nothing better than logging on to cricket web dot com to post for the first time all week because i've been busy, to come to a thread about batsmen who have a sub-40 average, going to the last page and seeing the beginnings of a ****ing warne vs murali debate
to answer the thread however, i feel some distinction needs to be made in the question between modern batsmen and old timey batsmen when it comes to who's the best who averages 40, because of how totals and averages have inflated since the old timers. napoleon is a manlet but he was average height for his time, maybe a bit smaller, i don't exactly remember, but he wasn't the manlet we know him to be today. so he can't really be compared to the modern generals in a best short general contest or some shizz. same deal, what averaging a bit under 40 means, well, the stakes and upshot of that have radically changed since the old days.