Batsmen who deserved 50 test avg

[Xuhaib]

Was checking Shiv's test stats and I was glad to see him nearing 50 test avg, he mighty deserves it especially with the way he has played in the last few years.

So what are the other players you feel should have averaged atleast?

For me Inzi is one for certain while there could also be a case for Azhar and Gower.

 

[Richard]

Gower wasn't that good. Wonderful to watch, but not good enough to be averaging 50 against the bowlers he faced.

I often wonder how many batsmen who played between '71 and '01 who averaged 41-42 would've averaged 50+ had they played from '01 onwards. My bet's on 7 or 8 at the very least.

 

[inbox24]

Definitely Langer. Part of one of the best test opening partnerships, consistent, big innings player, the only thing that cost him was the blip at the beginning of his career.

 

[Uppercut]

King Viv

 

[Xuhaib]

Gower wasn't that good. Wonderful to watch, but not good enough to be averaging 50 against the bowlers he faced.

I often wonder how many batsmen who played between '71 and '01 who averaged 41-42 would've averaged 50+ had they played from '01 onwards. My bet's on 7 or 8 at the very least.

Ian Chappel , Martin Crowe,Gordon Grenidge, Arvinda, Saeed Anwar.

These are the ones I could think off.

 

[Xuhaib]

King Viv

 

[NUFAN]

Stuart Law.

He made 54* in his only innings, he just needed another innings!

 

[Richard]

Definitely Langer. Part of one of the best test opening partnerships, consistent, big innings player, the only thing that cost him was the blip at the beginning of his career.

Langer only averaged 48.30 against Test-class teams from the time he got a place in the side (1998/99) onwards.

Langer's also one of those exceptionally rare players who actually loses-out through sides (Bangladesh, ICC World XI, Zimbabwe-from-'03) being wrongly classed Test-playing.

 

[Craig]

Stuart Law.

He made 54* in his only innings, he just needed another innings!

 

[Flem274*]

Stephen Fleming. Just because. You can't prove me wrong either cause its a theoretical question.

In fact, Fleming deserved an average of 60. The extra 10 is for all the times he could have punched the rest of the top order but didn't.

I'd say Jamie How too but he already does...in ICC 2006 ODI cricket. Biggest England basher in existence.

 

[Richard]

Ian Chappel , Martin Crowe,Gordon Grenidge, Arvinda, Saeed Anwar.

These are the ones I could think off.

Yeah, all very, very possible. And probably quite a few besides.

Alvin Kallicharran, Dessie Haynes, Doug Walters, Gundappa Viswanath, Daryll Cullinan, David Boon, Glenn Turner, Richie Richardson, Mark Waugh. A few more.

POSSIBILITIES, CLEARLY NOTHING CAN BE CERTAINTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Flem274*]

POSSIBILITIES, CLEARLY NOTHING CAN BE CERTAINTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>insert witty reply here<

Trying to decide which one though, would you like an Atherton flavoured one, or a soppy luvy one, or perhaps a Matty Hayden one?

Oh, I think I deserve to average 50 in tests with the bat too btw.

 

[The Sean]

I often wonder how many batsmen who played between '71 and '01 who averaged 41-42 would've averaged 50+ had they played from '01 onwards. My bet's on 7 or 8 at the very least.

Ian Chappel , Martin Crowe,Gordon Grenidge, Arvinda, Saeed Anwar.

These are the ones I could think off.

Yeah, all very, very possible. And probably quite a few besides.

Alvin Kallicharran, Dessie Haynes, Doug Walters, Gundappa Viswanath, Daryll Cullinan, David Boon, Glenn Turner, Richie Richardson, Mark Waugh. A few more.

Graham Yallop.

A bit from left field, and I’m not saying he’s one of the all time greats or even in the class of the players listed above. But he was always a heavy scorer who was really uncomfortable only against top-class genuinely fast bowling, of which there just happened to be plenty around during his time. And despite this he still averaged 42. Against slow bowlers and medium pacers of variable quality he often scored prodigiously in both international and FC cricket and I reckon he would have cashed in big time against most of the trundlers we’ve seen in recent years, particularly on the roads they’ve had to bowl on.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

King Viv

I assume the thread refers to those who didn't average 50 but should have.
I don't agree with Gower, Greenidge or Ian Chappell. Maybe Neil Harvey.

 

[masterblaster]

VVS Laxman. Never had a lean patch other than the start of his career when he was very young and was always made to open the batting. He's been very consistent since that time and certainly is a player of top quality.

 

[iamdavid]

Yeah, all very, very possible. And probably quite a few besides.

Alvin Kallicharran, Dessie Haynes, Doug Walters, Gundappa Viswanath, Daryll Cullinan, David Boon, Glenn Turner, Richie Richardson, Mark Waugh. A few more.

POSSIBILITIES, CLEARLY NOTHING CAN BE CERTAINTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Graham Gooch?......Graham Hick ?

Tend to think Mark Waugh's figures would not have looked too different had he started in 2001 rather than 1991, his underachievment often down to his own percieved lazyness rather than the quality of bowling he faced.

 

[aussie tragic]

Ian Chappell, if only he always batted at # 3:

Career: 75 tests, 5345 runs @ 42.42, HS 196, 14 centuries, 26 fifties

At # 3: 54 tests, 4279 runs @ 50.94, HS 196, 13 centuries, 22 fifities

 

[Richard]

Graham Gooch?......Graham Hick ?

Tend to think Mark Waugh's figures would not have looked too different had he started in 2001 rather than 1991, his underachievment often down to his own percieved lazyness rather than the quality of bowling he faced.

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows, maybe the bowling wouldn't have been challenging enough and he'd have done even worse?

As for Gooch and Hick, I don't see Gooch having done so because he was for most of his career (ie, 1978-1988) someone who underachieved because he thrived only on the toughest challenges and was not good enough at bashing weak bowling. Between 1990 and 1994 he upped his game significantly and went from decent to superlative at cashing-in when the going was good, and good to even better at thriving on the challenge of good bowling.

Hick might very well have done but via a complex route. Had he come in early on to face the sort of bowling of 2002 or 2003 he'd very probably have excelled from the start, and hence wouldn't have had the mental frailties that came later because he'd have been treated with respect and reverence rather than suspicion and anger.

 

[Beleg]

inzy averages 50 anyway for his country.

 

[Uppercut]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows, maybe the bowling wouldn't have been challenging enough and he'd have done even worse?

As for Gooch and Hick, I don't see Gooch having done so because he was for most of his career (ie, 1978-1988) someone who underachieved because he thrived only on the toughest challenges and was not good enough at bashing weak bowling. Between 1990 and 1994 he upped his game significantly and went from decent to superlative at cashing-in when the going was good, and good to even better at thriving on the challenge of good bowling.

Hick might very well have done but via a complex route. Had he come in early on to face the sort of bowling of 2002 or 2003 he'd very probably have excelled from the start, and hence wouldn't have had the mental frailties that came later because he'd have been treated with respect and reverence rather than suspicion and anger.

Hmm, but i don't think "would have averaged 50 had they played from 2002 onwards" equates to "deserved to average 50."