in decline could have lasted that many deliveries against those bowlers on that wicket.
Click to expand...

This series turned me into a bit of Amla fan. Amla the Test player.

At his weakest moment, he used his will power to go on and on and on trusting his defense and doing the hard work. Its moments like these which won't get reflected on stats but those who watched it can only marvel at the HEART and FIGHT shown.
 
He's a good batsman who is out of form.

He went through a purple patch a few years ago which has fooled a number of people into thinking that he is an all-time great.
 
GLORY OF '92 said:
Choked v Johnson

Choked v spin in this series.

When the going gets tough he disappears.
Click to expand...

dandapinda said:
What? They average same in tests...while AB played most matches in middle order and as Wicket keeper as well.
Click to expand...

ABDV in tests, has been more or less a fairweather accumulator so far. Look beyond pure averages.

ABDV is yet to give comparable away performances like Amla's exploits in India 2010, Lanka 2014, Eng 2012 or Aus 2012 . ABDV has 4 tons away from home since 2010, two of them on UAE pattas, one against a weak WI attack and another against Aus when the match was more or less decided.

On the strength of his performances, Amla wins hands down. ABDV needs to start batting at no.4 ASAP.
 
Hasn't been the same since:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahdeIjYy67k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rubel started the downfall of Kohli too.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
This series turned me into a bit of Amla fan. Amla the Test player.

At his weakest moment, he used his will power to go on and on and on trusting his defense and doing the hard work. Its moments like these which won't get reflected on stats but those who watched it can only marvel at the HEART and FIGHT shown.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Dravid at Kolkata 2001. Dravid wasn't in good form coming into that match and he was played down the order. He was scratchy during the earlier part of that mammoth ATG knock, but he gritted it out and once he reached his 50 he turned the table on the Aussies. Not trying to compare Amla innings with Dravid's but Amla matched Dravid in grit in the second innings. If AB had played a good knock, who knows, Saffers may have won narrowly and Amla's knock would have received better appreciation.
 
His reflexes seem to have gi ven up on him. He might score occasionally but will struggle against good bowling attacks with a plan.

I said this a month ago and a famous indian poster here flipped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
he is in going through a slump and his recovery will shoe wether he is a all time great or only above average. Personally i rate him an all time great whose wicket is more valued than ABD in test matches.
 
IndianWillow said:
Longevity is good, but I don't personally see anything in longevity beyond a certain threshold, eg 125 tests. 125, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 tests all should mean approximately the same whenever longevity is considered. Of course, 50, 60 and 70 are small numbers that fail the longevity test.
Click to expand...

Disagree.. If you play more test matches then the no. of bad patch or poor form will be higher than playing 100-110 matches.Smith or hayden if played 150 matches then would have ended with a comparatively lesser avg.Look at Cook for example. It's tough to pick who is better between three but when Cook will retire with around 160-170 or whatever matches his avg will most likely slip a bit to 45 like it did with a rough patch for last couple of years.When compared ,it would look an ordinary avg in front of Hayden or Smith 49-50 avg..But this is what longevity does to be precise.
 
I don't know how anyone can dislike Amla.. Pretty likable bloke who minds his own business. Yes his beard/ religious fan base is cringe worthy. But that's not a valid reason to hate someone

On topic, he is out of form at the moment. Yes standard will decline with age but he still has 2-3 years of good cricket left in him

His display in last inning was pretty admirable. Handling spin with soft hands was just awesome to watch
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Compare test stats for Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar after 100 tests to their retirements stats and you will discover how longevity affects careers and influences popular opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. What I mean is that it's not necessary that one can't maintain such great stats even after 200 test but lots of factors comes up like injuries or bad patch when team is going through worse phase and all of sudden you are out of team and so and so...
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Compare test stats for Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar after 100 tests to their retirements stats and you will discover how longevity affects careers and influences popular opinion.
Click to expand...

Forget 100. Tendulkar averaged 57 after 176 tests. Yet there are some people who will rate Sanga higher purely on the basis of a higher average maintained over 65 fewer tests.
 
Amla is one of the most likeable men in test cricket. Wonderfully graceful when he's in form and when not in form, he's prepared to buckle down and play ugly, gritty innings like he did yesterday. He's a great batsman and he'll get out of this slump soon.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
This series turned me into a bit of Amla fan. Amla the Test player.

At his weakest moment, he used his will power to go on and on and on trusting his defense and doing the hard work. Its moments like these which won't get reflected on stats but those who watched it can only marvel at the HEART and FIGHT shown.
Click to expand...

Although not disagreeing with the fact that it's just loss of form because of which Amla is failing but the above statement is misjudged quite a time.Its like saying AB at age of 22 when he was mediocre test batsmen chased 400 against Aus with a century in Perth.. Well, saying this doesn't really means he will do it every time if he is at peak and one of best in business. In a same way, one can't say that Amla at its best would have won the game from these circumstances most of times either...
 
