cricket player
International Debutant
Do you know that Andy Flower Averaged more then Viv Richards in test match,Andy Flower averaging 51 in test matches,That is incredible
I think Viv should have finished with an ave:54.00+ He played on a little too long imhocricket player said:Do you know that Andy Flower Averaged more then Viv Richards in test match,Andy Flower averaging 51 in test matches,That is incredible
nevertheless, he was a great batsman.cricket player said:Do you know that Andy Flower Averaged more then Viv Richards in test match,Andy Flower averaging 51 in test matches,That is incredible
I agree Viv was a far far far greater batsman, In many people's opinion than Andy .dinu23 said:nevertheless, he was a great batsman.
its not incredible at all. it shows that andy flower is a very very good player, it shows that viv retired a lot too late, it shows that pitches have gotten flatter, bowling has gotten worse, and it shows that averages are never reliable.cricket player said:Do you know that Andy Flower Averaged more then Viv Richards in test match,Andy Flower averaging 51 in test matches,That is incredible
Well said, summed it up nicely.tooextracool said:its not incredible at all. it shows that andy flower is a very very good player, it shows that viv retired a lot too late, it shows that pitches have gotten flatter, bowling has gotten worse, and it shows that averages are never reliable.
No, it shows that taking average as the pure decider of who was the better batsman is never a good idea because it can often be unreliable.tooextracool said:its not incredible at all. it shows that andy flower is a very very good player, it shows that viv retired a lot too late, it shows that pitches have gotten flatter, bowling has gotten worse, and it shows that averages are never reliable.
I think it shows that they're not reliable for comparing players from different eras, rather than comparing players full stop.tooextracool said:its not incredible at all. it shows that andy flower is a very very good player, it shows that viv retired a lot too late, it shows that pitches have gotten flatter, bowling has gotten worse, and it shows that averages are never reliable.
the only thing that the average(and im referring to the overall average) is useful for is to tell whether someone is good enough to play international cricket or not. unless you are comparing players with a 15-20+ average difference, averages alone never tell the entire story, because it doesnt account for conditions, opposition, pitches, circumstances, consistency or reliability(of the player).marc71178 said:I think it shows that they're not reliable for comparing players from different eras, rather than comparing players full stop.
so what ? ian bell averages higher than any of the india or australian batsman in testscricket player said:Do you know that Andy Flower Averaged more then Viv Richards in test match,Andy Flower averaging 51 in test matches,That is incredible
unofficialy their Tests are a jokeCraig said:Accept it Richard, Bangladesh are an official Test playing nation, so therefore their Tests are official.
No, he wasn't found-out, he was very clearly afflicted by injury (only had himself to blame for it, he was overweight, but had he maintained fitness he'd have gone on far longer).C_C said:I think it is fairly accurate to compare averages in the same era.
Cross era comparisons are largely dubious.
That being said, i don't think Botham retired 'too late' - unless you mean he retired a decade or so too late ( 83-92 stats are 29 batting ave. and 37 bowling ave- terrible ).
Its one thing having success for over a decade or so and then tailing off near the end of one's career ( ala Viv) and having 5-6 stunning seasons and then sucking for the next 10. Its called being 'found out'.
Botham was 'found out' as a bowler and largely curbed as a batsman. Pure and simple.
IMO, out of the 'big 4' allrounders of his era(Imran,Kapil,Hadlee and himself), he ranks as the worst overall.