KP is Eng's best player ever--Vaughan

you figure this now Vaughan?....
we ( or atleast I knew this for long)
or are you simply reitertaing

He's in a different league, he's a freak. In my opinion he's the best ever England player. I've thought that for the last couple of years. I think he can change a game like no other, play shots like not many of us could, and he's got that wow factor. I don't remember any other player that would be able to walk out to the crowd and just perform. I don't ever remember a player like that. We've had great players like Gooch, the Boycotts of the world have been terrific, but I think Pietersen has the lot. He has that box office appeal. You saw that on day five. He just loves the big stage.


Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/former-england-captain-michael-vaughan-gives-his-verdict-on-day-five-of-the-fifth-ashes-test/story-e6frf3gl-1226703916532#ixzz2d3MCj9ec

Nah, would probably still be Fred Trueman.

Duty281 wrote:Nah, would probably still be Fred Trueman.

few have seen Trueman...as he was largely before the TV era.
so hard to analyse these greats from the ancient eras.


So after Trueman you'd agree it is KP ?

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nah, would probably still be Fred Trueman.

few have seen Trueman...as he was largely before the TV era.
so hard to analyse these greats from the ancient eras.


So after Trueman you'd agree it is KP ?

Not so much of the ancient , youngster ! I remember Trueman very well  

Fantastic bowler. But there have been a few others that could play a bit... Chap called Botham had his moments. May , Barrington...Grace was a bit before my time  

Agree KP is a wonderful batsman...in fact perhaps the only thing you and I will ever agree on  

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nah, would probably still be Fred Trueman.

few have seen Trueman...as he was largely before the TV era.
so hard to analyse these greats from the ancient eras.


So after Trueman you'd agree it is KP ?

Probably have to go through quite a few names before I got to KP.

A number have had this tremendous rapport with the crowd and were exciting, and regular match winners - Compton (Denis, that is), Botham, Trueman and - at times - Flintoff.
  Further back, Jack Hobbs was adored and utterly dependable. Hammond must have been a sight in full flow. Peter May was a great batsman.
  I reckon with KP you get that rarity - the match-winning batsman. You get plenty of matches that are won by bowlers, but few by batsmen. Ironically, until the very last innings of the series, KP's best knocks have come in match-saving situations, although arguably his 60-odd at Nottingham was crucial in the win there.

To me surely Botham is at the top of the tree.

then there was Flintoff who at his peak ( whihc was probably 2.5 years) he was great

and now there is KP...above Flintoff but below Botham.

I do not have a feel for ones who came before Botham though

Grace
Barnes
Hobbs
Hammond
Hutton
Compton
May
Barrington
Trueman
Botham

Probably rank them all (and possibly some others), ahead of KP. Not saying KP isn't very good, just not the greatest.

I'd put Cook above KP as well. And a few others.

I think that Vaughan puts KP into the category of a player who can be totally devastating and, being an attacking player himself, Vaughan loves to see a guy who can really crash it around.
Hoggy Bear's excellent list above comprises all-time England greats and few would argue with the names chosen. Barrington's name might raise some eyebrows but he averaged more than 58 for England at a time of uncovered wickets and his average against Australia was even higher, I think.
Perhaps too early to judge whether KP, or even Cook, has a place among the greats. Could be that Anderson will be on the list ere long. Some might say he should be there already.

Vaughan has been a member of the "I *heart* KP" fanclub for years now, so Im not quite suprised that he has lavished such praise on KP. I disagree and heres why:

1) The mechanics of cricket mean that the best players in teams are generally bowlers, since they are the match-winners. Thus I dont think you can look past a bowler, or a very skilled all-rounder (stand up Beefy) for the Greatest slot.

b) Lets be real - KP isnt even the best batsman in the English team, he is behind Captain Cook and I dont think that will change.

Our best batsman in the modern era, yes.

I don't know whether Kevin Pietersen is the greatest ever England cricketer. But what I know is that he's a mighty fine batsman, and a real matchwinning batsman. A batsman capable of playing extraordinary strokes against the very best bowlers, and despite being a stroke player, he has maintained a high average, and he's becoming more adaptable as well. A terrific batsman, and one of the best in the world at the moment.

I think he's the greatest. Just has everything. Certainly has entered the pantheon, anyway.

For Kingraf to suggest Ali Cook is a better batsman - that's surely a wind up, right?

