England averages

[Streetwise]

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

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Streetwise

Harminson........-1

would be quite an effort

[Bloody Hell]

Based on what criteria???

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by Bloody Hell

Based on what criteria???

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)

[Bloody Hell]

Originally Posted by Streetwise

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]

Originally Posted by Streetwise

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 (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...

[Simon]

Great thread this.

[Ikki]

Let's see if Richard agrees.

[GIMH]

Nice trolling...

[oitoitoi]

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]

Originally Posted by oitoitoi

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.

[James]

Pretty obvious what you're trying to do here Streetwise. Don't do it in future please

Cricket Web Forum Rules

No trolling/baiting - This is where you constantly make digs at a member who doesn't appreciate it with the hope of annoying them and/or getting a negative reaction out of them. Don't do it.