Depends, he may just pull plug after world cup when he still at a high level.Wonder if a 60+ average at retirement is realistic. Surely he will have a bad patch before he retires even if he gets there.
You would have thought so but the more I see of him the more I doubt that will be the case. If you remember Dravid's struggles towards towards the end they were mostly a function of a deterioration of his footwork. Prime Dravid had the most fantastic footwork for me after Lara. Against swing and seam in particular he was very positive and twinkle toed to get to the pitch of the ball or get into the best position to defend. When that went he really struggled and he ended up getting clean bowled time and again by bowlers who previously had rarely troubled him.Wonder if a 60+ average at retirement is realistic. Surely he will have a bad patch before he retires even if he gets there.
he should definitely end up with an average of over 55. for it to drop below 55 he'd probably have to average something like 25 for 2 years or something. just cant see him hanging on like tendulkar if that's the caseSeems like the hunger is still there though, would surprise me if he retired before 2016 looking at his form, fitness and overall attitude. Some tough tours to NZ and India and a possible home series against Aus if he goes on another 2 years from now, he'll end up over 55 but under 60 IMO
He's said that he's going for it afaik.. at least from what I read on a Guardian article during the Eng tour. Only retiring from ODIs after the WC most likely.Depends, he may just pull plug after world cup when he still at a high level.
We have gone through this. Better fielding and better tactics itself will drag down averages of any old timer by 10%-15%. Not to mention the overall standard of bowling have improved too, except few freaks who would have been un believable in any era.Not this bollocks again. There is absolutely no way anyone can say that he wouldn't average 100 in this era because the bloke was just that good.
Yeah those cricketing freaks would have dragged down Bradman for sure.We have gone through this. Better fielding and better tactics itself will drag down averages of any old timer by 10%-15%. Not to mention the overall standard of bowling have improved too, except few freaks who would have been un believable in any era.
Pitches are better to bat on though. All swings and roundabouts.We have gone through this. Better fielding and better tactics itself will drag down averages of any old timer by 10%-15%. Not to mention the overall standard of bowling have improved too, except few freaks who would have been un believable in any era.
Can you point me to where this has been discussed and been proven to be the case?We have gone through this. Better fielding and better tactics itself will drag down averages of any old timer by 10%-15%. Not to mention the overall standard of bowling have improved too, except few freaks who would have been un believable in any era.
Actions speak louder than words. I swear Jono shows up at the ground with 11 voodoo dolls and a set of pins when it's India playing. It's time we saw through his act on CW.Yeah, Maximas is a known Sanga hater isn't he?
What's next? Maximas despises Herath? Jono is a Kohli hater?
I don't know what you are quoting here. I was saying that Sanga had only few places with 35 kind of average and at home around 60 in his entire career. It was never like 200 at home and 25 in few places like you had in mind.Home
Tests = 69
Average = 63
Away
Tests = 57
Average = 54
Kumar Sangakkara - Performance Analysis by venue Home / Away - Test Cricket
Fielding of all sides have become drastically better. You could argue that ATG batsmen will adjust to any era to face different bowling but it will be stretch to claim that better fielding doesn't stop batsmen to score less. You will get less runs for your shots on average and you will also get out more often due to fielding being better. I will say that all batsmen would have averaged less. Yes, Badman would have been still the best but no where near 100 avg in modern era. I am not talking about standard set by Aus or SA here. Pretty much every one has gotten much better.Not this bollocks again. There is absolutely no way anyone can say that he wouldn't average 100 in this era because the bloke was just that good.
Love it how ppl say "we have gone through this" with a tone that suggests "we came to a consensus".We have gone through this....
I love how this stupid debate always ends up with the other side essentially saying Bradman couldn't have been that good because, you know there's no way anyone can be that good.Also, if you get 1 truly great player among 5K cricket players in entire planet then he is likely to stand out by larger margin. When you have 20 great players among 10M cricket players in entire planet then it's not possible for anyone to stand out by the same margin. It will never happen with cricket being played by so many folks in all kinds of different conditions. You could still get some one who can stand out but not by 40 run margin.
It's like the chucking thread, every now and again some asshole comes by and gives the same 2 cents other ****s gave about 5 pages ago before they were put in their place, unless you're Blocky, and certain statistics are worth repeating every single time Sanga passes 50.
Problem is nothing has changed with his knock against Pakistan. It wasn't on some rank turner to be really discussed and he has always scored heavily against Pakistan. Nothing new in this knock which goes against prevailing dogma. He could play 5 more knocks like this on the same pitch against same Pakistani attack but quoting them will not change anyone's opinion. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed earlier.On-the-other-hand, the prevailing dogma always deserves to be challenged by heretics as a matter of principle.