Fists of Fury wrote:I think he's the greatest. Just has everything. Certainly has entered the pantheon, anyway.

For Kingraf to suggest Ali Cook is a better batsman - that's surely a wind up, right?

Cook is a better batsman though.

In what way, exactly?

Statistically? No.
Aesthetically? No.
Range of strokes? No.
In almost single handedly winning the odd game? No.

Cook is a fine opening batsman, but he isn't as good a player as KP. He might appear more consistent on the face of things because he works hard at a limited game and does so with immense discipline, but where one could cite KP's tendencies to get out against left arm spin, or to get out in a meek manner from time to time, so one could cite Cook's weakness against swing bowling and his tendency to prod at those well outside off or going across him.

They're two of England's finest, but KP operates in a different league in terms of ability.

Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Duty281 wrote:Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Maybe by runs scored but possibly not by average.

Kevin Pietersen is so far away from being England's best ever player as to make this discussion laughable.

He is a very good player, but certainly not an all time great. In an era where the bat dominates the ball he is averaging some way below the true greats of the modern era Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis.

On his day he can be great - but these days happen far less often than some would have you believe.

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Maybe by runs scored but possibly not by average.

Who knows, Pietersens averages in Test and ODI cricket are falling quite markedly.

LondonTiger wrote:

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Maybe by runs scored but possibly not by average.

Who knows, Pietersens averages in Test and ODI cricket are falling quite markedly.

So are Cook's in tests, anyway. I reckon they'll be similar.

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Maybe by runs scored but possibly not by average.

About half a run separates them right now, so it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine that Cook can finish with a better average.

PS,

To put Vaughan's comments into some kind of context. I am led to believe that there is some management/agent agreement/link present.

Neither Vaughan (also represents Joe Root) nor Stewart (represents Bell) shoudl be allowed to make glowing comments on the beeb about "their" players.

Duty281 wrote:

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Statistically yes. At least, by the time they both finish their careers, Cook will have better stats than Pietersen.

Maybe by runs scored but possibly not by average.

About half a run separates them right now, so it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine that Cook can finish with a better average.

I said possibly. A couple of runs here and there is nothing anyway. Lara averaged less than Kallis, Sanga and some more but he's better than all of them.

Easy sometimes to forget how often the team factor comes into batting. If you're batting at 4 or 5 and the early batting is putting the opposition the sword then it's so much easier than coming in at 20-3.
That's where Lara's record is so interesting. Apart from his early years, he generally played in poor West Indies sides that were over-dependent on his batting. Yet he, as Pietersen has done, produced match-winning innings.
I would put Lara ahead of Tendulkar as the best Test batsman of the last 25 years for this very reason. Ponting and Kallis are two other greats. But all the last three were helped by having strong batting line ups alongside them. This is in no way to take away their achievements, though.

Average isn't everything, either. English players will always have a lesser average than those of a similar ability to themselves from say India or Australia, where conditions are far more batsman friendly.

F of Fury. To add to your point, the averages of, say, the last 10 years have been slightly inflated by the excellence of the wickets and the quality of the bowling. (I accept there are some great bowlers around but not as many as of yore)
  Atherton, for example, has a seemingly modest Test average but would, IMHO, be around 7-10 points higher if he was playing in this era.
  Conversely, I would "knock off" around 7-10 average points for today's players if they were playing, say, in the 1980s and 1990s.
  England players in the 80s and 90s would often have to play not just 5-Test series against the Aussie and Windies greats but six Tests. No wonder Atherton made 20 Test ducks. You had to be a truly great player to average 50 in those days, yet a number are over 50 at the moment.

I don't agree with this average altering business I'm afraid, Sir Fred.

Some fine bowlers operate today and have done so in the last ten years, and whilst it is easy to suggest those of yore were better (they may have been), you must also remember that the standard of fielding and fitness of the players was frankly abysmal in comparison. Likewise, the means of using technology to identify every last little weakness in a batsman was absent.

With that in mind, I think it has evened itself out and averages remain as they have always done.

Fists of Fury wrote:I don't agree with this average altering business I'm afraid, Sir Fred.

Some fine bowlers operate today and have done so in the last ten years, and whilst it is easy to suggest those of yore were better (they may have been), you must also remember that the standard of fielding and fitness of the players was frankly abysmal in comparison. Likewise, the means of using technology to identify every last little weakness in a batsman was absent.

