There's something wrong with the game when there are so many players averaging over 50 in test cricket. Some of the great players of years gone by didn't even average 50. Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Hayden, are not great players yet they are the type of batsmen that are thriving in today's game whereas the more naturally gifted players who have superior technique tend to struggle, those of them that are actually left. A perfect illustration of this was the Australian batsmen struggling with the swing and movement of English conditions in the last Ashes series. Hayden and Gilchrist in particular struggled in these conditions, which were not like the concrete pitches they're used to back in Oz where they can thrash and bash an attack with brute force and little technique. How would Hayden and Gilchrist have fared in international cricket before the advent of flat, hard pitches in the mid to late 90's, or when there actually was quality fast bowling? Both would struggle to average 35-40. Don't get me wrong Gilchrist is fun to watch but he shouln't be averaging 50, he's not good enough to average 50. When Chris Gayle made his 300 on a flat lifeless wicket who really took notice? It just demeans the value of making such an historic score, and who could forget about Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe, an embarrassing day for cricket. Hundreds have become meaningless, the art of batting has been thrown out the window for baseball style slogs and slashes, bowling has become irrelevant and confined to boring line and length "keep it tight" rubbish. What happened to the art of out-thinking the batsman where he would mix it up a bit and then throw down the suprise delivery. There's no room for enterprise in today's game that's ruled by the almighty dollar.
