Great thread, Joe Root is one batsman who intrigues me.
A good batsman he is no doubt, but being an admirer of the very finest batsmen over the years - when I see a test batting average of 52 for Root, the following question comes to mind:-
How does Joe Root compare to some fine (but not quite the best of their eras) batsmen from 90s like Azharuddin and Aravinda De Silva?
If we simply go by statistics and batting average and probably number of test runs scored by the end of their careers, then Joe Root is a legend against these mere mortals.
But based on the cricket I've seen and having seen these batsmen in full flow against the finest bowlers around back in 90s -- Azharuddin and De Silva were far more skilful, versatile and adaptable as batsmen. They were mentally more resilient and able to cope with pressure, deliver for their teams in desperate situations against top class bowlers, and not to mention they made batting look more elegant and classy than arguably any batsmen in history.
Never mind accepting Joe Root as a better batsman than these two, I am not even convinced he is in the same class as Azharuddin and De Silva as a batsman. My own feeling is given the lack of quality fast and spin bowling in the modern era, I think if Azharuddin and De Silva were around today they would be averaging close to 60. And the scary part is that the likes of Lara and Tendulkar were superior batsmen for sure, would they be averaging mid 60s in test cricket today ? let's be honest, which modern bowler is good enough to even pose a challenge to Brian Lara -- Wahab Riaz aside
There is a flaw in this argument though. If we assume that batting has become easier in this era, then it means that bowling has become tougher. The conclusion that both batting and bowling have become easier is illogical.
Modern batsman are downplayed due to the following oft cited reasons: flat pitches, short boundaries, thick bats, favorable rules etc., but that means that modern bowlers have also been handicapped due to these factors, but the bowlers of previous eras had the luxury of bowling when the conditions and rules favored them.
So if we are to assume that someone like Root would average 35-40 in 80's and 90's, then if extend that logic to modern bowlers like Anderson, Steyn, Starc, Rabada, Philander, Boult etc., we should also lower their averages.
Conversely, we should also raise the bowling averages of Wasim, Marshall, Imran, Donald, Holding, Lillee, Hadlee, Roberts, McGrath etc., who did not have to deal with consistently flat pitches, big bats, short boundaries and batsmen-friendly rules.
Unfortunately, people are not willing to extend this logic to the bowlers because it contradicts their predisposed notions. They are not willing to acknowledge that if we conclude that modern batsmen are inferior to the previous batsmen due to so and so reasons, then using the same logic, the modern bowlers are also superior to the previous bowlers due to the same so and so reasons.
Azharuddin would not average 60+ in this era; he was a quality batsman, but he struggled against bounce and seam movement, which is why he failed in countries like Australia and South Africa. He would not score in those countries today against bowlers like Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Rabada, Steyn etc., so his average is likely to remain the same.
Apart from playing spin, he was not a better batsman than Root by any metric.
Similarly, Aravinda was one of those players who were brilliant at their best, but were not consistent enough to merit a place among the true greats. In many ways, he was an inferior version of Pietersen. He has played high class innings in every country, but he was not consistent. In Australia, England, India etc., he did nothing in his career apart from a hundred in each country.
He will not suddenly become a consistent batsman by playing in this era. The shortcomings that he had in his game - that did not allow him to score consistently - would still be exposed against bowlers like Starc, Hazlewood, Anderson, Broad, Rabada, Ashwin, Jadeja etc. etc.
Root is simply a more consistent player than both, but he loses focus and concentration after dominating the bowling for a period of time. However, he is only 27, and is yet to enter his best years as a batsman. He has shown enough in his career so far to suggest that he is a batsman of very high caliber.
Cross-era comparisons and discounting and compounding averages lead to illogical and self-contradictory assumptions. Hence, the conclusion that we can draw is that a great player will be great in any era. Azharuddin and de Silva would not struggle today, and Root and company will not struggle in the previous era. Maybe there will be a difference of +/- 5 in terms of averages, but adding +20 to the averages of Azharudding and de Silva, and concluding that they would average 60+ is surely hyperbolic.
Tendulkar averaged nearly 60 in his peak years, so if he were at his peak today, he would probably be averaging around that mark. Now as far as Lara is concerned, at his best, he was as good as any batsman to ever play the game, but he often had ugly lows. An out of form Lara was an ugly batsman, and if he were to play today, he would not always be in form, would he?
) 
