1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.
Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.