TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This type of common sense could destroy Cricket Chat as we know itTheyd all be fine because good players adapt and grow into the eras they play in
stop it
This type of common sense could destroy Cricket Chat as we know itTheyd all be fine because good players adapt and grow into the eras they play in
Warner doesn't average 47 in today's era though tbf. He played most of his career on home roads even roadier than Hayden. Warner only averages 40 since 2019 which is often pointed to as the time world cricket started getting a lot more bowler-friendly for whatever reason, and only 34 since 2020.Extrapolating from a single player is always dumb, but Hayden really just seems like a better version of Warner to me. Warner averages 47. People are thinking Hayden would average a fair bit below Warner in his place?
Lot's of definitional issues here. Batting has typically been getting tougher worldwide for a decade +, and there is no clear cuttoff for an era. 4 years shouldn't be considered an era IMO.Warner doesn't average 47 in today's era though tbf. He played most of his career on home roads even roadier than Hayden. Warner only averages 40 since 2019 which is often pointed to as the time world cricket started getting a lot more bowler-friendly for whatever reason, and only 34 since 2020.
Yeah but he’s played what 20 tests in that time? And its not like he’s in his prime at all anymore, as Bolo said it seems too short a period of time to define an era.. and in Warner’s case is it more bowling friendly conditions or him being older and worse than before (probably a combination).Warner doesn't average 47 in today's era though tbf. He played most of his career on home roads even roadier than Hayden. Warner only averages 40 since 2019 which is often pointed to as the time world cricket started getting a lot more bowler-friendly for whatever reason, and only 34 since 2020.
Last 10 years so since 2012.Yeah but he’s played what 20 tests in that time? And its not like he’s in his prime at all anymore, as Bolo said it seems too short a period of time to define an era.. and in Warner’s case is it more bowling friendly conditions or him being older and worse than before (probably a combination).
I mean what is the thread even asking tbh, how much would they average over the last decade? The last 5 years? The last 2?
We all know 2018’s average is so low only because there was no Smith.
Would have been very difficult I imagine. Bangers long regarded as the litmus test.He could be talking about when he averaged 114 as captain away to Bangladesh tbf
That's actually not soAlmost every team now including Afghanistan and Bangladesh have 2 fast bowlers who can bowl at 140+ consistently, backs in 2000s you would expect such novelty only from Australia and Pakistan.
Not an easy era for batters, I'd say Smith (Graeme) would do better than the other three with Cook coming in second followed by Hayden and then Sehwag.
Exactly my point, thank youWould have been very difficult I imagine. Bangers long regarded as the litmus test.
It's accurate. SA had no Donald and Steyn was okayish in 2000s, West Indies? Nope, not many I can think of, Bond was there for NZ but got injured often, Flintoff was fiery in 2005 but not someone who averaged at 140 kph and above.That's actually not so
SL had Malinga, Eng had Harmission, SA had Ntini and Steyn.It's accurate. SA had no Donald and Steyn was okayish in 2000s, West Indies? Nope, not many I can think of, Bond was there for NZ but got injured often, Flintoff was fiery in 2005 but not someone who averaged at 140 kph and above.