This is another discussion coming out of the Michael Clarke for T20 issue, about what's ideal for T20. It's not just Pup, but also a whole lot of Indian and possibly English and Lankan selections, which are highly questionable. What would you consider good enough, or very good, among T20 stats?
For a batsman, an average over 25 would be just right, while over 30, he's quite good. He should strike at least over 120, and something over 130 is quite hot. It's difficult to put up a big score, so a few over 50 should help. Likewise, a bowling average under 22 is acceptable, and under 20, serious, and under 16, seriously good. Strike rates will also count, and under 24 will fit the bill, and under 20, top stuff. Then again, things may change from match to match, ground to ground.
Yet, we find several international and Champions League T20 teams carrying (apparent) misfits with them. While some misfits struggle but still stay in the team for other reasons, some others step up from largely unimpressive statistics and establish themselves as their teams' top players. Conversely, very strong-on-stats T20 teams have floundered or not gone the distance. Do T20 stats really mean much, then?