But, by the average logic, Kallis is more successful than the other 3, isn't he? See, every player has his own specialty, which can't be justified by average only. Inzi could have averaged 10 more, still I would have kept him under Lara, at least. & even had he averaged 5 less, still I would have rated him better Test player than VVS or Azhar & the best Test batsman from PAK, because that man made his scores count. Apart from Javed, nobody ever with more than 5,000 Test runs maintained a career average over 50 always. Inz gave a damn regarding his stats & in his last Test innings, what he had to do was play out last 15 min. & remain NO, his career average would have remained over 50. He played a casual shot & got out - but that's Inzamam; unfashionable, unspectacular, casual, lazy but brilliant.
Some of the innings/shots that Inzi played would put him among the all time bests ever, but then he was a very poor starter, pathetically vulnerable in his first 30 minutes for someone of his stature. At a time Lara was averaging over 60 yet I believed he was at least 10 short of where he should be & then came his bad patch. Almost for 5-6 years in his late 20s (when normally batsmen are at their peak), Lara averaged probably under 30, when he should have maintained at least 60, which actually pulled his career under 50; then he came back & his penultimate innings was a splendid double ton - he could have easily played for another 2-3 years. Sometimes around 2005, I think Panta's average crossed 60, he could have easily finished career with 58; but he dragged his career by at least 2 unnecessary years. From my past experience, I avoid writing anything but praise for SRT, but had he not get his 100th ton, chances were that his Test average could fall down lower than even 50, because if required, he would have crawled for another 4 years to get that. Where a batsman ends his career average doesn't reflect everything.
