Originally Posted by Richard
That just isn't what ANYONE says
. No-one has said it doesn't count. It's simply too much of a coincidence that so many players' scoring increased so rapidly at the exact same point for it to have been anything to do with batting improvement. Sure, Ponting was a better batsman in 2003 than 1999, but there's no way he was good enough to go from averaging 40 to averaging 70 (as he did). Nor is virtually anyone.
yourself. Toss a
in there for not reading my post properly as well.
Did I say it wasn't present, or didn't have an impact (even if I think you in particular are fond of dramatically overstating this impact)? No, what I said was that this change coincided with his improvement, which was essentially that he grew up and became comfortable with his game at test level - which is why he improved so dramatically. I'd say roughly, maybe 5 of the 30 points his average improved came from conditions, the other 25-odd runs improvement came from himself. But this can easily be lost if one takes a dogmatic approach to discounting players from this period because you've got rose-tinted glasses about cricket in the 90s.