Who will retire with a batting average of >60?

[aussie]

harbhajan has been around for quite a while now. he made his debut all the way back in 98, so hes been around for over 8 years. Hes been absolutely appalling away for home for pretty much all of those 8 years, and theres no signs of him changing that.

Well Kumble also was pretty poor away from home up until a few years ago, so you never know when Bhaji gets a bit older he will get better since the general idea is that spinners get better with age.

 

[tooextracool]

Well Kumble also was pretty poor away from home up until a few years ago, so you never know when Bhaji gets a bit older he will get better since the general idea is that spinners get better with age.

Kumble is still poor away from home, and a few performances on turners in Australia and the WI doesnt change the fact that by and large when he plays away from home hes very ordinary. dont expect things to change too much in SA either.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Not at all. The fact that draws are at a low means that results are being achieved and teams are taking 20 wickets. I would agree with you if high averages were the result of flat dead tracks, with batsmen piling up runs in bore draws. However, that is not the case. Teams are winning and losing more now than at virtually anytime in history.

That is why the Gayle example is a poor one. That was in a bore draw, but the majority of cricket is not played in that environment.

As for "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"

We have seen the increased development of the slower ball and the evolution and increased adoption of reverse swing and the Doosra.

The art of bowling is nothing like what you mention. Teams are taking 20 wickets in a game more than ever, and that is the aim. Whether a player averages over 50 or there are many 100s is irrelevant.

The game is not being killed as a spectacle due to these averages. In fact test cricket is more result orientated and entertaining than at any other time I can think of.

An interesting post but flawed and inaccurate

 

[Buddhmaster]

I've got more chance of getting there than Yousaf.