With that in mind, I think it has evened itself out and averages remain as they have always done.

The figures don't suggest that though, certainly compared to the 80's and 90's.

Averages might have gone up in recent times, but the factors that Fists mentioned are quite relevant in any comparison. I would say a 7-8 point difference is far too high.

msp83 wrote:Averages might have gone up in recent times, but the factors that Fists mentioned are quite relevant in any comparison. I would say a 7-8 point difference is far too high.

Yep, maybe 3-4. I see fists point, but numbers don't lie, well.................

Stella wrote:

msp83 wrote:Averages might have gone up in recent times, but the factors that Fists mentioned are quite relevant in any comparison. I would say a 7-8 point difference is far too high.

Yep, maybe 3-4. I see fists point, but numbers don't lie, well.................

Would think 3-4 is fair enough.

Duty281 wrote:I'd put Cook above KP as well. And a few others.

LOL.

Duty281 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:I think he's the greatest. Just has everything. Certainly has entered the pantheon, anyway.

For Kingraf to suggest Ali Cook is a better batsman - that's surely a wind up, right?

Cook is a better batsman though.

 

When has Cook ever performed against an attack of the quality of Mcgrath, Warne, Lee and co? Or Steyn? More often than not he has struggled against quality pace attacks at home.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I'd put Cook above KP as well. And a few others.

LOL.

What an incredibly informative post.

Fists of Fury wrote:In what way, exactly?

Statistically? No.
Aesthetically? No.
Range of strokes? No.
In almost single handedly winning the odd game? No.

Cook is a fine opening batsman, but he isn't as good a player as KP. He might appear more consistent on the face of things because he works hard at a limited game and does so with immense discipline, but where one could cite KP's tendencies to get out against left arm spin, or to get out in a meek manner from time to time, so one could cite Cook's weakness against swing bowling and his tendency to prod at those well outside off or going across him.

They're two of England's finest, but KP operates in a different league in terms of ability.

I'm not even sure he is more consistent. Has struggled consistently vs quality attacks. Australia 2009, Pakistan 2010, Pakistan 2011/12, South Africa 2012, Australia 2013. Looked a bit dodgy in NZ too. Has done well vs us and SL basically. And of course, that remarkable Ashes in 2010/11. Not to take anything away from him but that he's consistent is a bit of a myth. He has had a few really big series, which make up for his poor ones. Thats not a sign of consistency but rather an indication that he makes optimum use of his "purple patches" (which is a really good quality to have, of course but its different from consistency). He still remains a fine player but not in the same league as KP, Amla, etc IMO.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:In what way, exactly?

Statistically? No.
Aesthetically? No.
Range of strokes? No.
In almost single handedly winning the odd game? No.

Cook is a fine opening batsman, but he isn't as good a player as KP. He might appear more consistent on the face of things because he works hard at a limited game and does so with immense discipline, but where one could cite KP's tendencies to get out against left arm spin, or to get out in a meek manner from time to time, so one could cite Cook's weakness against swing bowling and his tendency to prod at those well outside off or going across him.

They're two of England's finest, but KP operates in a different league in terms of ability.

I'm not even sure he is more consistent. Has struggled consistently vs quality attacks. Australia 2009, Pakistan 2010, Pakistan 2011/12, South Africa 2012, Australia 2013. Looked a bit dodgy in NZ too. Has done well vs us and SL basically. And of course, that remarkable Ashes in 2010/11. Not to take anything away from him but that he's consistent is a bit of a myth. He has had a few really big series, which make up for his poor ones. Thats not a sign of consistency but rather an indication that he makes optimum use of his "purple patches" (which is a really good quality to have, of course but its different from consistency). He still remains a fine player but not in the same league as KP, Amla, etc IMO.

Us?  

Didn't you used to be the "biggestengfan" or was that my incredibly bright imagination?

To sum it up, Cook is a player who hits some incredible peaks but also has quite a few troughs. Thats not consistency. Still a very good player though.

ShankyCricket wrote:To sum it up, Cook is a player who hits some incredible peaks but also has quite a few troughs. Thats not consistency. Still a very good player though.

You have also summed up Kevin Pietersen there as well.

Duty281 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:To sum it up, Cook is a player who hits some incredible peaks but also has quite a few troughs. Thats not consistency. Still a very good player though.

You have also summed up Kevin Pietersen there as well.

