How much a batsman should average . . .

[Debris]

If that's the case then why does no modern day batsman average 60?

They all suck?

 

[smash84]

They all suck?

Modern day batsmen are number 1 haters can suck it

 

[G.I.Joe]

They all suck?

Maybe the reason so few batsmen averaged more than 50 in the 80s was because they all sucked.

 

[Debris]

Maybe the reason so few batsmen averaged more than 50 in the 80s was because they all sucked.

OMG, hadn't thought of that. You are right.

 

[Chehtha]

Trott's played 6 Tests against Australia, 4 against South Africa and 4 against Pakistan. In terms of bowling attacks, he's probably faced the strongest attacks out there.

Trott faced one of the worst Australian bowling attacks in decades, mate. Morover the series against Bangladesh and Australia have contributed immensely to his 60 plus average i would say.

 

[abmk]

Trott faced one of the worst Australian bowling attacks in decades, mate. Morover the series against Bangladesh and Australia have contributed immensely to his 60 plus average i would say.

I think you've forgotten he was the only one who stood up to Asif and Aamer, in the England side , consistently, in seaming conditions

 

[Debris]

I think you've forgotten he was the only one who stood up to Asif and Aamer, in the England side , consistently, in seaming conditions

Maybe he paid them to bowl badly to him.

 

[smash84]

Maybe he paid them to bowl badly to him.

 

[Chehtha]

I think you've forgotten he was the only one who stood up to Asif and Aamer, in the England side , consistently, in seaming conditions

Agreed. But the debate is abt the 60 plus average of trott which i believe was due to his good showing against Bangladesh and Australia, one which has the worst bowling attack of theirs in years and the other which cannot be deemed as one of the best bowling units.

 

[Diesel]

5-10
points more.

 

[kingkallis]

Add Aravinda to that list as well. Massively under rated IMO. Not in the league of the above mentioned greats but not too far below for me. Definitely better than the likes of Samaraweera and Co although his average might show less

Aravinda falls in the category of Azhar, Crowe, Mark Waugh, Langer, Anwar, Richardson etc

 

[Migara]

Post '96 de Silva averaged 53 with the bat. Comparable with nay great in the era.

 

[Ikki]

Aravinda falls in the category of Azhar, Crowe, Mark Waugh, Langer, Anwar, Richardson etc

Nah. IMO.

Post '96 de Silva averaged 53 with the bat. Comparable with nay great in the era.

Even removing 12 years of his record he is averaging <40 away in that sample. Not really comparable with any great.

 

[Migara]

Before 96 he was the only batsman in the team with Arjuna who averaged 30+, and was batting for a minnow. Post 96 is the time period where the batting order has settled. Players' performances in minnow teams should be upgraded by 10% or even more IMO> That's why I regard Andy Flower to be a ATG batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Flower is an all-time great bat regardless whether you add 10% or not - which frankly makes little sense.

 

[weldone]

Even removing 12 years of his record he is averaging <40 away in that sample. Not really comparable with any great.

awta

I personally never rank Aravinda among the great middle-order batsmen of the 90s. He was good, but NEVER anywhere near Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Lara or Inzamam...

 

[vcs]

Nah. IMO.




Even removing 12 years of his record he is averaging <40 away in that sample. Not really comparable with any great.

Which of those batsmen does he not deserve to be mentioned alongside?

 

[smash84]

Yeah. Why is he not in the category of azhar, langer, and crowe??? The first 12 years that you talk about he played half of his career or less than that during that time. From 1995 onwards till 2002 or 2003 whenever he retired he was right up there with the best.

 

[weldone]

Yeah. Why is he not in the category of azhar, langer, and crowe??? The first 12 years that you talk about he played half of his career or less than that during that time. From 1995 onwards till 2002 or 2003 whenever he retired he was right up there with the best.

Ikki to come back on Azhar, Langer and Crowe (though I too believe that all 3 of them were better than Aravinda).

But I personally feel that he was NEVER 'among the best' as you suggest. In 1990s, Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Lara and Inzamam were clearly the best batsmen in the world (and I would suggest that the first 3 were better than Inzi)...Aravinda was in the next level 'at best'...

And for the period chosen by you (1995-2002):
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

De Silva averaged 35 away from home in the said period, there are 32 batsmen who averaged more than Aravinda away from home in the said period (among the ones who batted in at least 30 innings):
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He was never among the 'best' batsmen in the world.

 

[smash84]

Ikki to come back on Azhar, Langer and Crowe.

But I personally feel that he was NEVER 'among the best' as you suggest. From 1995 onwards till 2002-03, Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Lara and Inzamam were clearly the best batsmen in the world (and I would suggest that the first 3 were better than Inzi)...Aravinda was in the next level at best, along with the likes Andy Flower etc etc...

I don't think that I ever suggested that he was in the league of SRT, Waugh, or Lara. I was talking about the list that KK had put up which included Crowe, Azhar, and Langer. Don't you think Aravinda was in their league?