weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That would depend on how much weightage is given to longevity, isn't it?It's funny, this scenario almost seems the polar opposite of the criticism of players retiring to "protect their average" as it were. If Cribb's measure was officially in use by the ICC, I could see players being judged for playing on and on way beyond their best purely to go down on the official records as more valuable than far better cricketers who had had enough and decided to retire a few years earlier.
For just a random example, if an average of 55 for 10 years is taken as equal to average of 53 for 15 years people will think 10 times before taking the decision to carry on for 5 more years just to enhance their 'value'.