• 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.

England averages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Without the flattening out of pitches and dropping off in bowler quality in 2001/2002 this is what the England batsmen would have averaged.

Strauss...........31
Cook...............33
Bopara..............3
Pietersen.........35
Bell.................26
Collingwood.....28
Flintoff............19
Shah...............11
Prior................32
Broad..............14
Harminson........-1
Vaughan..........29
 

Bloody Hell

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
England have feasted on flat pitches and the overall drop in bowler quality to falsly inflate their averages into the 40's. (note: no England player has averaged 50 since the 1960's)
But how did you arrive at the figures show above?
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
England have feasted on flat pitches and the overall drop in bowler quality to falsly inflate their averages into the 40's. (note: no England player has averaged 50 since the 1960's)
I agree with the basis of the argument. But however you came up with those averages :laugh:(its quite funnny TBH in a good way).

I dont see why Strauss, Colly wouldn't have been 35-40 ave players during the 90s. KP & Vaughan would def ave 40+. Although its possible Vaughan could have slipped into the 35-40 range.

Fred would ave 30+ with the blade, given that Cairns did during rhe 90s.

Coiuldn't be bothered about the rest...
 

oitoitoi

State Vice-Captain
this might actually be useful if you'd provided any evidence of how you'd got these numbers, that said Bell, Cook and Prior's numbers do look about right if you take out the soft runs.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
this might actually be useful if you'd provided any evidence of how you'd got these numbers, that said Bell, Cook and Prior's numbers do look about right if you take out the soft runs.
It's pretty obvious that the numbers as not supposed to be anything other than made up. To put 3 for Bopara is obviously ludicrous....................he'd need a great deal of luck on his side to reach that level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top