20-odd = a start, of which Slater got a couple. He was in, got past the awkward early stages of batting and should have kicked on to 50 or more having got there, regardless of who was below him or how the team was doing.
I suspect you already know what I was getting at here. Slats may have averaged 40, but that was because of a relatively good series against one of the worst WI sides to tour Australia in the past few decades. His performances against England in England, India in India and NZ in Nz all 3 of whom had pretty decent attacks at the time was ordinary. And given the England and India series were his most recent 7 test matches you can certainly see why he had pressure on him.
Averaged 40 in 2001.
Just proves the point, though. Despite keeping his average up, he was inconsistent. Got 90-odd against the WI at the SCG, a few high 40's in India before the Ashes, got a half-ton and a couple of starts early in the Ashes. Even in a top team, it was a problem so they replaced him. Point is, Watto's lack of conversion is an issue no matter how the team is doing.
I thought we were talking about 'kicking on' to 100 not 50, considering the context of the Watson discussion. Whatever the case though, I highly doubt Slater would have been dropped if his average wasn't sub-25 and something more like 40.
To add to what T_C has said, Watto just can't hide behind the fact that he scores quick 40's and 50's so he is doing great service to the side.
No it isn't. You'd take the hundred, particularly if it comes in the first innings.
500 and 200 is not the same as scoring 200 and 500 though.
Mate if you managed to score 500 in the 2nd dig (unlikely I know), yeah it is exactly the same thing.
Don't just say context for the sake of it, give me examples where it would be different and we can discuss further.
Your avatar is repugnant.
