Batsmen who deserved 50 test avg

[fredfertang]

In WG's day Test cricket was sufficiently unimportant for it to not be of enormous significance, though, no?

Think it was Matthew Engel who described 19th-century international cricket as "inchoate and haphazard".

I would agree with you there Richard - I make the point simply because I believe, certainly when they were similar ages, that WG towered over his contemporaries in the same way Bradman did over his yet history has the Don up there on his own - personally I think they should share the same pedastal

By the way I do accept that because of the distance in time a meaningful comparison between the two is ..... shall we say wholly artificial?

 

[haroon510]

Saeed anwar, Inzi, Laxman, Arvinda De Silva and younis khan

 

[Anil]

i'd say anyone who had a sufficiently long career(say 50 tests or more) and still didn't average 50 doesn't deserve to either..you can arbitrarily(there is really no objective way of doing it) take the peaks of lots of players, extrapolate and suggest that's what their career average should be/could be/should have been etc but it doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny...the only thing we can really do is to take them on a case-by-case basis and say for example that a player who averaged 45 in an era where the bowling was of higher standards is better than another who averaged 50 in an era of lesser quality bowling and so on and so forth...

 

[Richard]

I would agree with you there Richard - I make the point simply because I believe, certainly when they were similar ages, that WG towered over his contemporaries in the same way Bradman did over his yet history has the Don up there on his own - personally I think they should share the same pedastal

Yes, it'd be nice. However, what'd be even nicer is if people judging historical matters first did a bit of basic-ish research. I've lost count of the number of occasions when someone has even mentioned WG's Test match average, because it really is a near complete irrelevance so far as judging the calibre of the player is concerned.

By the way I do accept that because of the distance in time a meaningful comparison between the two is ..... shall we say wholly artificial?

Grace and Bradman, is this?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Petty nitpicking at the correct use of well known forum slang counts as hijacking as well.

 

[Richard]

Not really. It counts as correcting errors.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes, it'd be nice. However, what'd be even nicer is if people judging historical matters first did a bit of basic-ish research. I've lost count of the number of occasions when someone has even mentioned WG's Test match average, because it really is a near complete irrelevance so far as judging the calibre of the player is concerned.

Grace and Bradman, is this?

It's a shame WG's own remarkable stats get forgotten but then they do need looking for a bit harder than Bradman's

Yes I did mean WG and Bradman - a WG v Bradman thread would be futile I'm afraid and would no doubt lead to some very silly and irritating posts

 

[Lillian Thomson]

......correcting errors that haven't been made counts as well.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No?

Ah okay. Next time I'm in Bradford I owe you three tins of fruit.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Chanders averaging 50.01 now, and will likely be not out at the end of this innings.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Crowe and Gilchrist IMO. Gilly went for too long but he was as devestating as any batsman .

Agree.

 

[Richard]

......correcting errors that haven't been made counts as well.

So does denying errors to cover for your errors... but this is very tiresome so this'll be my last post on the matter. Hijacking threads = a theoretical, non-existant concept used exclusively by poor-quality posters to try to manufacture non-existant wrongs.

 

[Richard]

Yes I did mean WG and Bradman - a WG v Bradman thread would be futile I'm afraid and would no doubt lead to some very silly and irritating posts

(Click the smiley TBH)

 

[krkode]

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.

Agree with this. I feel like to an extent, Laxman was misused during the start of his career. I believe if you exclude all the matches where he was asked to open the innings (~20 or so) his average jumps from 45 to about 49.

At one point, I figured Ganguly would end up with an average of 50+ too, but after a certain point he just got really good at ODIs and somewhat average at tests.

Not that mid-40s average is by any means bad, but these are some other batsmen I feel could've been in the 50+ club - Mark Waugh, Aravinda deSilva, Saeed Anwar, Langer, Damien Martyn, Kirsten - based on their skills as batsmen. Other current players who might not currently have it, but who I think will definitely end up with 50+ by the time they retire - Chanderpaul and Pietersen. Maybe Gambhir, but something tells me he's just having a really good year really early in his career. Sort of like Ganguly. Hopefully, he can keep it up.

 

[masterblaster]

Agree with this. I feel like to an extent, Laxman was misused during the start of his career. I believe if you exclude all the matches where he was asked to open the innings (~20 or so) his average jumps from 45 to about 49.

At one point, I figured Ganguly would end up with an average of 50+ too, but after a certain point he just got really good at ODIs and somewhat average at tests.

Not that mid-40s average is by any means bad, but these are some other batsmen I feel could've been in the 50+ club - Mark Waugh, Aravinda deSilva, Saeed Anwar, Langer, Damien Martyn, Kirsten - based on their skills as batsmen. Other current players who might not currently have it, but who I think will definitely end up with 50+ by the time they retire - Chanderpaul and Pietersen. Maybe Gambhir, but something tells me he's just having a really good year really early in his career. Sort of like Ganguly. Hopefully, he can keep it up.

The similarities between Ganguly and Gambhir are quite striking. Both are fighters and both have had a dream start to their careers. I think Gambhir is a very smart and able cricketer though. If he can average around 45 for his entire career opening the batting for India in test matches then I think India would be really well served.

 

[Xuhaib]

YK is a good case, I think he is a better then Mo Yo.

 

[Xuhaib]

Smith avg> 50 currently.

 

[Richard]

The similarities between Ganguly and Gambhir are quite striking. Both are fighters and both have had a dream start to their careers. I think Gambhir is a very smart and able cricketer though. If he can average around 45 for his entire career opening the batting for India in test matches then I think India would be really well served.

Hmm, not sure Gambhir had a dream start to his career - Ganguly made a century on debut and never looked back; Gambhir's first 10 Tests against Test-class teams fetched him an average of 22 and just 2 half-centuries in 18 innings.

It's only since the Sri Lanka series in 2008 that Gambhir has really established his credentials as a Test batsman.

 

[Richard]

Agree with this. I feel like to an extent, Laxman was misused during the start of his career. I believe if you exclude all the matches where he was asked to open the innings (~20 or so) his average jumps from 45 to about 49.

From Eden Gardens 2000/01 onwards (ie, excluding all early innings whether opening or in the middle, as neither were all that good) Laxman's average is currently a fraction under 50 against Test-class teams. Since then he's only had 1 short bad spell, of 11 games.

 

[fredfertang]

(Click the smiley TBH)

You do have a quite encyclopaedic knowledge of this place Richard!

That, of course, was before my time and seems a perfectly respectable thread no doubt due to the knowledge and integrity of the main participants

Were it to be repeated now then on the basis of what I have seen "in my time" then I fear it may go downhill rather rapidly