It's a little off topic and so may or may not be worth mentioning, but if Bradman's final innings at the Oval had actually been the start of a sequence of 50 consecutive ducks, he would still hold the record for the highest Test average of any player after a career of more than 120 innings.
Um, no. Bradman does not have the highest Test batting average, it's as simple a fact as 1+1=2. That he doesn't is no comment on his ability as a player nor is it suggesting that any batsmen were greater - it's just a simple fact that there is at least one player with a higher batting average.Ok you can think of it that way, but this discussion is quite pointless because nobody works with that kind of logic. As far as anybody else is concerned, Bradman does have the highest average.
FMD, that's ridiculous.
The point here is that common sense must be taken into account and the batsman must have played a reasonable amount of matches. Also isn't there players that have an infinite average?
Bradman's record might better be expressed as fastest to 5000 runs. I do have to say, though, that posters in here are showing a distinct lack of imagination. I would say the odds are if test cricket is played for the next 4 or 5 thousand years that both Bradman's and Tendulkar's records will be broken, probably several times. It would really only be some significant change in how test cricket is played that would stop it.
He would also then have the record for most ducks in a row. obviously not happy about being the best batsman ever he also wants to be the worst. what a ****
i get wound up at the though of cook doing it because I do not believe he is in the class of batsmen who could do that. but yea it could definitely break, in fact it may not even last as long as some of the other all time high run scorers have had their records last.
A sobering thought if ever there was one - if SRT were to do the same he'd end up with an average of 47, still impressive - I reckon The Sean's 50 Duck Factor will prove to be a more important addition to cricket statistics than the Dickinsonian First Chance Average, and even my own Last Chance Average, although if I ever did know what that was I've forgotten - here are some other examples
Bradman 99.94 to 58.33
why does Imran lose only 12 points off his average while Sobers loses about 15, even though Sobers played 3 more test matches IIRC. Does it have to do with not outs??? And the others lose even more.
i have no doubt that cook will not reach that record..but maybe kallis if he end up haivng 2 very good years like sachi is having now could very well break that record
obv it will be depended on inngs and not out..and not on test
Player A:
That's starkling and very interesting drop in average.
No he won't actually.
Not very interesting or startling(I assumed you meant startling) at all really. All it really says is that he played a lot less innings than modern players which we already know.
A duck will hurt Imran's average less because it was not as large to begin with. Larger the average, the more ducks will hurt it. It is what happens when you start playing silly statistical games.
No Cevno, you've got this one wrong. Read my post again - I said if his final innings at the Oval was the start of the sequence - so 49 more ducks after that. Leaving him with an average of 58.78.
