In the final over of Day 2 of the Boxing Day Test Alastair Cook brought up his 32nd Test century in typical Cook fashion.
There were a couple of glances to his favoured leg side to move him through the 90s as well as a crunching trademark pull shot to bring up the three figures.
By the end of Day 3 Alastair was truly cooking. An authoritative straight drive, arguably the shot of the match to that point, past a hapless Jackson Bird early in the evening session saw him notch up the fifth double century of a sparkling career.
Along the way he leapfrogged Mahela Jayawardene, then Shivnarine Chanderpaul and finally Brian Lara to move into sixth on the all-time list of Test leading run-scorers; posted the highest score ever by a touring batsman on the MCG; and became one of the select few visitors to post a ton at each of Australia’s five primary Test venues.
With the fall of James Anderson’s wicket early on Day 4 he became the first English opening batsman since Michael Atherton in 1997 to carry his bat through an innings and the first since Geoffrey Boycott in 1979 to do so in an Ashes series.
Despite these impressive statistics and imposing records he is rarely spoken of with the gusto and awe of many of his modern contemporaries or the other players present in the top ten run-scorers.
(Nick Potts/PA Wire.)
Indeed many Australians on social media or in bar room discussion will speak of Cook with scorn and derision. They will mock his weakness outside off stump early in his innings and proceed to dismiss the often attritional nature of his batting when he gets through that period. They will recall and laugh at his performances as batsman and captain in the face of Mitchell Johnson’s onslaught in the 2013-14 Ashes series.
Perhaps some of them have a point. The 2013-14 Ashes series was a disaster, with Cook’s performance as captain ignominious. He is in the habit of nudging around and nicking off while getting settled at the crease, and he certainly doesn’t have the flair of a Lara, the class of a Jayawardene or the relentless counter attacking spirit of a Ricky Ponting.
What he does have, however, is a patience to outlast any fast bowler – he gives the impression that he would fancy watching paint dry just to prove that he could – a fierce determination to protect his wicket by any means necessary and a hunger for occupying the crease for long periods of time. Often his batting is as implacably stubborn as a sauce stain in an apron of his namesake, all done with a class and understatement indicative of the type of character he is off the field.
Never was this more prominent than during the 2010-11 Ashes series in Australia. He simply batted and batted and batted, outlasting anything that the Australian bowlers threw at him while defying any plan cooked up deep in the bowels of the Australian HQ. His 766 runs at 127.66 were deserving of man of the series honours and pivotal in securing England a first away Ashes win since 1986/87.
It is a series that many Australians have conveniently and quite understandably wiped from their memory when it comes to the Cook conversation. Of course one excellent series is not enough to consider someone among the best ever, but for Cook this was simply his magnum opus in a career that leaves him deserving of being considered one of the all-time greats.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
No doubt Cook is a very good player but the term being thrown around in this post is "all time great". He simply isn't. For players having played 100 test innings, Cook is outside the top 50 averages. He has performed well against Australia and one has to respect him for that, but averaging 46.5 on modern pitches just isn't deserving of "all time great" status.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Cook isn't in the top 30 of centuries per innings in test cricket. He just sneaks into the top 20 of test averages for English players. He might not even make a second XI all time English team. Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe are way ahead of Cook and Boycott is at least his equal so you may need to rethink what you measure greatness by. Or is Alec Stewart one of England's best test batsmen too?
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
I never said Gavaskar wasn't an all-time great. I said he just makes the grade and Cook is way below him as far as greatness is concerned. Richie Benaud's list is hardly the fount of wisdom on all players great. He had his favourites and they made the list. The one thing we agree about is Gavaskar over Tendulkar. I rate both highly and they were greats of their respective era's.
Stanley
Guest
Gavaskar doesn’t rate as an all time great? Are you for real!? I think the fact Richie Benaud named him in his all time world XI says enough. In my opinion he is better than Tendulkar.
