• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Batsmen who deserved 50 test avg

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Some people might try to manufacture words to mean what they'd like them to mean, but hijacking means putting a stop to a method of transport and stealing from it. None of which can happen to a thread.
Its not exactly putting a stop to the thread. Its taking control of it and steering it in a direction that was not the intended one originally. The thread doesn't come to a full stop cause there's still some discussion going on, but it isn't reaching its intended destination either, because of the change in course that leads it on a path of circular arguments. See, it can neither stop, nor can it go ahead where it needed to. There was a movie about it once. I think it was called "The thread that couldn't slow down".
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think that also sums-up the likes of Ponting, Kallis, Chanderpaul etc. as well. And I'd say that had their entire careers fallen between 1985 and 2001, they'd have done precisely that. Mid-to-late 40s and no better.
The point about Chanderpaul is more that he was picked very early as a result of being a West Indian at a very weak time for batting there. I personally don't doubt that over the second half of his career he's been out of the very top drawer of batsmen, and would have averaged 50+ in any generation if he'd played his matches when he was at or close to his peak (which has been a very significant amount of time indeed). In 79 matches since 1999 he averages 54.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
He wasn't really exposed in 2004, given he played pretty much one of the two best knocks of the entire series.
Two best??. Hmm well i'd definately have Clarke's debut century & Sehwag hundred in Chennai ahead of it. So probably third best for fluency in the entire series.

2004 was the only time since probably 99/00 in AUS where Laxman's big weakness of him lacking much footwork was exposed him being bowled between the gate, caught behind a few times, plus his strenght of scoring through mid-wicket was well cut out.

No other team in his career has been able to expose him technically & block out his bread & butter short simulatenously.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Laxman and Tendulkar's innings' at the Wankhede > any other innings' that series, for my money.

I suppose the Sehwag 165 you could argue, though I've never looked 100% into whether it was chanceless or not.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Its not exactly putting a stop to the thread. Its taking control of it and steering it in a direction that was not the intended one originally. The thread doesn't come to a full stop cause there's still some discussion going on, but it isn't reaching its intended destination either, because of the change in course that leads it on a path of circular arguments. See, it can neither stop, nor can it go ahead where it needed to. There was a movie about it once. I think it was called "The thread that couldn't slow down".
Basically, anyone can post anything in a thread (as long as it's about cricket obviously) and that's absolutely fine. No post stops someone else posting something or replying to an earlier post.

The idea of "hijacking" threads - if you try to change the meaning to "steering it in a direction that was not the intended one originally" or "deliberately transporting a thread off-topic to suit ones own obcessions (sic)" - is one of the most stupid I've ever come accross and the identity of those who try to throw around the accusation (there's a few) is never much of a surprise. No post can possibly stop another person from posting whatever they want to, so no-one can influence what type of discussion other posters indulge in.

EDIT: BTW: .................
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The point about Chanderpaul is more that he was picked very early as a result of being a West Indian at a very weak time for batting there. I personally don't doubt that over the second half of his career he's been out of the very top drawer of batsmen, and would have averaged 50+ in any generation if he'd played his matches when he was at or close to his peak (which has been a very significant amount of time indeed). In 79 matches since 1999 he averages 54.
Chanderpaul may have debuted at a very young age (still didn't stop him from being up to the job mind, he was just an early developer) but he was the same way for a good few years. And as I say, and always say whenever the subject of a batsman whose scoring took a massive upturn at the exact same point quite a few others' did, it's far too much to be coincidence.

That Chanderpaul's scoring would've gone up at some point in his career I don't doubt. I'm absolutely certain he's a better player than an average of 39-40 (which was what it was up to August 2001). However, there's absolutely no way in my book that he'd have averaged 60-70 for 6-7 years, any more than Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, etc. (even Dravid is included here, and he averaged 52 up to August 2001) would have done. There have been pretty well no occasions in Test history outside the 1930s when a whole host of batsmen have done that, starting at the exact same point. And any batsman who formed a part of this group I always regard their "improvement" to the extent it's apparant at with extreme suspicion.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Chanderpaul may have debuted at a very young age (still didn't stop him from being up to the job mind, he was just an early developer) but he was the same way for a good few years. And as I say, and always say whenever the subject of a batsman whose scoring took a massive upturn at the exact same point quite a few others' did, it's far too much to be coincidence.

