Let's see in Aus. 76 Subpar series. 79 ATG series. 81 poor series. 84 good series. 88 great series. Overall succeeded more than not in Aus, and once you include WSC, it's an easy great record.
Look at your selective language. So for Viv 'not great' = unacceptable but you give a pass for Murali having 'fine' for his entire away record.
I mean, it just highlights how bad he was in the two most important countries, that all his worldclass returns in the other couldn't salvage his overall away record. Though admittedly I am not a fan of using raw averages but that tis what he is responding to.
We just discussed Australia, can't give that too much importance despite it being a major country; but yeah, both he and Murali really failed in India for their statures.
I really think you overrate such things based largely on favourites rather than reason. England aside, none of the rest are up to the mark compared to other great batters let alone great bowlers.
I won’t call 76 subpar, given he nearly averaged 40 for an inexperienced player vs Lillee/Thomson in their primes. It was good IMO
But his record isn’t weak compared to peers. He averaged more or less the same as Sunny, while scoring much faster. Miandad had concrete pitches at home, and a record which is far from balanced. Viv and Murali are close, I’ve given purely objective reasons, on the bowlers>>batters thing, I’m not sure(I’m not disagreeing or agreeing), I’ll need to think about that notion further.
I'm not just comparing him to the players he played against though. I'm comparing him to other top batters who have all sorts of advantages over him, whether fair or not. You can find my list elsewhere, where I have the top 12 or so cricketers ever and Tendulkar is the only pure batter apart from Bradman to make the list. I can't see Viv as better than Tendulkar, so he isn't as close to the top as Murali is.
I know I was throwing him a bone.
Lol I like how in your version of cricket, we can never really ever confer greatness on bats. They are subpar by design.
You say this too much.
Please nooooo..... You're the most logical Viv fan here. We may differ on Viv and a few more things, but I like your PoVs.
They have to make runs based on the bowling they face. And Tests are dictated by which team takes 20 wickets the best (cheaper/quicker). It's fundamental and you need extreme outliers like Bradman to say otherwise.
We’ve reached an agreement about Viv. Sensible to debate about other cricket related things IMO
While I somewhat agree, I actually enjoy these debates..... But probably again a few months later at least.
Its like a 60/40 thing you are making 80/20.
Only in your and @shortpitched713 head's.
If you have a top 12 list and 10 are bowlers, the list is objectively flawed.
I can teach a better way