Ab Fan said:
Although not disagreeing with the fact that it's just loss of form because of which Amla is failing but the above statement is misjudged quite a time.Its like saying AB at age of 22 when he was mediocre test batsmen chased 400 against Aus with a century in Perth.. Well, saying this doesn't really means he will do it every time if he is at peak and one of best in business. In a same way, one can't say that Amla at its best would have won the game from these circumstances most of times either...
Click to expand...

A is good...doesn't mean B is bad.

Amla at peak may or may not win but he is likely to fight. But out of form Amla fighting so badly shows heart. In fact, he was probably the best batsman from both sides last game (if you look at the approach of batting on that pitch).
 
IndianWillow said:
Longevity is good, but I don't personally see anything in longevity beyond a certain threshold, eg 125 tests. 125, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 tests all should mean approximately the same whenever longevity is considered. Of course, 50, 60 and 70 are small numbers that fail the longevity test.
Click to expand...

To maintain a gun performance in 160 tests is more difficult than doing it in 120 tests.

To maintain a gun performance in 120 tests is more difficult than doing it in 80 tests.

Longer you go, harder it is to produce a great output. We have seen this over and over with so many players that there is no need to pick an example.
 
Slog said:
There's a certain section who support him solely because he has a beard but there is also a section who dislike him for very same reason.

In reality he is a very good player but a level below Sachin,Sanga, Punter and Lara
Click to expand...

Sanga isn't in the Sachin, Lara and Ponting class.
 
He is out of form but his temperament is as good as ever atleast in tests. That 39 is one of his grittier knocks. It revealed much about how tough this guy is.

Faf is worse off in terms of form but his temperament is even better.
 
Haroon786 said:
Sanga isn't in the Sachin, Lara and Ponting class.
Click to expand...

I see no reason for Amla to end up lower than Sanga. In the last 5-6 years, Amla has been the best test batsman in world. Amla has been one of the best batsmen in ODI as well in the last 5-6 years.
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
I see no reason for Amla to end up lower than Sanga. In the last 5-6 years, Amla has been the best test batsman in world. Amla has been one of the best batsmen in ODI as well in the last 5-6 years.
Click to expand...

It will be good for the Ummah if Amla reaches statistical greatness (10 K runs at 50 in both formats). :amla
 
Haroon786 said:
It will be good for the Ummah if Amla reaches statistical greatness (10 K runs at 50 in both formats). :amla
Click to expand...

lol, That ummah factor in cricket is often very disturbing because it used to take focus away from SA/Amla and talk used to get into useless stuff. Pretty much every thread related to SA used to end up like that. Thanks to mods that practice stopped or I should say thanks to some posters not being so active now a days ;)
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
lol, That ummah factor in cricket is often very disturbing because it used to take focus away from SA/Amla and talk used to get into useless stuff. Pretty much every thread related to SA used to end up like that. Thanks to mods that practice stopped or I should say thanks to some posters not being so active now a days ;)
Click to expand...

Rather the bhai brigade. I think their presence on Amla/SA threads is heavily correlated with Amla's/SA's success.
 
Sachin136 said:
Be prepared to face lots of pure bat statistics.
Click to expand...

Sure statistically he's up there with them (at least in Tests) but that doesn't mean he had the same level of effect, aesthetics and aura of the triumvirate.
 
Amla is the most likable guy in world cricket along with others like Misbah, Rahane etc. Very polite and in fact over polite.

He is just out of form and the tough slow turning pitches in India and Bangladesh did not help him. He is a South African brought up on lively surfaces.

To me, Amla looked the most comfortable out there playing spin. More than AB who could be seen jumping out of his crease to even defend. I rate Amla more than AB when playing spin.
 
After such a traumatic loss he will never be the same ever again.
 
Lurker_Ind said:
Amla is the most likable guy in world cricket along with others like Misbah, Rahane etc. Very polite and in fact over polite.

He is just out of form and the tough slow turning pitches in India and Bangladesh did not help him. He is a South African brought up on lively surfaces.

To me, Amla looked the most comfortable out there playing spin. More than AB who could be seen jumping out of his crease to even defend. I rate Amla more than AB when playing spin.
Click to expand...

Its a well known fact that Amla is better than ABD against spin.Along with cook he is the best non Asian batsmen against spin.Amla the test batsmen is still rated very highly.IMO, he can match the league of someone like Dravid /Kallis.He has played great knocks everywhere..Only longevity is a factor he has to carry on...
 
The issue with Amla is that he, similar to most players this era, barely faced any great bowlers. He faced a rampaging Johnson and did not do so well (no matter what his average was that series, he did not look good against him).
 
