He didn't. He was just never that good. His average is a more or less reflection of his ability.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
His technique was great to watch but he played at a lot of balls he shouldn't and the way he used to like to clip the ball off his pads was great on the eye but also made him susceptible to LBW early in his innings.He was brilliant in first class cricket, had a better record than Steve iirc. Was my favourite batsman to watch, so elegant.
Guess it was mental?
Lots of opinions on here have been pretty lazy without actually reflecting on why he got out cheaply and why his average was low. Peoples memories are of a pretty technique, the nice leg glances, the pretty cover drives etc but he was very vulnerable early on in his innings partly because of the things that made him good to watch.He didn't. He was just never that good. His average is a more or less reflection of his ability.
Loved watching him bat. Always bewildered about his choice of life partner at the time though.
Might sound a bit superfluous to say it, but you're precisely as good as the runs you put out there.
Nathan Lyon looks waaaaaay better than any number of no.10's, but he bats there for a reason.
Maybe I've misread your previous misgivings on the issue but a very personal sledge to do with the appearance and promisciousness (I can't think of a better word) of a close family member appears to me to be the sort of sledge you would usually take umbrage with?So was Adam Parore who delivered what I still believe is the bluntest and greatest sledge ever sent down on a cricket field
Maybe I've misread your previous misgivings on the issue but a very personal sledge to do with the appearance and promisciousness (I can't think of a better word) of a close family member appears to me to be the sort of sledge you would usually take umbrage with?
Hmmm okay. I only ask because I feel like I've taken away some interesting perspectives from you on this topic so when I then see you write something I feel contradicts what you've said on it, I just ask the question to understand your perspective further.For starters, if someone asks me to rank sledges, I’m still going to pick a #1 aren’t I whether I have misgivings or not so yeah, well done on trying to ‘pick me up’ on that one. I think Rod Marsh saying ‘how’s your wife and my kids’ is hilarious as far as sledging goes as well, it doesn’t mean I think he should have said it does it.
Secondly if I walk out to bat I’m not going to turn around and tell someone that their wife is a fat old ugly s**t and that they’re a dumb c**t for marrying her am I. But if someone does start hooking into me verbally it might make me start thinking twice about whether I interact with the person behind me.
You seem to have more of an issue with my issue with this, than I do with anything.
All I’ve ever said is that I don’t really agree with the idea of any player or team who has a plan or just using it as a continuous tactic. It’s unnecessary and stupid.
Hmmm okay. I only ask because I feel like I've taken away some interesting perspectives from you on this topic so when I then see you write something I feel contradicts what you've said on it, I just ask the question to understand your perspective further.
If I didn't respect your opinion on it I probably wouldn't interact with it further. I can let it go though, that's fine. I won't bring it up anymore if you don't want me to. I've probably done it to death now anyway.
Disagree. He was extremely good. Mentally a bit weak. I remember him getting out in very lazy ways to part time opposition bowlers a lot. Back foot lbw a fair bit trying to cut or glide away to balls he just should have hit.He didn't. He was just never that good. His average is a more or less reflection of his ability.
This.
There ARE exceptions, there always will be, but those exceptions are not guys with 120 tests to their name.
The exceptions are the guys with 30-60 tests who have sub-40 averages who play delightful innings, make the odd brilliant century and mix it with inexplicable failures accentuated by daft dismissals and poor shot selections and who develop bizarre patterns of dismissals etc
The only player I can really think of who played 100+ tests who’s record is a genuine non-reflection of his ability is Carl Hooper.
He averaged 36, which really does not show what he had in the tank and when he came back for the final quarter of his career he averaged close to 50 which was a far greater indicator of what he could have done had he not played so absent-mindedly.
Apart from him I really can’t come up with many long term examples of players no matter how gifted or talented they looked who ‘should have’ done much better than what they actually did over a long career.
So apparently he lost focus in test cricket, why did he dominate Shield cricket?
It just doesn't add up