Not really. KP hasn't dominated an individual series (apart from India 2011) in the manner Cook has but apart from the UAE, has been pretty consistent with his contributions unlike Cook, who struggled vs SA last summer and Australia in this series.

That we can have such a debate about whether Cook or Pietersen is better surely magnifies the insanity of claiming Pietersen is the best ever England player.

Personally I would argue that Jimmy Anderson's performances stack up better when compared to Pietersen. He is nowhere near England's best ever player though, either.

An impossible question to answer really. Many will still say Grace, some, Hobbs, others Botham, Trueman, Hammond.

Being diplomatic, I'd say he's one of our best players of the last 30 years. Nobody can argue with that  

One of, but still some way behind ITB.

Good point I think I missed with my thoughts about the averages was the effect of DRS. Rather knocking down my own argument, I could say that batsman now are more likely to be out than in the past as few get away with the the kind of LBWs or faint snicks that the DRS is revealing.
Of course, it's worked the other way with the bowlers. DRS has has helped Swann, and others, get their just rewards, while before the umpire would praps have given the batsman the benefit of the doubt.
Same with run outs. Too-close-to-call-and-therefore-not out has been replaced with a review.

sirfredperry wrote:Good point I think I missed with my thoughts about the averages was the effect of DRS. Rather knocking down my own argument, I could say that batsman now are more likely to be out than in the past as few get away with the the kind of LBWs or faint snicks that the DRS is revealing.
  Of course, it's worked the other way with the bowlers. DRS has has helped Swann, and others, get their just rewards, while before the umpire would praps have given the batsman the benefit of the doubt.
  Same with run outs. Too-close-to-call-and-therefore-not out has been replaced with a review.

I think Hawkeye even pre DRS helped Swann massively. Though TV coverage umpires got a new idea of what was likely to be hitting and the benefit of the doubt for batsmen diminished. All you used to have to do was get a big stride in and hardly ever be given out, over the last 10 years or so these are being given out more and more.

Can't remember the stats but I saw something once showing Swann has a very high % of lbw's, around 25%, whereas I think Emburey had a very low %, of 7 or 8%.

VTR - yeah, some of the old bowlers would have just loved DRS. They must look on a little enviously at the extra weapon that bowlers now have up their sleeve - if they know when to use it!

sirfredperry wrote:VTR - yeah, some of the old bowlers would have just loved DRS. They must look on a little enviously at the extra weapon that bowlers now have up their sleeve - if they know when to use it!

While some old bowlers would love having DRS on their side, I doubt they would have given up home umpires for the privilege.

LondonTiger wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:VTR - yeah, some of the old bowlers would have just loved DRS. They must look on a little enviously at the extra weapon that bowlers now have up their sleeve - if they know when to use it!

While some old bowlers would love having DRS on their side, I doubt they would have given up home umpires for the privilege.

Not sure home umpires really helped England much. Surely some of those LBWs of Gooch by the hands of Alderman in 1989 were sliding down the legside?
When Bill Alley gave four LBWs before lunch against England in his first Test at Lord's in 1975, they say he appealed for one of them himself. Mind you, he was an Aussie.

Umpires are pretty fair, tbh. The only player I know who benefited from home umpires was Javed Miandad, who was never given out LBW, at home.

sirfredperry wrote:   I would put Lara ahead of Tendulkar as the best Test batsman of the last 25 years for this very reason. Ponting and Kallis are two other greats. But all the last three were helped by having strong batting line ups alongside them. This is in no way to take away their achievements, though.

Ponting was the feared batsmen in his team and Kallis only recently got a good batting line up. AT the beginning of his career Herscelle Gibbs and Kirsten were the only other good batsmen in the team and they averaged 43 odd. Kallis averaged almost 14 runs more than them. Kallis was basically the batting line up. Tendulkar has had Dravid, Sehwag and a few others that I would regard as better than who Kallis had. Kallis had a good bowling attack though, but so did Lara. And you really can't discount Ponting because he happened to be in one of the most successful teams in the history of the game, I would argue that that actually has to count in his favour.

Also look at how good Englands batting line up is now, but you don't see any of their batsmen being much better than the other batsmen in their team so I don't know how much weight this batting line-up argument has.

Back on topic, from who I can think Pietersen has the highest average in the modern era, but I think Cook and Bell are going to pass him soon. I do perceive KP as dangerous and talented, but I think he is going in the wrong direction to be considered the greatest in England when he retires.