Originally Posted by Matt79
For me, the reasons why he got injured are a completely separate reason to how highly I rate him. I said that he had valid reasons for much of the time he was below his peak, but all players have issues to deal with. Those things can be taken into account in a detailed specific examination of a player, but in terms of the merits or otherwise of a career batting average as an indication of their quality, it becomes self-defeating to start tinkering with what an average should be, and unfair if you only give that treatment to favourites.
Equally, some of the points that you cite as adversely affecting Tendulkar could also be argued to have benefitted him. Yes, he played a stack of cricket at times - some of those times were when he was in the very peak of his form, and that's probably helped his career record - in career terms he got to extract maximum benefit out of the times he was at his peak. It almost certainly did contribute to a degree of burn out later on, but he definitely got to make hay while the sun shined.
If he'd played for Australia, he would have been a very different player, so its a bit speculative to say he would have definitely been better. And guys like Lara, Steve Waugh and Allan Border all dealt with periods where their team mates let them down badly.
He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.