Australian Test Batsmen Who Averaged More Than Matthew Wade But Given Less Opportunities

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Brad Hodge
Stuart Law
Phil Hughes
Adam Voges
Marcus North
Darren Lehmann
Matthew Elliott
Joe Burns
Kurtis Patterson
Martin Love
Matt Renshaw
Phil Jaques
Tom Moody
Travis Head
Peter Handscombe
Greg Ritchie

Special mention: Paul Reiffel. 35 tests (one more than Wade at present), averaged only 3 less runs per innings playing exclusively as a specialist bowler (bowling average of 27).

 

[Moonwatcher]

Stuart Law was so unlucky.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Paul Reiffel averaging 27 is insane.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Stuart Law was so unlucky.

Only 1 test - unbelievable. Jamie Siddons was probably the best cricketer to never even get an international cap. Makes a mockery of the current standard of batsmen coming through.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Seems an unnecessarily vindictive thread.

Hope Wade makes 100 in the final Test.

 

[The Passenger]

Lolwut? Hodge, Law, Jaques and Love all played through a much stronger period for Australian cricket. No s**t their chances were more limited. Jaques had a brutal run with injuries once he got a chance. Not even sure how Tom Moody gets bought into the discussion.

Patterson, Renshaw and Head have plenty of time to resurrect their careers.

The difference between someone getting 30 tests or 20 tests to claim their spot is really neither here nor there. Both have had plenty of chances to lock away a position.

Wade's career is somewhat unique coming back as a specialist batsmen where he has had 13 tests. He hasn't set the world on fire but there's not exactly a cavalcade of batsmen throwing their hands up for his role.

Wade, however, does need a score in Brisbane otherwise there is a big chance it will be the end of the line - especially if he gets out playing a similar shot to Sydney.

 

[Gough]

Yeah, nah.