But,contra,Chetan Chauhan was a steady,but limited,defensive opening batter who played in 40 Tests,averaging 31,and without ever making even one century.
There are cricketers who have been persevered with over the years when their average does not seem to deserve such faith.
A couple of not too ancient examples come from New Zealand.One,Trevor Franklin was a very limited player indeed.6' 4" tall,he sometimes seemed to struggle to hit the ball off the square.He averaged just 23 with just one very painstaking century,at Lord's in 1990----101 in over SEVEN hours from 310 balls,every one of which I watched!! NZ stuck with him for 31 Tests.Martin Guptill,also tall,was a very different player.A breezy,agressive but technically rather loose batter,NZ played him in 47 Tests but his career average was under 30.
The original predecessor to Franklin was short,stocky Alec Bannerman,younger brother to Charles Bannerman,scorer of Test cricket's first century.In direct contrast to his dashing brother,Alec was a stonewallers dream but in those early days of Tests in the 1880s Australia were greatful for sturdy defence even though he averaged only 23.08 in his 28 Tests with a highest score of 91.Still,he played 25 more Tests than his much more talented brother.
As a contrast consider the fate of Vinod Kambli.A Test average of 54.20 with 4 centuries,two of which were succesive DOUBLE centuries,yet he played only 17,yes 17,Tests,the last one when he was still only 24! [It can be assumed there were other forces at work]
The above are just a few examples of the fickleness of Test selection even without considering Messrs Ganteaume and Redmond.