Not so super
Guest
Only if you count number of matches By your reckoning Anderson is better than DK lillee and curtly
Jesse
Roar Rookie
Thanks James! I appreciate the feedback and it's definitely encouraging that there seems to be at least a couple of people who liked it and thought it a topic worthy of discussion. I will definitely attempt to contribute more pieces in the future.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Gavaskar opened for almost his entire career, averaged 51 scoring 34 centuries. That's 2 more than Cook from 59 less test innings. However, even Gavaskar barely rates as an all-time great. Cook isn't even close. He will end his career as a very good and consistent run-scorer, who played in an era where players played more test cricket. Cook in 12 years has played 151 tests. Gavaskar, in 17 years, played 125 tests. All-time greats don't average 46-47 which Cook has almost his entire career, after a very positive start to test cricket. I have always liked and respected Cook, but the "legend" or "all time great" tag is too much. Cook's career is still impressive, especially his away average and centuries.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
To truly judge the greats of all-time, runs scored need to be considered in line with the number of tests played. Cook has played in a modern era where far more tests are played, along with Tendulkar, Ponting. Kallis, Sangakkara and Dravid, to name a few. Batting average and test hundreds per innings are a far truer measure of a batsman's greatness. Cook's performances over a lengthy career are impressive but many of the former greats had similar length careers with less than half the number of tests played. Jack Hobb's test career lasted 22 years (with 5 years lost for WWI), and he played a mere 61 tests. He did score 15 test tons and averaged 56.95, cementing his place among the all-time greats. Len Hutton's career spanned 19 years (with 7 years lost for WWII), and he scored 19 tons averaging 56.67 form only 79 tests. Cook is 11th on the all-time list of test century scorers but doesn't make the top 30 list when hundreds per innings are considered. Cook would rate closely with Boycott on the list of best English openers, significantly behind Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton and Herbert Sutcliffe. Using nothing more than runs scored as a measure is so flawed that currently Alec Stewart is the third highest English test run scorer, with 8463 runs at an average under 40, over his 14 year career. Ken Barrington's 14 year career produced only 6806 runs, but at 58.67. I know which is the all-time great out of those two... Cook is one of England's very best in the past 60 years but he is no Walter Hammond. Just runs scored isn't enough unless you rate Stewart ahead of the others I have mentioned. Of course, he isn't and neither is Cook. Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe top the all- time great list of English batsmen with Denis Compton slightly beneath them. Cook another level down but still a very good player. On par with Kevin Pietersen and Geoff Boycott, although far easier for the MCC to work with than that pair.
Bearfax
Roar Guru
Any research into opening batsmen will reveal that there are over a dozen test batsmen with better averages as openers than Cook. Just to demonstrate Sutcliffe 61 Hutton 56 Hobbs 56 Ponsford 54 Hayden 51 Katich 50 Gavaskar 50 Sehwag 50 Amiss 54 Warner 50 Langer 48 Boycott 48 Lawry 47 And there are others. These are all players when they played only in the opening position. Meanwhile Cook is averaging 46. The only reason Cook is being lauded is because of the number of runs he has scored, but then he's played a lot more innings than most of those players. He's just fortunate that during his period England played a lot more tests.
Jacko
Guest
Well he has scored 33 centries...that puts him in the top ten ever...and most of the others are not openers..so definately top 3-4 openers EVER......Seems like a great of the game from any nationality's perspective
Jacko
Guest
thats the whole point tho isnt it?????/ How can you say because a no 4 has a better average then he can be a great of the game but Cook cant be because he is an opener...and openers average less in general because of the pitch conditions. By your own words he ranks high among openers so therefore mustbe a great of the game with 32 centries as an opener...Not to mention the highest ever score for an opener carrying his bat Definately proves he is a great
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
If you average over 40 against Australia over a long period, you are a great player. No doubt about it. Whenever I browse Cricinfo's statsguru career summaries, I'm surprised over how many supposed great players have done poorly against us. Cook is one that has, so kudos to him.
Big Daddy
Guest
Only if your a pommie is he an all time great. But you Have to hand it to him he has been a constant thorn in our sides over the years.
paul
Guest
I think Cook, in several series, WAS great, but that tag no longer appiies. If you take away his 244 from his current aggregate, the guy has scored just over 100 runs in 6 innings and his figures were similar in his most recent home series against South Africa and the West Indies. I completely agree with all your comments about his patience, technique and longevity in the game, and he should be remembered as a terrific opener, but even English pundits don't talk about him as they do about guys like Hobbs & Sutcliffe. Maybe they will when he retires but for now, he's seen as a very good Test opener who might have had better days.
Bearfax
Roar Guru
A very fine opening test batsmen, but no way an all time great. He has scored more runs than most because he's played more innings than most. His average though is little better than 46, which does not place him near the very top all time batmen. Comparing aggregates without looking at averages is pointless. Otherwise we would be saying Greg Chappell was superior to Bradman because he scored 114 more runs overall than Bradman. Of course one has a test average of 54 and played 151 test innings while the other averaged 100 and played 80 innings Sorry, but Cook is a test level opening batsmen, who probably ranks fairly high in the all time best openers. But he's no where near the greats of the game
James Jackson
Guest
Also great article, you should do more! :)
James Jackson
Guest
Cook is indeed an all-time great - his longevity is so impressive, but what's most amazing is how early in his career he figured out his own game. Anyone who trys to downplay his place in the game just needs to look at how many runs he's scored.
jamesb
Guest
He still has a couple of good years left. He could reach 14,000 test runs before he calls it a day. I don't think he will catch Sachin.
Jumbo
Guest
Good article. Cook has also batted against the new ball for his entire career, unlike the likes of Tendulkar, Kallis, etc