honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah but 30-35 is still probably just below average IMO. < 30 can be poor and < 25 can be something even worse."Fairly poor" then.
We are talking about potential ATGs and this would be poor by ATG standards.
Yeah but 30-35 is still probably just below average IMO. < 30 can be poor and < 25 can be something even worse."Fairly poor" then.
We are talking about potential ATGs and this would be poor by ATG standards.
They did contend with way more 1st class cricket though, and for the bowlers way heavier work loads in said competitions.it does matter when you’re doing a direct comparison between them and the vast majority of players from the past who never had to contend with something like that
There's quite a bit of footage available of Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, even Hobbs, though less so.I would understand nostalgia for the 90s, or for a few the 80s etc
But some of that nostalgia is for some guy in the 1920s there’s barely any clips of and no one really watched play
Tell that to @Burgey after his comments on Root in Oz (ave 35.68)Yeah but 30-35 is still probably just below average IMO. < 30 can be poor and < 25 can be something even worse.
most of what you’ve said have been cited everytime there’s any discussion about older players, some of which are not even factors when they universally affected everyone back thenThey did contend with way more 1st class cricket though, and for the bowlers way heavier work loads in said competitions.
Every era had their unique challenges, Hobbs had sticky wickets and no protection, not to add long ass boat rides and tours and huge boundaries and what can only be called sticks compared to what they bat with today.
Give it a break, these are the good days.
ROOT: Excellent in England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies; Very Good in India;We're talking about people who are to be included as the best 50 batsmen of all time not a list of plodders. Come on.
He has been pretty poor. But two of his tours were when he was very young, and you have to respect how good the Indian attack has beenYes it is. People are ranking him in the top 50 batsmen of all time and he's averaging in the 30s in the benchmark country for touring players which is also his most important rival. And he's doing it after 14 tests and without a ton. It's laughable he's being considered for inclusion in this list.
Ponting was woeful in India but at least he had one 50+ average series there and managed a ton as he went on. Root's numbers in Australia are the batting equivalent of Murali's bowling here, and they aren't getting any better. His last tour he averaged 30 someting and he's meant to be in his prime ffs. Just deplorable. Wouldn't give you two bob for him.
Watched him play against Aus for over a decade and never felt in the least bit threatened by him as an Australian supporter. At best he's a bloke who might jag a ton at home against you but for the most part will just get out in his usual ways for moderate outputs. Barely give him a second's thought as an opponent (or person, come to that) worthy of respect, let alone wariness.
Spud
S P U D
P
U
D
Ordinary.
That means, what, he averages 71 against the others? GOAT.Out of his 100 tests, he's played exactly 50 tests vs Aus, Ind, Eng and SA (top 4 teams)
But he averages just 38.91 from 50 tests against these top teams.
Only 11 of his 32 hundreds have come in these 50 tests.
I daresay if Root had a better conversion rate, he'd be higher in the poll. Getting 2 70s is better for your average than a 100 and a 20, but people remember the 100s.ROOT: Excellent in England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies; Very Good in India;FairPlodder in Australia.
Conceded. Others have poor records in specific countries. Root struggles in just one. He is in the lower echelon of the Top 50 - unlike Ponting who ranks # 13 in our poll despite having a poor 14 Test record in India (well below Root's record in Oz).
Yes imo. Up until 2017, he was averaging ~50 with more impressive overseas performances than those three. Amazing all-conditions player in his peak.Is Amla better batsman than Inzy , Sehwag and Hayden ?
I believe I just did.Tell that to @Burgey after his comments on Root in Oz (ave 35.68)
Wrong account.Sorry.
I am more interested in why is he rated ahead of de Villiers tbh....Is Amla better batsman than Inzy , Sehwag and Hayden ?
Ditto.I am more interested in why is he rated ahead of de Villiers tbh....
Didn’t hide down the order. Didn’t **** off at his peak when the country still needed him.I am more interested in why is he rated ahead of de Villiers tbh....
Batted 3, while ABDV mostly batted 5 or 6I am more interested in why is he rated ahead of de Villiers tbh....
Not enough to justify a 5 points avg difference imo; but let's agree to disagree then.Batted 3, while ABDV mostly batted 5 or 6