I find Cook a bit underrated test batsmen. He had a bad patch for two years while AB and Amla had been consistent but I don't think he is far behind those two.He avgs 47 being an opener while the two avgs 51 with longevity factor inclining slightly towards Cook .So not much difference to be honest.
 
Ab Fan said:
Disagree.. If you play more test matches then the no. of bad patch or poor form will be higher than playing 100-110 matches.Smith or hayden if played 150 matches then would have ended with a comparatively lesser avg.Look at Cook for example. It's tough to pick who is better between three but when Cook will retire with around 160-170 or whatever matches his avg will most likely slip a bit to 45 like it did with a rough patch for last couple of years.When compared ,it would look an ordinary avg in front of Hayden or Smith 49-50 avg..But this is what longevity does to be precise.
Click to expand...

If you play long you get the opportunity to break a number of records - like maximum runs, maximum hundreds etc. Of course, you will go through more ups and downs. You can't have everything. If Tendulkar had played 3-4 years less he would have better stats in terms of quality.
 
Sachin136 said:
The issue with Amla is that he, similar to most players this era, barely faced any great bowlers. He faced a rampaging Johnson and did not do so well (no matter what his average was that series, he did not look good against him).
Click to expand...

MJ shocked the entire Proteas lineup in the first game, where he bowled better than he ever has. After that, he was dealt with pretty effectively with Amla, ABD and Duminy getting centuries and the last game almost being drawn, once again led by the big two of South Africa. It wouldn't be fair to say that he failed based on that first match, especially when he has done well against MJ on other occasions.

The lack of great bowlers argument is a legitimate one but what can these batsmen do? It definitely is not their fault and besides, some of these younger bowlers like Amir, Boult, Starc, Cummins, Hazelwood, Milne, Shah, Ashwin and Rabada might become greats in the future.

IndianWillow said:
If you play long you get the opportunity to break a number of records - like maximum runs, maximum hundreds etc. Of course, you will go through more ups and downs. You can't have everything. If Tendulkar had played 3-4 years less he would have better stats in terms of quality.
Click to expand...

You don't have to go on forever. This is solely the player's decision and if he plays the last 20-30 tests of his career as a burden on the team, holding back better players, in order to break certain records, then it should a legitimate criticism of them. It isn't even about fitness because so many players retire when they are quite fit, but because they know that they won't be able to keep performing, retirement comes earlier.
 
Buffet said:
To maintain a gun performance in 160 tests is more difficult than doing it in 120 tests.

To maintain a gun performance in 120 tests is more difficult than doing it in 80 tests.

Longer you go, harder it is to produce a great output. We have seen this over and over with so many players that there is no need to pick an example.
Click to expand...

You have to set a threshold, right? Beyond a certain number of tests, longevity should not carry extra weight while comparing players. The threshold can be 100,125 or 150, but there is a limit beyond which this number ceases to have enough significance. For example, if A player plays 150 tests over 15 years and finishes with an average of 55 and player B plays 200 tests over 20 years and finishes with an average of 50, I would go for A if other parameters of comparison even out. The extra 50 tests and five years at a lesser average don't mean much to me in this case even though B has more longevity.
 
IndianWillow said:
You have to set a threshold, right? Beyond a certain number of tests, longevity should not carry extra weight while comparing players. The threshold can be 100,125 or 150, but there is a limit beyond which this number ceases to have enough significance. For example, if A player plays 150 tests over 15 years and finishes with an average of 55 and player B plays 200 tests over 20 years and finishes with an average of 50, I would go for A if other parameters of comparison even out. The extra 50 tests and five years at a lesser average don't mean much to me in this case even though B has more longevity.
Click to expand...

125 tests is too big a number and only India and England can have more than a couple of players who have played that many tests. 80-100 tests more than enough for a player to prove that they can deliver the goods over an extended period of time. This is approximately the number of tests the likes of Marshall, Imran, Waqar, Hadlee, Holding, Lillee and many other ATG fast bowlers bowlers played.
 
IndianWillow said:
You have to set a threshold, right? Beyond a certain number of tests, longevity should not carry extra weight while comparing players. The threshold can be 100,125 or 150, but there is a limit beyond which this number ceases to have enough significance. For example, if A player plays 150 tests over 15 years and finishes with an average of 55 and player B plays 200 tests over 20 years and finishes with an average of 50, I would go for A if other parameters of comparison even out. The extra 50 tests and five years at a lesser average don't mean much to me in this case even though B has more longevity.
Click to expand...

Who said that there has to be a threshold? Is there a threshold for batting average, so after an average of 50 it doesn’t matter much? The most tests you play the more difficult it is to maintain a high standard. Playing those 50 more tests at a high level is very important. The fact that no one else has been able to do it for so long makes it an even more valuable feat.
 
