Originally Posted by Smith
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.
That's got nothing to do with my point that if he was an Australian player, obviously his career would have been completely different, and while I agree that that amount of talent would have meant he would have been a fantastic player, its a bit of a stretch to say he would have been better by that margin simply because he had better players around him. The environment which was formative for him in international cricket would have been completely different, and it wouldn't have been the same Sachin.
You might be right - equally you might be wrong. Just think its a bit simplistic to state that as a fact. Or to ignore the negatives that would have occurred for Sachin in that move. Do you think he would have been the player he was in Indian conditions if he was Australian? You can no more say "the grass would have been greener" than you can cherry pick a player's record.