Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Actually he doesn't, but never mind.inzy averages 50 anyway for his country.
Actually he doesn't, but never mind.inzy averages 50 anyway for his country.
Hmm, but i don't think "would have averaged 50 had they played from 2002 onwards" equates to "deserved to average 50."
That's the trouble with "deserved to average 50", it's not really quantifiable. How do you designate "deserved"?Hmm, but i don't think "would have averaged 50 had they played from 2002 onwards" equates to "deserved to average 50."
Threads are not means of transport. They cannot be hijacked.The thread was hi-jacked from the first reply.
Threads are not means of transport. They cannot be hijacked.
The stats don't lie groupe?Most of the names mentioned here have pretty much the average one would expect.
Many listed are very good International pros. A mid-40s averages fits with that. IMO, none of them deserve to average over 50 or deserve consideration. Not Mark Waugh, not Aravinda, not Gower etc
An average is just a basic calculation. If they wanted to average 50 then they should have scored more runs or had more not outs.The stats don't lie groupe?
All true, but don't agree with the idea he deserves to average 50. I expect strong backlash for this but his wonderful record vs Australia outside the 2001 magic is inflated by the fact the Australia attacks in 2003/04, 2007/08 & 2008/09 the he faced where either poor of just good (2007/08). Given how he was well exposed in 2004, if he had faced a powerful attack in 03/04 his legacy that he generally "likes playing againts Australia" wouldn't be so strong.VVS Laxman. Never had a lean patch other than the start of his career when he was very young and was always made to open the batting. He's been very consistent since that time and certainly is a player of top quality.
Harvey, Worrell, Inzamam defiantely hard done. KP & Chanderpaul hopefully will average 50 by time they retire.Anyway, players who averaged/currently average 48 or 49 after 20+ tests:
G Smith
S Chanderpaul
Inzamam Ul-Haq
F Worrell
KP Pietersen
Younis Khan
KC Bland
B Mitchell
FS Jackson
RN Harvey
KD Walters
WH Ponsford
SJ McCabe
DR Jardine
Any of those who seems a bit hard done by?
He wasn't really exposed in 2004, given he played pretty much one of the two best knocks of the entire series.All true, but don't agree with the idea he deserves to average 50. I expect strong backlash for this but his wonderful record vs Australia outside the 2001 magic is inflated by the fact the Australia attacks in 2003/04, 2007/08 & 2008/09 the he faced where either poor of just good (2007/08). Given how he was well exposed in 2004, if he had faced a powerful attack in 03/04 his legacy that he generally "likes playing againts Australia" wouldn't be so strong.
But no doubt a stylish player who has solid runs againts most nations. Just think bowlers have hit his weakness often enough as Australia did in 04.
I think that also sums-up the likes of Ponting, Kallis, Chanderpaul etc. as well. And I'd say that had their entire careers fallen between 1985 and 2001, they'd have done precisely that. Mid-to-late 40s and no better.Most of the names mentioned here have pretty much the average one would expect.
Many listed are very good International pros. A mid-40s averages fits with that. IMO, none of them deserve to average over 50 or deserve consideration. Not Mark Waugh, not Aravinda, not Gower etc
That legacy is basically based on misunderstanding. Since Eden Gardens 2000/01 has scored runs against everyone and anyone and has had only a very, very short piece of downtime (including the 2004/05 series).All true, but don't agree with the idea he deserves to average 50. I expect strong backlash for this but his wonderful record vs Australia outside the 2001 magic is inflated by the fact the Australia attacks in 2003/04, 2007/08 & 2008/09 the he faced where either poor of just good (2007/08). Given how he was well exposed in 2004, if he had faced a powerful attack in 03/04 his legacy that he generally "likes playing againts Australia" wouldn't be so strong.
Some people might try to manufacture words to mean what they'd like them to mean, but hijacking means putting a stop to a method of transport and stealing from it. None of which can happen to a thread.Actually in forum speak they can. It means deliberately transporting a thread off-topic to suit ones own obcessions.