marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
You cannot just look at the average - by your definition he is now good but before he took his last wicket today, he was poor.Richard said:30 is not a good average, at any level. If you're averaging over 30 in a form of cricket, your ability at that level must be called into question. A bowler whose average in Test-cricket is under 30 can start to be considered a good bowler. One who averages under 27 can be considered a very good bowler. One who averages under 24 can be considered a very, very good bowler indeed. One who averages under 22 can be considered an all-time great.
By comparing the figures with the figures of the other bowlers in the innings, you get a better perspective of their performance - Harmison's early career was played in matches where almost every innings was 400+ because it was so batsman-friendly. In that case does that mean that every bowler in the series was poor?