LaughingKookaburra wrote:The only reason he averaged just over 40 is because every time he got to 100 he would up the scoring rate? That does not make any sence what so ever....
My opinion and its shared by many is he was lazy and to play as many tests as he did and have a HS of under 150 with a bloke old his sheer talent is a massive waste of talent. Got himself out on way too many occasions.
Did you watch him? Averages mean nothing. Play in India on tennis courts, average as much as you like. Not outs boost averages.
Rubbish numbers never lie @ test level and considering both Bats either side of him averaged over 50 shows his inconsistency. As mentioned still a good bat but he had the ability to be an all time great.
We always talk about sub continent grounds being roads and spinners paradises but name me more than 1 or 2 players who have grabbed the tours there by the balls from Australia?
Can you bring a man to his feet when defeat is on repeat?
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Rubbish numbers never lie @ test level and considering both Bats either side of him averaged over 50 shows his inconsistency. As mentioned still a good bat but he had the ability to be an all time great.
We always talk about sub continent grounds being roads and spinners paradises but name me more than 1 or 2 players who have grabbed the tours there by the balls from Australia?
I'm referring more to Indians having inflated averages, who wouldn't be half the player of some of the Aussies averaging mid 40s.
Grahaml wrote:But single handedly won or drew a lot of tests on decks that nobody else could bat on. I agree he had the ability to score more and average 50+ but not everyone can be a flat track bully. Steve could score runs on those decks, Mark was in the team to score runs when everyone else ran out of talent.
what is interesting though is that he only averaged 27.88 in losing matches
