Better Test stats than FC stats
I’v e been thinking about this since Friday – and here are mythoughts as to why this happens
1. The test career captures the brief time the player is on top of his game. In this case, kudos to the selectors for using them like lumps of meat and binning them before they go rotten
2. The player is motivated to punch above his weight in the higher arena
3. The player is bored of first class cricket and treats it like a bit of an amble in a park
There are no doubt a number of examples of 1.
2 could be said to apply to Michael Vaughan (Test average 41, FC 37) , Marcus Trescothick (Tests 43, FC 41 – although it hovered around 37 for a long time), Paul Collingwood (Tests 40, FC 35). Although with the latter, perhaps there is an element of 1.
Tony Greig averaged 41 with the bat in tests and 31 in FC.
3 is an interesting one, I only brought it up in reference to something I read about David Gower (Tests 44, FC 40), in that supposedly he treated FC cricket like a bit of an inconvenience to his life in general.
Other ones I’ve noticed include Sangakarra (Test 57, FC 49), Kallis (Tests 56, FC 54).
Anymore, and any opinions, greatly appreciated.