That Chanderpaul's scoring would've gone up at some point in his career I don't doubt. I'm absolutely certain he's a better player than an average of 39-40 (which was what it was up to August 2001). However, there's absolutely no way in my book that he'd have averaged 60-70, any more than Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, etc. (even Dravid is included here, and he averaged 52 up to August 2001) would have done. There have been pretty well no occasions in Test history outside the 1930s when a whole host of batsmen have done that, starting at the exact same point. And any batsman who formed a part of this group I always regard their "improvement" to the extent it's apparant at with extreme suspicion.
It's only my opinion that of those averaging highly in world cricket at the minute, Chanderpaul is the one i consider most likely to have succeeded in a tougher era. It's a personal conclusion from watching him when having to deal with excellent bowlers, tough conditions and a great deal of pressure over the past few years.
 

ohtani's jacket

State Vice-Captain
At the end of the day, you average what you average. I don't think it makes a difference whether you average in the high 40s or low 50s, then again I don't think batsmen are cashing in against low quality bowling as much as people make out.

I will say it would've been nice if Stephen Fleming had scored 10 Test centuries.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's only my opinion that of those averaging highly in world cricket at the minute, Chanderpaul is the one i consider most likely to have succeeded in a tougher era. It's a personal conclusion from watching him when having to deal with excellent bowlers, tough conditions and a great deal of pressure over the past few years.
Well I'd have put the Dravid who disappeared possibly never to return in June 2006 above him, but yeah, apart from that I'd have absolutely no question about that either. Chanderpaul > Kallis, Ponting etc. in terms of who I'd back to succeed most in consistently tough batting conditions.

However, as I say - I think that had, in September 2001, things remained as they had been for 30 years rather than changing drastically, Chanderpaul would not have averaged 60 for the last 7 years. 50-51-52 at best. I guess that'd have put his career average at around about 45.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I think that also sums-up the likes of Ponting, Kallis, Chanderpaul etc. as well. And I'd say that had their entire careers fallen between 1985 and 2001, they'd have done precisely that. Mid-to-late 40s and no better.
I obviously completely disagree. Kallis and Ponting are rare talents that would have had exceptional records in any era.


The best player that I've seen play who averaged less than 50 was Martin Crowe.
I pretty much agree with that. There maybe someone Ive forgotten but Crowe is right up there.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I obviously completely disagree. Kallis and Ponting are rare talents that would have had exceptional records in any era.
Hick was a rare talent too. Being a rare talent does not neccessarily equal having even a good record, never mind an exceptional one.

That Kallis and Ponting were better than the early-40s averages they sported up to August 2001 is not something I doubt. That they'd have averaged 70 for 6-7 years had pitches not gotten flatter and bowling weaker is.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well I'd have put the Dravid who disappeared possibly never to return in June 2006 above him, but yeah, apart from that I'd have absolutely no question about that either. Chanderpaul > Kallis, Ponting etc. in terms of who I'd back to succeed most in consistently tough batting conditions.

However, as I say - I think that had, in September 2001, things remained as they had been for 30 years rather than changing drastically, Chanderpaul would not have averaged 60 for the last 7 years. 50-51-52 at best. I guess that'd have put his career average at around about 45.
Yeah, Dravid's above him but i didn't include him because he's not doing well just now. I think he'll retire after this match.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Crowe and Gilchrist IMO. Gilly went for too long but he was as devestating as any batsman .
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Don't think Inzimam is in this category, if he can't average 50 when he played a big chunk of games in Pakistan where the pitches are generally pretty dead then he doesn't deserve to average 50.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Has anyone mentioned WG?

I'd go as far as to say he deserved to average exactly 99.94
In WG's day Test cricket was sufficiently unimportant for it to not be of enormous significance, though, no?

Think it was Matthew Engel who described 19th-century international cricket as "inchoate and haphazard".
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Basically, anyone can post anything in a thread (as long as it's about cricket obviously) and that's absolutely fine. No post stops someone else posting something or replying to an earlier post.

The idea of "hijacking" threads - if you try to change the meaning to "steering it in a direction that was not the intended one originally" or "deliberately transporting a thread off-topic to suit ones own obcessions (sic)" - is one of the most stupid I've ever come accross and the identity of those who try to throw around the accusation (there's a few) is never much of a surprise. No post can possibly stop another person from posting whatever they want to, so no-one can influence what type of discussion other posters indulge in.

EDIT: BTW: .................
I'd argue that, but I'd be hijacking the thread :ph34r:

I'm amazed at both the coincidence and your memory btw.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rest assured, you're far from the only one to be amazed by my memory - I've been notorious among friends for it for a good few years now. :p

And no, you wouldn't be hijacking the thread. :dry: Though you would be having off-topic discussions, given that a discussion about this should be had in SD not CC.
 
Last edited:

Top