Ravichandran Ashwin vs Aubrey Faulkner

[Coronis]

I think it doesn't matter because it's not a convincing argument for me in favour of Faulkner given the relatively short period of his batting prowess and general underperformance with the ball. That, along with a lack of longevity and experience across a variety of conditions comparable to Ashwin is why I don't rate him over Ashwin.

It wasn't ignorance or deliberate lying. Do you want to behave like an idiot because of this?

Good question - what’s better/worse, lack of experience across conditions? Or lack of performance across conditions?

(lets also not forget Faulkner bowled and batted on matting wickets and uncovered pitches)

 

[Xix2565]

Good question - what’s better/worse, lack of experience across conditions? Or lack of performance across conditions?

(lets also not forget Faulkner bowled and batted on matting wickets and uncovered pitches)

For me, I'd rate Faulkner lower because of experience in general (not his fault but I do value the amount of Tests played as well). It doesn't help that he did only face England and Australia, and England/SA were very spin friendly (the same sort of point that tends to be used against Ashwin's bowling prowess). I have no problem if people consider him a better batter in general and thus a better player due to his combination of skills, though I would say that it is a bit of an issue that outside of a 2 year period he was averaging under 30 with the bat. He just didn't play long enough for me to consider him in the same conversation, to be frank.