Jayawardene above both of them is worse.Root above Williamson is just wrong.
The famous series where tendulkar (deliberately left in lower case btw, like his character) wouldn't move from number four despite all the injuries and unavailability India had. Dravid though - yep, straight up to open because he thought of the team instead of just himself. WAFG he was.Carrying his bat in England and then immediately going back to open after India followed on is some premium ****.
ahemJayawardene above both of them is worse.
Both are better than Jayawardene too
He was very popular among women, so yeah.Also is it me or was Rahul Dravid insanely good looking?
Yet refrained from playing away from home I take it. good manHe was very popular among women, so yeah.
heard this before and never gets less weird. Bloke is a 4/10 on a good dayAlso is it me or was Rahul Dravid insanely good looking?
Davey Warner's. I swapped them and thought no one would noticeWhose are those stats?
the difference is samplesizelol. Kanes got about 30-40 away tests, but per country its miniscule.Kane's 2 lowest averages in a country are 21 in SA and 26 in SL; Mahela's are 27 in NZ and 27 in SA. Is there really that much between them? Mahela has had a complete career to so that goes in his favour. By end of his career, Kane can certainly inch ahead. At this point it's hardly shocking that he is just below.
Well yeah it's unfair and all, but it is what it is and we can't assume that if he was given more tests he'd have a better record and therefore is better than Dravid.the difference is samplesizelol. Kanes got about 30-40 away tests, but per country its miniscule.
kohli, smith and root fit roughly 8 years of williamsons english sample size into just one series.
the disparity in opportunity is a bit of a joke. india and australia should beat nz handily outside nz, but no one else has that excuse to avoid hosting nz.