IndianWillow said:
You have to set a threshold, right? Beyond a certain number of tests, longevity should not carry extra weight while comparing players. The threshold can be 100,125 or 150, but there is a limit beyond which this number ceases to have enough significance. For example, if A player plays 150 tests over 15 years and finishes with an average of 55 and player B plays 200 tests over 20 years and finishes with an average of 50, I would go for A if other parameters of comparison even out. The extra 50 tests and five years at a lesser average don't mean much to me in this case even though B has more longevity.
Click to expand...

In most real situations it's like this:

Batsman A : 80 Tests with average 55 + another 40 Tests with average 50 --> Inferior career average

Batsman B : 80 Tests with average 55

Here Batsman A did everything which batsman B could do and then added another 40 tests with gun output. I will take batsman A simply looking at this way.

Off course, this kind of comparison holds true for players playing in the same era. Older era players didn't had chance to play 150 tests. So across eras comparison this way is not meaningful.

About having some cut off, you are right. You can't keep very high cut off because not many batsmen are going to play that many tests. So for fun comparisons, we do need to stick with some cut off based on era.
 
Sachin136 said:
Who said that there has to be a threshold? Is there a threshold for batting average, so after an average of 50 it doesn’t matter much? The most tests you play the more difficult it is to maintain a high standard. Playing those 50 more tests at a high level is very important. The fact that no one else has been able to do it for so long makes it an even more valuable feat.
Click to expand...

Marshall took only 376 wickets in 81 tests. Still he is considered the one of the best bowlers ever. Which is why, beyond a certain threshold longevity doesn't mean much. How you perform in your best 10 years is often much more important than how long you perform, because it is in these peak 10 years you win matches for your team. A very long career is good for the individual for breaking personal milestones but usually only 10-12 best years matter to the team's cause.
 
Buffet said:
In most real situations it's like this:

Batsman A : 80 Tests with average 55 + another 40 Tests with average 50 --> Inferior career average

Batsman B : 80 Tests with average 55

Here Batsman A did everything which batsman B could do and then added another 40 tests with gun output. I will take batsman A simply looking at this way.

Off course, this kind of comparison holds true for players playing in the same era. Older era players didn't had chance to play 150 tests. So across eras comparison this way is not meaningful.

About having some cut off, you are right. You can't keep very high cut off because not many batsmen are going to play that many tests. So for fun comparisons, we do need to stick with some cut off based on era.
Click to expand...

80 tests is too few for batsmen in this era, that I agree.

For longer careers: During the last 40 tests, batsman A might be producing substandard output and might be reducing his team's chances of winning (if his career average dropped from 55 to 50 in 40 tests, he would not be doing very well). Or, he might be blocking the place of promising youngsters. In this respect B looks better.
 
IndianWillow said:
Marshall took only 376 wickets in 81 tests. Still he is considered the one of the best bowlers ever. Which is why, beyond a certain threshold longevity doesn't mean much. How you perform in your best 10 years is often much more important than how long you perform, because it is in these peak 10 years you win matches for your team. A very long career is good for the individual for breaking personal milestones but usually only 10-12 best years matter to the team's cause.
Click to expand...

If you happen to play another 50 tests outside of your best 10 years and those 50 tests output is world class then why it won't matter? Surely, those world class 50 extra tests will help your team greatly. It's not like all teams are filled with 11 world class players.

Marshall played as much as other players used to play in his era and then maintained an extremely high standards in his entire career. That's why he is rated high. 376 wickets in 81 tests is not a low number for his era.
 
Where's [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] .. Did he got banned? Would have loved to read his reaction on this thread.
 
Bilal7 said:
You don't have to go on forever. This is solely the player's decision and if he plays the last 20-30 tests of his career as a burden on the team, holding back better players, in order to break certain records, then it should a legitimate criticism of them. It isn't even about fitness because so many players retire when they are quite fit, but because they know that they won't be able to keep performing, retirement comes earlier.
Click to expand...
Agree with this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buffet
Joe Root versus Hashim Amla in the Test format
2
Replies
158
Views
8K
atreus
atreus
atreus
  • Poll Poll
Ricky Ponting vs Hashim Amla – Who was the superior Test batter?
Replies
39
Views
2K
atreus
atreus
BouncerGuy
[PICTURE] ICC Test Team of the Year (2024) announced
Replies
48
Views
2K
charlie007
C
FearlessRoar
India bowling icon Jasprit Bumrah named ICC Men’s Test Cricketer of the Year 2024
Replies
43
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Savak
Resume of the 90's team vs Resume of the 2003 team onwards
Replies
61
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
Back
Top