Why is it then that pretty much every great player from any era in cricket averages between 50 and 60 with the bat? Since the 1920s, that's been a remarkably consistent range.
Firstly, although I quoted you, the statement is general.
Old, and dusted argument. There are only few crickerters in school cricket who average 100+. But that does not conclusively say that they are better than a test batsman averaging 25. Inthe case of school cricket and test cricket, we know what has the superior quality. But when it comes to test cricket of 30s and now, the answer is not clear cut due to various pro and con reasons.
Yeah, but correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I think the main difference between the averages comes from the 90s and 00s being more result orientated whereas draws were more common in the 20s-40s. Naturally, that'll bump averages a bit higher.
I am not saying that Lara and Tendulkar are comparable to Bradman, but that everyone should be allowed to express themselves freely without being called names. Isn't that the whole point of a cricket forum ? If someone genuinely believes that Bradman's average would have taken a hit had he played in this day and age, then that someone must be heard out without being called a fanboy or whatever. That is all.
Funny. This is exactly what I was thinking today. There is this barrier of 60, or 61 if you will, that has nothing natural about it. But in all different eras, all different batsmen have all failed to breach it.
In baseball, perhaps the most stat-laden sport there is after cricket, a career batting average of 0.350 is considered nigh impossible to better, though quite a few batters have come close.
Was wondering because the quote in your post was 'Tendy is a buffoon' tbh.
